>From the web page
http://www.dol.gov/dol/_sec/public/programs/ptfead/rechart/index.htm

Re-charting the Course

First Report of the
Presidential Task Force
on Employment
of Adults with Disabilities

Presented
to the
President of the
United States

November 15, 1998


A Report of the Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults
with Disabilities.  Produced pursuant to Executive Order No.
13078.

     Copies of this report are available from the
     Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with
     Disabilities website http://www.dol.gov. The Task
     Force is located at 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room
     S2312; Washington, D.C. 20210; 202.219.6081 (V);
     202.219.0012 (TTY); 202.219.6523 (Fax).

     Any modification(s) made to this report, or material
     contained in this report, must be specified clearly,
     along with a description of the modification(s).
     Notice of modification(s) must be displayed
     prominently and must contain, if applicable, a notice
     that the modification(s) may compromise the validity
     and reliability of the conclusions or data in this
     report.

     This report is a product of the Presidential Task
     Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities.
     Portions of the report were produced by the
     Independent Living Research Utilization (ILRU) program
     at 2323 S. Shepherd, Suite 1000, Houston, TX 77019.
     (http://www.ilru.org)  Printed November 1998.

----------
Table of Contents


Title Page:  Re-charting the Course

About the Presidential Task Force

Introductory Letter

Letter of Transmittal

Dedication

Acknowledgments

Executive Order 13078

Members of the Presidential Task Force

Foreword

Executive Summary--Compass Points: Putting the Presidential Task
Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities in Context

Chapter One --Initial Recommendations to the President

Chapter Two --Presidential Task Force Agenda

Afterword

References Cited in the Report


Appendices

Appendix A --Summary of Section 2 Mandate Work Group Reports

Appendix B --A Demographic Profile of People with Disabilities

Appendix C --Summary of the President's Executive Actions on the
Eighth Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Appendix D --Summary of Disability-Related Legislative
Initiatives

Appendix E -- Web Sites of Presidential Task Force Members

Appendix F --Glossary of Acronyms Used in This Report

----------
About the Presidential Task Force

On March 13, President William J. Clinton signed an Executive
Order which created a Presidential Task Force on Employment of
Adults with Disabilities. The President named Secretary of Labor
Alexis Herman to Chair the Task Force, and appointed Tony
Coelho, Chairman of the President's Committee on Employment of
People with Disabilities, as the Vice-Chair.

The purpose of the Task Force is to create a coordinated and
aggressive national policy to bring adults with disabilities
into gainful employment at a rate that is as close as possible
to that of the general adult population. Key components of the
task force's mission include analyzing existing programs and
policies to determine what changes, modifications and
innovations may be necessary to remove barriers to work,
developing and recommending options to address health insurance
coverage, analyzing youth programs related to employment and the
outcomes of those programs for young people with disabilities,
and evaluating whether federal studies related to employment and
training can and should include a statistically significant
sample of adults with disabilities.

Task Force members include the Secretary of Education, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration, the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, and the Chair of the National Council on Disability.
The President urged federal agencies to move swiftly in
beginning the work outlined in the Order. Several interim
reports are called for in the Executive Order, and the final
report is due July 26, 2002, the 10th anniversary of the initial
implementation of the employment provisions of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. For additional information, contact
PTFEAD staff at 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room S2312,
Washington, D.C. 20210; 202.219.6081 (V), 202.219.0012 (TTY),
202.219.6523 (Fax); http://www.dol.gov.


Staff of the Presidential Task Force on
Employment of Adults with Disabilities

Rebecca L. Ogle, Executive Director

Howard Moses, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitation Services--Deputy Assistant Secretary

Lori Peterson, Administrative Assistant

Kathleen M. Coleman, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
General Counsel

Randy Cooper, Department of Labor, Employment Standards
Administration, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

Bob Goldstraw, Social Security Administration, Office of
Operations

Linda D. Kontnier, Department of Labor, Employment Training
Administration

William R. McKinnon, Commander, Public Health Service,
Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health
Services

Linda L. Wang, Office of Personnel Management, Office of
Executive Resources

----------
Introductory Letter

The following letter to the President about his initiative to
establish the Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults
with Disabilities reflects the concerns of many Americans with
disabilities and their families about the employment status of
people with disabilities in the United States today. It provides
a meaningful challenge to the Task Force and a fitting
introduction to this report.


                           Barbara Lederman

                           East Brunswick, NJ

                           March 27, 1998

President Bill Clinton
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Clinton,

I am writing you regarding the Executive Order that you signed
on March 13, 1998, that created the Presidential Task Force on
Employment of Adults with Disabilities. I would like you to
instruct the disability experts working on this Task Force to
address the issue regarding FAIR and ADEQUATE wages. I have a
son who is disabled and wants to work more than anything in this
world. Because he cannot earn more than $500 per month before he
loses his disability check, he cannot earn a salary that will
allow him to live a decent life and get off Rental Assistance
and Food Stamps.

The way the law is now, it completely takes away all motivation
to work. It took months and months before he got this job
because of the lack of job placement services.

The Americans with Disabilities Act has paved the way in the
workplace, but you need to do more to encourage the disabled
community to work. Who can live on $500 per month? Certainly no
one from the northeast. Finding a job is such a complicated and
hard issue that one soon thinks he is a loser for life.

Please see what you can do to raise the standard of living for
the disabled to a level that will enable them to work and have
some self esteem.

Yours truly,

Barbara Lederman

cc: Senator Lautenberg
      Senator Torricelli
      Congressman Pappas

----------
Letter of Transmittal

The President William Jefferson Clinton
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

For the Task Force Members and Staff, we respectfully and
proudly submit to you this report entitled Re-charting the
Course: The First Report from the Presidential Task Force on
Employment of Adults with Disabilities, as mandated by Executive
Order 13078. This report is the first product of a tremendous
amount of hard work that is underway by dedicated members of the
multi-agency Task Force and an extremely talented staff led by
Rebecca Ogle, Executive Director. The work documented in this
report is a direct result of the spirit of cooperation and
collaboration, which is precisely what the Executive Order
mandates.

When you signed Executive Order 13078 into law on March 13,
1998, you charged the Task Force with an enormous responsibility
with critical consequences. As you have often stated concerning
adults with disabilities, "Our nation cannot afford to waste
this vast and only partially tapped source of knowledge, skills,
and talent." We concur and recognize that the barriers to
employment for adults with disabilities have resisted
elimination for decades.

Task Force Work Groups early findings consistently depict that
the only viable way to eliminate the barriers to employment for
adults with disabilities is through a bold, deliberate and
thorough strategy. Change has to begin in the federal arena
first. As the CEO of the world's largest employer, you can
challenge our inherently paternalistic policies for individuals
with disabilities that have undoubtedly created enormous
barriers to employment. It is through your actions that a new
course will be re-charted not only in the federal government but
throughout the nation.

Individuals with disabilities recognize and demand the right to
economic independence and will no longer tolerate the pervasive
systemic, political barriers that prevent their achieving this
goal. This report provides a beginning point to create and
execute sweeping changes from paternalism to employability, from
attitude of inability to ability and from exclusion to
meaningful inclusion. Your actions will tap that vast source of
knowledge, skill and talent in adults with disabilities.

For the Task Force Members and staff, we wish to applaud you for
your sincere commitment to move an agenda for the 21st that will
include a labor force for all Americans with and without
disabilities. We thank you for your ongoing and substantial
support in this endeavor.

Sincerely yours,

Alexis M. Herman
Secretary of Labor and Chair,
Presidential Task Force on
Employment of Adults with Disabilities

Tony Coelho
Vice-Chair,
Presidential Task Force on
Employment of Adults with Disabilities

----------
Dedication

Dedicated to all working-age Americans with disabilities, whose
relentless pursuit of equality, justice, and the basic right to
work, has inspired this first report.

----------
Acknowledgments

The Presidential Task Force members and staff acknowledge the
invaluable assistance of the participants of Section 2 work
groups. Individual representatives of these groups are listed in
Appendix A with their respective work group summaries. We
appreciate their input and look forward to fully reviewing the
summaries and options that have been provided.

In addition, the following individuals have provided support,
encouragement, and technical assistance in ways too numerous to
mention: Seth Harris, Senior Advisor to Alexis Herman, Secretary
of Labor; Gary Reed, Office of Program Economics within the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Policy at Department of
Labor; and Michael Grant, Executive Secretary, Senior Advisor to
Alexis Herman, Secretary of Labor. We also want to thank Thomas
Hale, Economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the
Department of Labor, for his invaluable expertise and guidance.

We want to thank Richard McGahey, Assistant Secretary of Policy
at the Department of Labor, for graciously sharing valuable
office space with the Task Force staff.

We are most grateful to the Immediate Office of the Secretary;
the Office of the Deputy Secretary and the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Policy at the Department of Labor. Your
patience and guidance have proven invaluable over the course of
the last eight months.

We must extend a recognition of special thanks to the following
individuals within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Policy at the Department of Labor for their constant willingness
and kindness in their daily interactions with our burgeoning
Task Force needs: Barbara Bingham, Ximenia Brown, Roxanna
Bullock, Elena Carr, Daniel Claflin, Karlyn Davis, David Demers,
David Dickerson, Mario DiStasio, Roland Droitsch, Michelle
Edwards, Kathleen Franks, Terry Fryer, Ronald Harris, Pamela
Hayes, Paul Hylind, Jim Jones, Jean King, Paul Richman, Ruth
Samardick, Emily Sheketoff, Fred Siskind, Charlotte Toney, and
Erikka Washington.

We are indebted for the time, energy, and support from the
Office of the Vice President, National Economic Council, the
Domestic Policy Council and the Office of Management and Budget
in the Executive Office of the President. Your support and
guidance is critical to the success of the overall mission of
the Task Force.

Finally, there have been others, too numerous to mention, that
have contributed to the overall mission, vision, and daily work
of the Task Force. It would be impossible to list each and every
individual and group. To all--we thank you, and to that special
friend and advisor, we are forever indebted for your help.

----------
Executive Order 13078

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to
increase the employment of adults with disabilities to a rate
that is as close as possible to the employment rate of the
general adult population and to support the goals articulated in
the findings and purpose section of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, it is hereby ordered as follows

Section 1. Establishment of National Task Force on Employment of
Adults with Disabilities.

(a) There is established the "National Task Force on Employment
of Adults with Disabilities" ("Task Force") The Task Force shall
comprise the Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Education,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Health and Human
Services, Commissioner of Social Security, Secretary of the
Treasury, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Transportation,
Director of the Office of Personnel Management, Administrator of
the Small Business Administration, the Chair of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, the Chairperson of the
National Council on Disability, the Chair of the President's
Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, and such
other senior executive branch officials as may be determined by
the Chair of the Task Force.

(b) The Secretary of Labor shall be the Chair of the Task Force;
the Chair of the President's Committee on Employment of People
with Disabilities shall be the Vice Chair of the Task Force.

(c) The purpose of the Task Force is to create a coordinated and
aggressive national policy to bring adults with disabilities
into gainful employment at a rate that is as close as possible
to that of the general adult population. The Task Force shall
develop and recommend to the President, through the Chair of the
Task Force, a coordinated Federal policy to reduce employment
barriers for persons with disabilities. Policy recommendations
may cover such areas as discrimination, reasonable
accommodations, inadequate access to health care, lack of
consumer-driven, long-term supports and services,
transportation, accessible and integrated housing,
telecommunications, assistive technology, community services,
child care, education, vocational rehabilitation, training
services, job retention, on-the-job supports, and economic
incentives to work. Specifically, the Task Force shall

(1) analyze the existing programs and policies of Task Force
member agencies to determine what changes, modifications, and
innovations may be necessary to remove barriers to work faced by
people with disabilities;

(2) develop and recommend options to address health insurance
coverage as a barrier to employment for people with disabilities;

(3) subject to the availability of appropriations, analyze State
and private disability systems (e.g., workers' compensation,
unemployment insurance, private insurance, and State mental
health and mental retardation systems) and their effect on
Federal programs and employment of adults with disabilities;

(4) consider statistical and data analysis, cost data, research,
and policy studies on public subsidies, employment, employment
discrimination, and rates of return-to-work for individuals with
disabilities;

(5) evaluate and, where appropriate, coordinate and collaborate
on, research and demonstration priorities of Task Force member
agencies related to employment of adults with disabilities;

(6) evaluate whether Federal studies related to employment and
training can, and should, include a statistically significant
sample of adults with disabilities;

(7) subject to the availability of appropriations, analyze youth
programs related to employment (e.g., Employment and Training
Administration programs, special education, vocational
rehabilitation, school-to-work transition, vocational education,
and Social Security Administration work incentives and other
programs, as may be determined by the Chair and Vice Chair of
the Task Force) and the outcomes of those programs for young
people with disabilities;

(8) evaluate whether a single governmental entity or program
should be established to provide computer and electronic
accommodations for Federal employees with disabilities;

(9) consult with the President's Committee on Mental Retardation
on policies to increase the employment of people with mental
retardation and cognitive disabilities; and

(10) recommend to the President any additional steps that can be
taken to advance the employment of adults with disabilities,
including legislative proposals, regulatory changes, and program
and budget initiatives.

(d) (1) The members of the Task Force shall make the activities
and initiatives set forth in this order a high priority within
their respective agencies within the levels provided in the
President's budget.

(2) The Task Force shall issue its first report to the President
by November 15, 1998. The Task Force shall issue a report to the
President on November 15, 1999, November 15, 2000, and a final
report on July 26, 2002, the 10th anniversary of the initial
implementation of the employment provisions of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990. The reports shall describe the
actions taken by, and progress of, each member of the Task Force
in carrying out this order. The Task Force shall terminate 30
days after submitting its final report.

(e) As used herein, an adult with a disability is a person with
a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits at
least one major life activity.

Sec. 2. Specific activities by Task Force members and other
agencies.

(a) To ensure that the Federal Government is a model employer of
adults with disabilities, by November 15, 1998, the Office of
Personnel Management, the Department of Labor, and the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission shall submit to the Task Force
a review of Federal Government personnel laws, regulations, and
policies and, as appropriate, shall recommend or implement
changes necessary to improve Federal employment policy for
adults with disabilities. This review shall include personnel
practices and actions such as hiring, promotion, benefits,
retirement, workers' compensation, retention, accessible
facilities, job accommodations, layoffs, and reductions in force.

(b) The Departments of Justice, Labor, Education, and Health and
Human Services shall report to the Task Force by November 15,
1998, on their work with the States and others to ensure that
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act is carried out in accordance with section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, so that individuals with disabilities
and their families can realize the full promise of welfare
reform by having an equal opportunity for employment.

(c) The Departments of Education, Labor, Commerce, and Health
and Human Services, the Small Business Administration, and the
President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities
shall work together and report to the Task Force by November 15,
1998, on their work to develop small business and
entrepreneurial opportunities for adults with disabilities and
strategies for assisting low-income adults, including those with
disabilities to create small businesses and micro-enterprises.
These same agencies, in consultation with the Committee for
Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, shall
assess the impact of the Randolph-Sheppard Act vending program
and the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act on employment and small business
opportunities for people with disabilities.

(d) The Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban
Development shall report to the Task Force by November 15, 1998,
on their examination of their programs to see if they can be
used to create new work incentives and to remove barriers to
work for adults with disabilities.

(e) The Departments of Justice, Education, and Labor, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Social Security
Administration shall work together and report to the Task Force
by November 15, 1998, on their work to propose remedies to the
prevention of people with disabilities from successfully
exercising their employment rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 because of the receipt of monetary
benefits based on their disability and lack of gainful
employment.

(f) The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor
and the Census Bureau of the Department of Commerce, in
cooperation with the Departments of Education and Health and
Human Services, the National Council on Disability, and the
President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities
shall design and implement a statistically reliable and accurate
method to measure the employment rate of adults with
disabilities as soon as possible, but no later than the date of
termination of the Task Force. Data derived from this
methodology shall be published on as frequent a basis as
possible.

(g) All executive agencies that are not members of the Task
Force shall (1) coordinate and cooperate with the Task Force;
and (2) review their programs and policies to ensure that they
are being conducted and delivered in a manner that facilitates
and promotes the employment of adults with disabilities. Each
agency shall file a report with the Task Force on the results of
its review on November 15, 1998.

Sec. 3. Cooperation. All efforts taken by executive departments
and agencies under sections 1 and 2 of this order shall, as
appropriate, further partnerships and cooperation with public
and private sector employers, organizations that represent
people with disabilities, organized labor, veteran service
organizations, and State and local governments whenever such
partnerships and cooperation are possible and would promote the
employment and gainful economic activities of individuals with
disabilities.

Sec. 4. Judicial Review. This order does not create any right or
benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a
party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or
any person.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE
March 13, 1998

----------
Members of the Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults
with Disabilities

Alexis Herman--Chair

    Secretary of Labor

Tony Coelho--Vice Chair

   Chairman of the President's Committee on Employment of People
with Disabilities


Aida Alvarez

Administrator of the Small Business Administration

Ken Apfel

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Marca Bristo

Chair of the National Council on Disability

Ida L. Castro

Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

William Daly

Secretary of Commerce

Janice R. Lachance

Director of the Office of Personnel Management

Richard Riley

Secretary of Education

Robert Rubin

Secretary of the Treasury

Donna Shalala

Secretary of Health and Human Services

Rodney Slater

Secretary of Transportation

Togo D. West, Jr.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs

----------
Foreword

Re-charting the Course: First Report of the Presidential Task
Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities embraces and
acknowledges the President's and Vice President's long history
of supporting the rights of individuals with disabilities. The
principles of independence, empowerment, and inclusion have
guided the Clinton Administration's efforts to shape national
policy for Americans with disabilities.

The President and Vice President have laid a powerful foundation
with their past and current achievements, exemplified in their
firm commitment to ensuring that every American has access to
quality health care, promoting passage of the Patient's Bill of
Rights, supporting the Work Incentives Improvement Act,
protecting Medicare and Medicaid, sustaining Social Security
benefits for people with disabilities, opposing amendments that
would have weakened the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, and completing the final passage of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998.

In April 1996, the National Council on Disability convened a
meeting in Dallas of disability advocates from around the
country to discuss a host of issues related to individuals with
disabilities. An important outcome of that grassroots meeting
was recognition of the urgent need to address the staggering
rate of nonemployment of adults with severe disabilities. Next,
in July 1996, the Presidential appointees with disabilities,
many of whom attended the Dallas meeting, met and decided to
promote development of a program with budgetary support targeted
specifically to employment of people with disabilities. During
the ensuing months, these same appointees and other officials
within the executive and legislative branches of government
developed the language of the Executive Order.

President William J. Clinton, surrounded by Cabinet officials
and disability rights leaders, signed Executive Order 13078 on
March 13, 1998, and, thus, created the Presidential Task Force
on Employment of Adults with Disabilities. During the signing
ceremony President Clinton declared, "Since 1993, we have
created 15 million new jobs. But the unemployment rate among
people with disabilities is far too high and that is why I'm so
pleased to sign an executive order that will design a strategy
to make equality of opportunity, full participation, inclusion
and economic self-sufficiency realities for all 30 million
working-age Americans with disabilities."

The Executive Order established a multi-agency Task Force with
Secretary of Labor as Chair and the Honorable Tony Coelho, Chair
of the President's Committee on Employment of People with
Disabilities, serving as Vice-Chair. The Task Force along with
its mandate is unique. This uniqueness is evident in the scope
and breadth of high-ranking Administration officials serving as
members. The Task Force has an overarching goal to create a
coordinated and aggressive national policy to bring adults with
disabilities into gainful employment at a rate that is as close
as possible to that of the general population. This strategy
will be operational by July 26, 2002, the tenth anniversary of
the initial implementation of the employment provisions of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with
Disabilities held its inaugural meeting on April 22, 1998. This
first meeting helped set the Task Force agenda. Task Force
members heard compelling testimony from panels of Administration
experts on three of the most pressing issues relating to
employment of adults with disabilities: income security/health
care programs, education, and workforce training.

At the inaugural meeting, Tony Coelho, Chairman of the
President's Committee on Employment of Adults with Disabilities
and Vice-Chair of the Task Force outlined the challenges in
achieving the goals of the Executive Order. Challenge number one
is health care. Too many adults with disabilities remain on
public assistance because it is their only way to access health
care. Challenge number two is economic incentives. It is
necessary that adults with disabilities who go to work improve
their overall economic situation. Challenge number three is
ensuring support for those adults who want to work. Supported
work, natural supports, personal assistance services, and other
accommodations must become the norm for those who need them.
Finally, challenge number four is increasing access to
education, training, and rehabilitation services. Unless changes
are made in the education and training of youth with
disabilities, adults with disabilities will fall further and
further behind.

To meet these challenges, Alexis M. Herman, Secretary of Labor
and Chair of the Task Force, identified four keys to re-charting
the course to increase employment among adults with
disabilities. First, it takes a recognition that this is a
win-win situation. The economy today is the strongest in a
generation. Jobs are up, unemployment is down, and inflation is
in check. But people with disabilities are getting left behind,
and when adults with disabilities lose out on opportunities, all
Americans do. Second, it takes commitment. Decision-makers quite
simply have to make a decision that this is a priority. Third,
it takes creativity. It will require looking inside respective
federal agencies and truly thinking outside of the box. And
fourth, and perhaps the most important, it takes a focus on the
individual.

Key components of the Task Force's directive include analyzing
existing programs and policies to determine what changes,
modifications, and innovations may be necessary to remove
barriers to work; developing and recommending options to address
the barriers of health insurance coverage; analyzing youth
programs related to employment and the outcomes of those
programs for young people with disabilities; and evaluating
whether federal studies related to employment and training can
and should include a statistically significant sample of adults
with disabilities.

In June 1998, Rebecca Ogle, a grassroots leader, was named
Executive Director. In the spirit of cooperation and
collaboration as reflected in the Executive Order, federal
agencies detailed individuals experienced in disability
employment policy to staff the Task Force. These individuals
helped to establish work groups to fulfill the requirements of
the Section 2 mandates. The work groups were mandated in the
Executive Order to provide the Task Force with summarized
reports by November 15, 1998.* Summaries are included in the
Appendix A of this report. The Task Force will be reviewing and
using the reports as the basis for future recommendations as
appropriate.

Re-charting the Course is intended to inform the President and
the public about progress made by the Task Force to date in
response to the Executive Order. Readers should regard this as
an "interim report." Task Force members and staff are eager for
interested parties to use this document as an invitation to
engage in dialogue with the Task Force about issues important to
adults with disabilities and the nation.

__________________
*Scheduled for spring 1999 is an addendum report which will
address Section 2 (d), the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's examination of HUD programs. The addendum report
will also address Section 2 (g) that requires all executive
agencies that are not members of the Task Force to: (1)
coordinate and cooperate with the Task Force and (2) review
their programs and policies to ensure that they are being
conducted and delivered in a manner that facilitates and
promotes employment of adults with disabilities.

----------
    Executive Summary

Compass Points--Putting the Presidential Task Force on
Employment of Adults with Disabilities in Context

The Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with
Disabilities begins with the recognition that adults with severe
disabilities are one of the largest minorities in the nation
without jobs--this is a staggering nonemployment rate hovering
around 70 percent. This fact is completely unacceptable. It must
change.

The Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with
Disabilities begins with a belief that barriers to employment
have long been recognized, researched, and discussed. There has
been enough talk. It is time for action.

The Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with
Disabilities begins by recognizing that values are the driving
force behind public policy and the systems and programs that
evolve from such policy. The overarching value upon which our
nation was founded is that of freedom. According to the American
Heritage College Dictionary (Third Edition), freedom is defined
to include the following:

Freedom: The condition of being free of restraints; Liberty of
the person from slavery, detention or oppression; Political
independence; Possession of civil rights; Immunity from the
arbitrary exercise of authority; The capacity to exercise
choice, free will; The right to unrestricted use, full access;
The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or
citizenship.

The right to enjoying the privileges of membership or
citizenship touches all parts of the American Dream and the
equality of opportunity envisioned by our founders. The
importance of these dreams continues for today's multicultural
society: having a home, family and friends; going to school;
being a part of the community; and, critically, having a job.
This latter point is of such economic consequence that it can be
the deciding factor whether, or to what extent, opportunity for
participation in the American Dream is even a possibility. This
fact remains obvious: the best form of economic security, the
best pathway to full participation in all the privileges of
living in America is through employment.

Adults with severe disabilities are one of the largest
minorities in the nation without jobs--this is a staggering
nonemployment rate hovering around 70 percent.

Unless adults with disabilities have opportunity to participate
in the economic prosperity of our nation, unless doors to
employment and careers are opened, unless attitudes and beliefs
which have kept them segregated and isolated from opportunities
afforded other people are challenged and changed--then adults
with disabilities will remain second-class citizens. This must
change.

In 1919, a ruling of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin considered
the case of a child with cerebral palsy who was excluded from
school because his condition had a depressing and nauseating
effect on the teachers and other children (State ex rel Beattie
v. State Board of Education of City of Antigo, 1919). In 1998, a
transitioning youth with substantial disabilities resulting from
cerebral palsy, cognitive disabilities, and blindness is a
valued member of the workforce in a human resource department in
Fort Worth, Texas. She works in an inclusive job organized
specifically by her employer to meet not just her interests and
abilities, but planned specifically to meet important needs of
her employer for his business.

The difference in expectations and opportunity for today's youth
is the result of a changing value system (Funk, 1987). These
changes ultimately forced a move from the attic, to the
warehouse, to the workshop, and, finally, for increasing numbers
of adults with disabilities, to the inclusive community where
participation in integrated employment is real. By their
presence alone, these individuals are crashing through the glass
ceiling of lowered expectations of others created through
decades of segregation and exclusion. Adults with disabilities
are paving the road for others to follow.

In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted
to end broad-based and long-standing discrimination against
people with disabilities in many aspects of life, including
employment, public services, public accommodations and
commercial facilities, telecommunications, and transportation.
This landmark law resulted from the profound and continuing
shift in perceptions about the rights, responsibilities, and
abilities of individuals with disabilities over the last quarter
of the 20th century. Many factors contributed and helped to
shape this transformation. Three key events of the 1970's were
critical: (1) the right-to-education court decisions based on
the Constitutional principles of equal protection and due
process--decisions which ultimately resulted in the mandate for
a free, appropriate public education for students with
disabilities; (2) passage of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act which
included Section 504, prohibiting discrimination in programs
that receive federal funds; and (3) growth of the disability
rights movement (Schriner and Batavia, 1995). Shapiro (1993)
referred to the disability movement as a "hidden army" of
organizations and individuals committed to establishing the
legal rights of people with disabilities.

People in the disability movement continue to lead the way both
in challenging age-old myths and stereotypes as well as
asserting that they must view themselves, and, thus, be viewed
by others, as a minority group whose difficulties are caused
more by societal prejudice and discrimination than by disability
(Schriner and Batavia, 1995). The message from this grassroots
movement is now screaming: come with us and experience the
discrimination, the frustration, the doors to employment that
never open. Live with us in the poverty of the human service
system whose policies too often derail rather than support our
efforts for self-determination, full participation, inclusion,
recognition of our competence and our contribution.

Real jobs with real pay--this is what adults with disabilities
want. The need to pay taxes because of earned wages--this is
what adults with disabilities want. Having jobs that are driven
by the personal choice and interests of the individual--this is
what adults with disabilities want. Being viewed as a person
with a characteristic which happens to be a disability, like eye
or hair color--this is what people with disabilities want. The
opportunity of enjoying all of the benefits of membership or
citizenship--this is what people with disabilities want.

Adults with severe disabilities are one of the largest
minorities in the nation without jobs--this is a staggering
nonemployment rate hovering around 70 percent. This fact is
completely unacceptable. It must change.

The ADA includes Congressional findings that children and adults
with disabilities historically have been treated differently and
subjected to discrimination. Significantly, this landmark civil
rights law states that it is the purpose of the Act to utilize
the sweep of congressional authority . . . to end such
discrimination (P.L. 101-336 (Section (2)(b)(4)). This statement
implies that the ADA should be used as a lens through which the
statutory, regulatory, and judicial directives governing our
nation should be viewed, evaluated and modified. However, while
the ADA was designed to help eliminate barriers to participation
and promote inclusion, its passage and effective implementation
have not and cannot achieve these vital goals alone.

Executive Order 13078: The Presidential Task Force on Employment
of Adults with Disabilities

On March 13, 1998, President Clinton signed Executive Order
13078, establishing the Presidential Task Force on Employment of
Adults with Disabilities. This Task Force has the broad mandate
to examine programs and policies related to employment of adults
with disabilities, to "determine what changes, modifications and
innovations may be necessary to remove barriers to work faced by
adults with disabilities" and to recommend options for such
changes. The breadth of this mandate is comparable to examining
and proposing actions to impact the sweep of national employment
policy. Areas for Task Force activity touch the jurisdiction of
virtually all governing agencies. The ultimate mission of the
Task Force is to create a coordinated and aggressive national
policy to bring adults with disabilities into gainful employment
at a rate that is as close as possible to that of the general
adult population.

The vision is a nation where individuals with disabilities are
empowered with choice, where employers are helped to facilitate
employment by eliminating barriers to workforce entry, and where
creativity and innovation are the basis for organizing jobs to
meet both the needs of employers and employees. The vision is
one where the dignity, personal preferences, and individual
strengths of adults with disabilities are acknowledged and
valued. The mission of the Task Force concerns changes in the
systemic, structural, and attitudinal barriers that continue to
exclude adults with disabilities from employment.

Task Force Begins Re-charting the Course

Consistent with requirements of the Executive Order, the Task
Force has been given a broad mandate. To begin this task, a
series of six work groups were convened to develop preliminary
recommendations for creating a working agenda and specific
action steps to attack the barriers to employment of adults with
disabilities. The work groups are composed of many people from
federal government agencies--many of whom are people with
disabilities--who devoted their time with extraordinary
commitment and vigor to the challenge at hand. Work group
summaries and a listing of participants are included in Appendix
A. The collective recognition by these individuals of the
importance of their challenge is impressive and is both
commended and appreciated.

The multiple barriers to employment and economic empowerment of
adults with disabilities have been documented in numerous
reports and policy documents and are generally accepted as fact
(National Council on Disability, 1996). These barriers include
lack of access to health insurance, frequently cited as the key
obstacle to employment, particularly in light of the increase in
part-time work which is rarely accompanied by health coverage.
Additional barriers include the complexity of existing work
incentives; lack of choice and control in selection of providers
to assist people with

disabilities in securing and maintaining employment; inadequate
work opportunities resulting both from an increasingly
competitive employment market and continued negative,
stereotypic, and erroneous attitudes about adults with
disabilities as productive members of the workforce.

The Task Force recognizes that many of these multiple barriers
to employment are embedded in the public policies of our nation.
Too many programs continue an antiquated, paternalistic attitude
about disability in their approach to providing services and
supports, rather than empowering people with disabilities with
control and choice in recognition of their competencies and
contributions to the workforce. As a result, the reality in our
nation today is that Americans with disabilities do not have
opportunities to pursue the array of life opportunities and
options that are afforded most people without disabilities. The
majority of working-age individuals with disabilities have not
shared in the economic prosperity that most Americans have
enjoyed over the last decade of the 20th century. They remain at
the bottom of our nation's socioeconomic ladder.

Many youth with disabilities grow to adulthood not with the
expectation of a career, but of moving from school to a lifetime
of dependency on public benefits. Young people with disabilities
and their peers are getting the wrong message: one of inability,
rather than expectation of contribution. Their classmates
without disabilities are learning the wrong assumptions about
the talent of youth with disabilities. Unless perceptions change
at this early age, young people with and without disabilities
will not be working side-by-side in the workplace of the future.
The result will be perpetuation of the historical, stereotypic
attitudes of the past. This is unacceptable.

The programs, policies, and attitudes which directly or
indirectly promote the current reality must change so that
people with disabilities are drivers of their own destiny. They
must change so that people have an opportunity to experience the
personal satisfaction of contributing to a work environment, of
earning a wage, and of developing collegial work relationships.
They must change so that employers have access to the untapped
resources of adults with disabilities.

In addition, as the programs and policies of the past are
examined, the principles for future legislative initiatives must
be established. Future policy must not be based on erroneous
assumptions that create new, additional barriers while
attempting to remove existing ones. This is particularly
important for people with disabilities who remain less
understood, and, thus, more at risk of continued discrimination.

President Clinton, the Task Force calls on you to utilize the
power of your position to undertake multiple strategies to
accomplish these changes. The members of the Task Force will
assist in providing policy direction and other recommended
action steps to ensure that the leadership of our country
reflects the values of equal opportunity upon which the nation
was founded.

OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPACT IS NOW

As we move into the 21st century, America is faced with new
challenges. New opportunities for employment are opening as
scientific and technological advances give rise to new
industries and occupations unheard of only a few decades ago. At
the same time, many traditional job opportunities are
disappearing as industrial operations become increasingly
automated and the nation's economy as a whole becomes
increasingly globalized. The Clinton Administration has
demonstrated a commitment to systematically attacking barriers
that prohibit Americans with disabilities from participating not
only in today's workforce, but in the workforce of the future.

Establishment of the Presidential Task Force on Employment of
Adults with Disabilities coincides with implementation of major
changes in public policy related to welfare-to-work. Formation
of the Task Force also coincides with the expressed interest of
Congress and state legislative bodies to address unemployment in
our nation, the requests from businesses and employers for
exemplary workers, and the changing nature of the workplace
generally. It also corresponds with the demand from the
disability community across the nation for removal of barriers
so that they can experience the multiple benefits and
satisfaction of work. The Task Force recognizes that the nexus
of these multiple forces creates the opportunity to have
positive influence on employment for adults with disabilities.
In fact, if these factors are not considered and addressed, if
critical dialogue across what is too often a fragmented series
of separate, disparate programs does not occur, if changes are
not adopted that foster inclusion, then people with disabilities
are at risk of continued and even increased segregation,
discrimination, and dependence.

Through the broad mandate given the Task Force, through the
significant effort and extraordinary commitment of many people
from federal government agencies, a strategy is emerging. This
strategy will point the way to eliminating barriers that deter
people with disabilities from being full participants in and
contributors to a rich and rewarding life in our nation. It will
result in a strategic plan for systematic removal of those
barriers. This plan will assist the federal government in
spending its funds more wisely, so that millions of
disenfranchised people with disabilities can become workers,
earn paychecks, pay their taxes, contribute to their communities
and have the self-esteem that comes with a job.

President Clinton, the Task Force on Employment of Adults with
Disabilities calls on you, the Vice President, and all
Administration leaders to address the following critical and
acknowledged issues that impede the employment of adults with
disabilities:

Extensive and Persistent Attitudinal Barriers. Attitudinal
barriers are extensive, persistent, and pervasive. Stigma is a
primary reason for the staggering nonemployment of adults with
severe disabilities. Many existing federal laws and policies,
and the systems which stem from those policies, were developed
when the view of people with disabilities was one of eternal
dependence and accompanied by the need for segregation, charity,
and care. The segregation resulting from these programs has
contributed to deeply ingrained attitudes and prejudices that
are pervasive throughout society, including negative attitudinal
barriers about the ability of adults with disabilities to
contribute in the workforce.

The need for immediate leadership to attack the continued
existence of these pervasive, negative attitudes and prejudices
is great. President Clinton, the Task Force calls on you, the
Vice-President, and leaders within the Administration to launch
a massive public awareness campaign, in partnership with the
disability community, businesses, and other influential
entities. This campaign should address the need for attitudinal
changes in order to eliminate erroneous and prejudicial thinking
about disability that limits opportunities--stigma that
permeates all parts of American society. Presidential leadership
should begin immediately by using the power of key
Administration leaders who are visible to deliver the message
for this needed change. Specifically, President Clinton, the
Task Force calls on you to include disability issues in public
speeches, especially the State of the Union Address. Ensure the
presence of people with disabilities at key meetings and visits,
and use the power of your position to show a positive image of
people with disabilities.

Federal Government Leadership Is Critical and Necessary. As the
nation's largest employer, the federal government should be
leading by example; instead, it is not. It should lead the way
by re-charting a public policy course that provides clear
direction for both the public and private sectors. Increased
representation of people with disabilities in the federal
workforce is critical. Aggressive efforts must be mounted to
bring people with disabilities into government roles that offer
them salaries, benefits, and the rewards of doing productive
work, with exemplary programs for accommodating them in a wide
range of public positions and job roles. Innovative and creative
solutions to providing accommodations for people with
disabilities--based on their personal choices, their interests,
their strengths, and their desires--should demonstrate to
employers across the nation the contributions that all people
can make to the workplace. The federal government must also work
with state and local governments, as well as large and small
businesses alike, to get this vital job done.

Such efforts will heighten public awareness of the roles that
adults with disabilities can play in society when opportunity is
provided and appropriate accommodations are made. Adults with
disabilities must be seen not only in day-to-day job roles in
the numerous agencies and bureaus of federal government, but
also in highly visible roles that garner media attention. Most
importantly, people with disabilities can and should be
participants at the tables where public policy decisions are
made--guiding development of policies and programs designed to
ensure full and adequate protection of the rights for all
Americans and the inclusion of all Americans at every point in
the process.

President Clinton, as Chief Executive Officer of our nation's
largest employer, the Task Force calls on you, the
Vice-President, and leaders within the Administration to use the
power of your respective positions to ensure increased
representation of people with disabilities in the federal
workforce, to ensure the presence of people with disabilities at
key meetings and visits, and to otherwise use the power and
visibility of your positions to show the nation and the world
that people with disabilities are valued contributors in all
levels of our government and in every part of American society.

Public/Private Partnerships Are Essential. Public/private
partnerships will be essential in re-charting a successful
course for the employment of people with disabilities. The
response from the business community to the ADA has been
excellent, and many public and private sector organizations have
increased the number of adults with disabilities employed.
However, while businesses have demonstrated their desire to hire
such individuals, the barriers previously mentioned continue to
pose significant roadblocks. While people with disabilities want
to work, these barriers continue to block their path. There is a
critical need for collaborative, creative, and innovative
approaches to further partnerships between the public and
private sector, to ensure that the supports necessary for people
to work are available when needed, and that innovative ways of
thinking about work become a routine part of how employers,
businesses, and people with and without disabilities accomplish
their jobs. President Clinton, the Task Force calls upon you to
ensure that innovative initiatives are developed and implemented
at the national level to lead the way for public/private
partnerships and collaborative efforts at the local level in
order to eliminate barriers to work. Ultimately, this type of
collaborative thinking and partnership benefits us all.

President Clinton, the Task Force also calls on you to convene
an economic/employment summit to include representatives from
the Administration, Fortune 500 companies, the National
Federation of Small Businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, the
disability community, and other related entities regarding
employment of people with disabilities. This summit, if convened
during the first half of Task Force activities, will provide
critical input and guidance to the Task Force and will create
additional public awareness. In addition, each and every
governor should be challenged to replicate a statewide summit to
mirror the national summit.

Health Care Is Key. Access to health care is accepted as a
primary barrier to keeping people with disabilities outside the
world of work. It is a major focus of the Task Force. People
with disabilities are too often unable to obtain health
insurance that provides the comprehensive health care needed to
live independently and to participate actively in the workforce.
One of the primary avenues for people with severe disabilities
to obtain health care coverage is through Medicaid and Medicare
(Kaiser, 1998). Many people with disabilities and their families
are forced to impoverish themselves to receive critical health
care coverage under the Medicaid program. Additionally, many
persons with severe disabilities must access Medicaid and
Medicare through the companion cash benefit programs
administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA). The
eligibility criteria for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) make it impossible
to return to work without risking the loss of health care that a
person requires to be able to work.

As adults with disabilities attempt to leave entitlement
programs to work, current policies punish rather than support
their efforts to work. In these instances, cash assistance,
in-kind health care and other services are eliminated before
wages can fully replace the value of those benefits. These
policies are contrary to our nation's commitment to protect
workers through the federal retirement, disability and
unemployment insurance systems. For example, Congress designed
SSDI benefits to provide wage protection for workers and their
families when a person acquires a work-related disability
leaving them unable to work. The SSA further defines substantial
gainful activity (SGA) as a set amount of earned income, ($500
per month in 1990 regulations, as compared with $300 per month
in 1980 regulations). Currently, SGA lags behind real growth in
average income, leaving workers less and less protected and more
and more vulnerable to poverty because of the onset of
disability.

As part of last year's Balanced Budget Act (BBA), a new state
option was added to the Medicaid program to allow people with
disabilities who return to work to purchase Medicaid coverage as
their earnings increase. However, while this is an important
option, comprehensive reform across multiple areas is needed.
The importance of eliminating this barrier of access to health
care cannot be emphasized enough. Until this occurs, people with
disabilities will continue to be forced into dependency and
poverty.

President Clinton, the Task Force gratefully acknowledges your
outstanding record on health care access for persons with
disabilities through your relentless efforts in legislative
areas such as maintaining the integrity of the Medicaid and
Medicare programs; comprehensive health care reform; the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the Mental
Health Parity Act of 1996; the Patients' Bill of Rights; the
addition of the new state option added to the Medicaid program
in the BBA; and, most recently, your support for passage of the
Work Incentives Improvement Act proposed by Senators Jeffords
and Kennedy during the 105th Congress.

President Clinton, as Chief Executive Officer of the nation's
largest employer and provider of health care, you should
demonstrate a commitment to providing the highest quality of
health care benefits to your employees, including real parity in
mental health benefits, where a considerable gap in coverage
persists.

President Clinton, the Task Force requests that you explore
fiscally responsible policies to address the inadequacy of the
current SGA regulation administered by the Social Security
Administration in determining disability eligibility for their
programs.

The Importance of Technology. The current national explosion of
technology and telecommunications is creating new pathways for
employment and is a force for crashing through the glass ceiling
of lowered expectations of others. Technology levels the work
environment by removing physical and communication barriers that
historically forced isolation and segregation. Technology is
creating opportunities for telecommuting and entrepreneurial
initiatives that are transforming the way all Americans live,
work, and play. The significance of these innovations in terms
of the way businesses of the future conduct their work is
undeniable. Indeed, the "high tech" industry is one of the
largest industries in the United States today, and adults with
disabilities should be filling many of these jobs. As the
nation's largest employer, the federal government should be a
model, both in terms of state-of-the-art technology for its
workers and in terms of technological and worksite
accommodations for employees with disabilities.

The federal government is also the largest purchaser of
equipment and technology. This procurement power must be
leveraged to promote development of technology that is
accessible to and useable by people with disabilities. Vigorous
implementation and compliance with standards for the
development, procurement, maintenance, and use of electronic and
information technology, as required by Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act, will drive the private sector in terms of
making their products more accessible from the beginning.
Likewise, regulations governing Section 255 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 will ensure, if readily
achievable, that technology and telecommunications industries
from the start develop products and services that are accessible
to and useable by people with disabilities. The Web Access
Initiative, endorsed by the Administration last year, will set
Web access standards and ensure that the superhighway of the
future will be accessible to and useable by people with
disabilities.

President Clinton, the Task Force commends the leadership
demonstrated by you and the Vice President in advancing
accessible technology for adults with disabilities, such as the
recent signing of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 and the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998. The Task Force requests that
you implement and strongly enforce strict standards for Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Task Force further requests
that you direct all federal agencies and departments to make
their Internet sites accessible to and usable by individuals
with disabilities by providing technical assistance and guidance
as may be necessary to accomplish this task.

Programs for Youth Are Critical. The youth of today are the
future of tomorrow. Education is the key to the future for all
children and youth--indeed, for our entire society. The
importance of education as the means for equal entry into
society was established in the landmark Brown v. Board of
Education decision of 1954. While that decision related to
public school desegregation on the basis of race, the concept it
expressed--that separate is not equal--laid the framework for
future decisions (e.g. PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia) that
challenged the exclusion, segregation, and unequal treatment of
children and youth with disabilities within our system of public
education. Fueled by the activism of parents, these decisions
helped create the force which led to enactment of the Education
for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, later renamed the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which
mandates a free, appropriate public education for students with
disabilities.

Recent amendments to IDEA, signed into law on June 4, 1997,
mandate a challenging curriculum and high expectations for every
child, ensure increased involvement of and reporting to parents
on their children's progress, and expand/improve training so
that teachers can be prepared to teach the full range of
diversity in inclusive classrooms. IDEA's reauthorization
strengthens the role and involvement of parents and families. It
mandates that special factors such as language and communication
needs and need for assistive technology are considered in
planning the individual education program for each child. The
intent of these amendments is to ensure that special education
is not a place but a system of supports. President Clinton, the
Task Force recognizes and commends your fighting back proposed
amendments during the reauthorization process that would have
substantially weakened this important law and resulted in denial
of education for many children with disabilities.
Because of IDEA, more students with disabilities are graduating
from high school, going to college, and preparing for careers.
Students with and without disabilities are beginning to have
opportunities to learn side-by-side in inclusive classrooms.
They are getting to know each other as people. The result will
be that future generations will understand that disability is
merely a characteristic of a person. These future generations
will not move forward in their lives with the myths and
stereotypes about disability from the past. Employers of the
future will not tolerate those erroneous attitudes and
stereotypes in their businesses.

However, for this to occur, much more needs to be done. The IDEA
creates the legal mandate for a free, appropriate, public
education. But, compared to students without disabilities,
students with disabilities drop out of school much more
frequently. They enroll in post-secondary education less
frequently. The staggering nonemployment rate among adults with
severe disabilities is testimony to changes that are needed, and
these changes must begin with education.

Youth with severe disabilities from diverse linguistic and
cultural backgrounds are at an even greater risk of dropping out
of school and not becoming employed. Current social programs and
policies are not adequately addressing the needs of Native
American, African-American, Latino, Asian American youth with
disabilities and other diverse groups of young people with
disabilities in our country. The Task Force will be paying
particular attention to the added barriers that make full
participation in school and the workforce problematic for youth
with disabilities from the many diverse cultural and linguistic
communities.

Education is the key to the future, and as a society, we must
send a loud, clear message of high expectation, of full
participation, of personal responsibility. Youth with
disabilities must learn they are expected to work and that
support will be there for them as needed. Teachers must be held
accountable for ensuring this message translates into high
expectations in their classrooms. Students with disabilities
must learn that their future is not bound to the current system
of fragmented programs and multiple barriers that have created
the isolation and dependency of the present. In order to be
workers of the future, all students must be ready to make the
transition from school prepared for and expecting to contribute
to their communities. This includes the expectation of
employment.

President Clinton, the Task Force commends your continued
leadership and commitment to a strong education agenda for all
children and youth. The Task Force requests your continued
leadership to ensure that the needs of students with
disabilities are addressed within the generic education system
and are a part of national initiatives related to education
reform, literacy, and lifelong learning.

President Clinton, you must deliver the message that youth with
disabilities will transition from school with the expectation of
work. The Task Force calls on you to ensure that the bridge
between education and other systems of support--such as
vocational rehabilitation, one-stop career systems, and
post-secondary education--is seamless. The Task Force calls on
you to implement, enforce, and appropriately fund provisions of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Next Steps

Each of the work groups fulfilled its specific task mandated in
Section 2 of the Executive Order, and the summaries from each
are included in Appendix A. The Task Force looks forward to full
review of the work group reports. The work group findings should
not be viewed as any formal statement of policy or adopted plan
of action that has been approved or endorsed by the Task Force,
any executive agency, or any other branch of the government at
this time. Task Force members and staff anticipate that many
aspects of the work group summaries will be incorporated into
the formal committee structure for future examination.

The Task Force is re-charting a new course for employment policy
of adults with disabilities that will result in change--change
in attitudes and perceptions, change in structural and policy
barriers, change in visible leadership throughout the federal
government--that will enable future generations to have a
completely different understanding of disability.

It is time for the actions of our nation to lend credibility to
our professed support of equal opportunity--to ensure that the
benefits of citizenship are, in fact, accessible to all people.
It is time for us as a nation to practice what we preach. In
doing this, it is essential that the individual and collective
voices of people across the nation--people with disabilities,
people without disabilities, families, employers, community
members, and others--share their views, their experiences, and
their recommendations. This ensures that the work of the Task
Force is truly a reflection of the voice of America and of
participatory democracy in action.

----------
Chapter One

Initial Recommendations to the President
from the
Presidential Task Force on Employment of
Adults with Disabilities

The Task Force wishes to recognize the outstanding work already
completed and underway by the Clinton Administration to improve
the employment of adults with disabilities. On July 29, 1998,
President Clinton signed an Executive Memorandum to reinforce
the mission of the Executive Order through initiatives carried
out by the Small Business Administration, the Department of
Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the
Department of Health and Human Services.

The Task Force also wishes to acknowledge the efforts of the
Section 2 work groups. The Task Force has received the work
group summaries and will be reviewing and using them as the
basis for future activities as appropriate. We have included
these reports in Appendix A. Again, the Task Force has yet to
review the summaries or to endorse the recommendations.

The Task Force respectfully submits the following
recommendations to the President of the United States of America
for immediate consideration:

The Task Force recommends that:

The President direct the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Social Security Administration, and other
appropriate Administration representatives to continue their
work with Senators Jeffords and Kennedy and the leadership of
the 106th Congress to pass affordable, feasible legislation
promptly that helps people with disabilities maintain their
health care coverage and return to work.

Americans with disabilities often are unable to obtain health
care insurance that provides coverage of the services and
supports that enable them to live independently and to enter or
to rejoin the workforce. The Work Incentives Improvement Act
proposed by Senators Jeffords and Kennedy in the 105th Congress
would increase Medicaid options and state resources for people
with disabilities. It would also allow all Americans receiving
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) to retain Medicare
coverage when they return to work. An additional component of
this legislation, called the "ticket", would provide SSDI and
SSI adult beneficiaries with a greater set of options regarding
vocational rehabilitation and other employment services by
enabling them to select a provider in the public or private
sector.

The Task Force recommends that:

        The President continue to work with Congress to pass the
Patients' Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights would require a choice of providers,
including provider network adequacy provisions, access to
specialists, information disclosure, transitional care
provision; access to emergency room services, participation in
treatment decisions, laws on anti-gag clauses, disclosure of
financial incentives, protection of the confidentiality of
health information, anti-discrimination provisions, and access
to an appeal process.

The Task Force recommends that:

The President direct the Department of Treasury to examine tax
options to assist adults with disabilities in paying for
expenses related to work.

Working-age adults with disabilities often have a disincentive
to work because of the high cost of personal attendant services
and other services or technologies required for employment.
Similarly, the cost to employers of hiring an individual
requiring personal attendant services can be prohibitive. Tax
credits provide a flexible way to assist people with
disabilities in defraying these expenses.

The Task Force recommends that:

The President propose a program to increase the employment rate
of adults with disabilities by fostering interdisciplinary
consortia and service integration by providers of services to
adults with disabilities at the state and local level.

Adults with disabilities often require services and resources
from a variety of places, such as health care and
transportation. If agencies and departments are not well
coordinated, it can be difficult for these adults with
disabilities to have adequate information to obtain and to
retain employment. This program would help facilitate
coordination and create partnerships among the many agencies
serving adults with disabilities.

The Task Force recommends that:

The President should consider accelerating development and
adoption of information and communication technologies that can
be used by the 54 million Americans with disabilities. A first
step would be to provide support to universities that develop
curricula on universal design.

These courses would be offered in traditional classrooms
settings and use distance-learning technologies that would train
hardware and software engineers to develop products that are
accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.

The Task Force recommends that:

The President direct the Small Business Administration to launch
a new outreach campaign to educate Americans with disabilities
who own or want to start their own businesses. The campaign
would provide greater access to entrepreneurial development
programs, financial assistance initiatives, and government
contracting opportunities, including the Section 8(a) program,
HUB Zones, and small disadvantaged business (SDB) program.

Section 8(a) provides contracting opportunities for
disadvantaged businesses. An outreach campaign would improve
communication of information to the disability community about
their eligibility for this program and other related
opportunities for adults with disabilities who own or want to
start their own businesses through SBA

The Task Force recommends that:

The President direct Office of Personnel Management and other
appropriate agencies to explore measures aimed at eliminating
the stricter standards currently applied to adults with
psychiatric disabilities and to extend to these individuals
opportunities currently available to individuals with mental
retardation and severe physical disabilities.

There are three excepted appointment authorities explicitly
applicable to individuals with disabilities. Excepted appointing
authorities exempt individuals from the competitive appointment
process. Schedule B excepted appointments for individuals with
psychiatric disabilities are more stringent than Schedule A
excepted appointments.

The Task Force recommends that:

The President direct agencies and departments to implement a
model plan to be developed by the Office of Personnel Management
to increase the representation of adults with disabilities in
the federal workforce.

While the federal government has made significant hiring gains,
the percentage of adults with severe disabilities in the federal
workforce still lags far behind their availability. The Task
Force urges the President to direct the Office of Personnel
Management to develop a model plan to increase representation of
adults with disabilities in the federal workforce that: 1) helps
departments and agencies provide opportunities for students with
disabilities to participate in internship and student employment
programs; 2) encourages all departments and agencies to give
full consideration to employees with disabilities for inclusion
in developmental opportunities designed to enhance their
leadership skills and to advance their careers; 3) urges all
departments and managers to recruit widely for positions at all
levels of the federal workforce, including at the GS-13 to 15
and senior executive service levels, and 4) collects and
maintains data to monitor the success in achieving a higher
percentage of adults with disabilities in the federal workforce.

----------
Chapter Two

Task Force Agenda

Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with
Disabilities
Committee Structure and Directives

The following information outlines the structural organization
and future agenda of the Presidential Task Force according to
committee assignments. The committee membership will consist of
high-ranking Administration officials to be determined by the
Task Force. Please note that the recommendations of the work
groups addressing the Section 2 mandates (reports of which can
be found in Appendix A) will be incorporated in the workplan of
the appropriate Task Force committee listed below.

Committee on
Access to Employment and Lifelong Learning

The Committee shall:

Analyze the existing programs and policies of Task Force member
agencies to determine what changes, modifications, and
innovations may be necessary to remove barriers to work faced by
people with disabilities.

Examine and make recommendations relating to lifelong learning
programs not created specifically to serve the needs of adults
with disabilities, and their openness and accessibility to
adults with disabilities and the outcomes they effect for adults
with disabilities participation in the workforce. Further,
examine whether these programs have an appropriate customer
focus for adults with disabilities.

Analyze and make recommendations relating to youth programs
designed to place individuals in private sector employment, and
the outcomes of those programs for young people with
disabilities in completing school, developing job specific
skills, achieving gainful employment, and avoiding
incarceration.

Examine and make recommendations relating to lifelong learning
programs created specifically to serve the needs of youth and/or
adults with disabilities and the effect on the ability and
willingness of people with disabilities to participate in the
workforce.

Examine and make recommendations relating to the integration and
coordination of lifelong learning programs that serve adults
with disabilities into the broader education and workforce
development systems.

Evaluate and, where appropriate, coordinate and collaborate on,
research and demonstration priorities of Task Force member
agencies related to employment of adults with disabilities.

Program areas for focus of these committee activities may
include, but are not limited to One-Stops, Welfare-to-Work,
School-to-Work and youth programs related to employment,
Vocational Rehabilitation, State Mental Health and Mental
Retardation Systems, Ticket to Independence, and PASS.

Examine and make recommendations relating to statistically valid
measures of the employment of adults with disabilities
throughout the economy.

Examine and make recommendations relating to the availability,
cost, and use of assistive technology in the employment of
adults with disabilities.

Examine and make recommendations relating to the accessibility
of technologies and the national and international
infrastructure to working adults with disabilities.

Review and take appropriate action on the reports and
recommendations arising out of the Task Force's work to fulfill
the mandate contained in Section 2(b) and 2(f) of the Executive
Order.

Track and report on implementation of recommendations approved
by the Task Force.


Subcommittee on
Expanding Employment Opportunities for Young People with
Disabilities
(of the Committee on Access to Employment and Lifelong Learning)

The Subcommittee shall:

Analyze the existing data related to the number of youth with
disabilities under age 30 and determine accuracy.

Examine data and determine demographics based on: age, race,
sex, employment status, higher education, poverty and other
related areas.

Analyze data related to how many young people with disabilities
are recipients of the following:

Federal entitlement (SSI/SSDI); Vocational Rehabilitation;
School to Work; State
Education Agencies and IDEA; Medicaid (Medicare); Welfare to
Work State programs;
Vocational Education and Community Colleges; Higher Education
and Employment
Outcomes; Juvenile Justice System and Criminal Justice System

Examine and make recommendations on economic status of young
people with disabilities looking at the numbers of youth living
in poverty, age of onset of disability and other relevant
factors.

Examine and make recommendations relating to young women with
disabilities, education level, employment status, family status
and other related areas.

Examine and make recommendations on abuse of children with
disabilities and its relatedness to employment outcomes.

Analyze and make recommendations related to higher education
systems, supports and outcomes for persons under the age of 30.

Examine the changing nature of the workforce/workplace and
implications for education, training, higher education,
vocational training and rehabilitation services for young people
with disabilities and make appropriate recommendations.

Analyze and make recommendations related to accessibility of
services and supports for employment services for young people
with disabilities, with specific attention to asset/deficit of
single point of entry, career planning, maneuvering through the
federal/state/local support services so that they supplement and
compliment career goals.

Examine feasibility and benefit of onset of services and make
recommendations based on outcome.

To extent possible examine how much of the problem of
unemployment of youth with disabilities is employer attitudes,
discrimination and public education and exposure (both the
individual's exposure to the world of work and the employer's
exposure to young workers with disabilities).


Committee on the
Health Care & Income Support Program

The Committee shall:

Analyze the existing programs and policies of Task Force member
agencies to determine what changes, modifications, and
innovations may be necessary to remove barriers to work faced by
people with disabilities.

Examine and make recommendations relating to how health care
quality and access to health care and health insurance affect
the ability and willingness of adults with disabilities to
participate in the workforce.

Examine and make recommendations relating to existing systems
and possible new approaches for access to home and
community-based services, including personal assistance
services.

Examine and make recommendations relating to the relationship
between federal, state and private income support programs and
the ability and willingness of adults with disabilities to
participate in the workforce.

Examine and make recommendations relating to how participation
in federal income support programs and the current structure of
these programs affect the ability and willingness of adults with
disabilities to participate in the workforce.

Examine and make recommendations relating to the relationship
between eligibility for income support programs and eligibility
for federal or state health insurance programs and any resulting
effect on the ability and willingness of adults with
disabilities to participate in the workforce.

Examine and make recommendations for work-related and
consumer-driven, long-term supports and wrap-around services,
including personal assistance independent living services.

Program areas for focus of these committee activities may
include, but are not limited to Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, SSDI,
FECA, Vets Income Support, workers' compensation, unemployment
insurance and private insurance.

Evaluate and, where appropriate, coordinate and collaborate on,
research and demonstration priorities of Committee member
agencies related to employment of adults with disabilities.

Track and report on implementation of recommendations approved
by the Task Force.


Committee on
Economic Incentives & Entrepreneurship

The Committee shall:

Analyze the existing programs and policies of Task Force member
agencies to determine what changes, modifications, and
innovations may be necessary to remove barriers to work faced by
people with disabilities.

Examine and make recommendations relating to tax provisions
affecting employers or adults with disabilities that influence
the ability or willingness of adults with disabilities to
participate in the workforce.

Analyze and make recommendations relating to small business and
other entrepreneurial opportunities for adults with disabilities.

Review and take appropriate action on the reports and
recommendations arising out of the Task Force's work to fulfill
the mandate contained in Section 2 (c) of the Executive Order.

Examine and make recommendations relating to the impact of the
Randolph-Sheppard Act and the Jarvis-Wagner-O'Day Act on
employment outcomes for adults with disabilities.

Examine and make recommendations relating to federal
transportation efforts that serve adults with disabilities, and
their effect on the ability and willingness of adults with
disabilities to participate in the workforce.

Examine and make recommendations for a coordinated and
aggressive national policy to develop small business and
entrepreneurial opportunities for adults with disabilities, and
strategies for assisting low-income adults, including those with
disabilities, to create small businesses and micro-enterprises.

Examine and make recommendations for consumer-driven, long-term
supports and services in transportation and accessible and
integrated housing.

Evaluate and, where appropriate, coordinate and collaborate on,
research and demonstration priorities of Committee member
agencies related to employment of adults with disabilities.

Track and report on implementation of recommendations approved
by the Task Force.


Committee on the
Federal Government as a Model Employer

The Committee shall:

Analyze the existing programs and policies of Task Force member
agencies to determine what changes, modifications, and
innovations may be necessary to remove barriers to work faced by
people with disabilities.

Examine and make recommendations relating to compliance by
federal agencies with the Rehabilitation Act and other laws and
regulations associated with the employment of adults with
disabilities in the federal government.

Examine and make recommendations relating to federal employment
policy and its effects on employing adults with disabilities in
the federal government.

Review and take appropriate action on the report and
recommendations of Section 2 (a) of the Executive Order.

Examine and make recommendations relating to the accessibility
of technologies for federal employees with disabilities.

Analyze and make recommendations relating to the Federal
Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) service strategies and job
retention for federal employees with disabilities.

Examine and make recommendations relating to the accessibility
of the federal government's facilities and buildings for federal
employees with disabilities.

Track and report on implementation of recommendations approved
by the Task Force.


Committee on Civil Rights

The Committee shall:

Analyze the existing programs and policies of Task Force member
agencies to determine what changes, modifications, and
innovations may be necessary to remove barriers to work faced by
people with disabilities.

Examine and make recommendations relating to enforcement,
education, and litigation strategies undertaken by the Federal
agencies charged with administering the Americans with
Disabilities Act and other laws and regulations providing
protections for adults with disabilities in employment.

Analyze and make recommendations relating to the use of
alternative dispute resolution to resolve issues associated with
the employment of adults with disabilities.

Review and take appropriate action on the reports and
recommendations arising out of the Task Force's work to fulfill
the mandate contained in Section 2 (e) of the Executive Order.

Cooperate with the Task Force committee on Federal Government as
a Model Employer when appropriate, to improve Federal policy and
practices in employment nondiscrimination for adults with
disabilities.

Track and report on implementation of recommendations approved
by the Task Force.


Committee on Statistics

The Committee shall:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor and
the Census Bureau of the Department of Commerce, in cooperation
with the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services,
the National Council on Disability, and the President's
Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities shall design
and implement a statistically reliable and accurate method to
measure the employment rate of adults with disabilities as soon
as possible, but no later than the date of termination of the
Task Force. Data derived from this methodology shall be
published on as frequent a basis as possible.

----------
Afterword

          If America is to continue to grow and
          prosper, if we are to lead the challenging
          global economy of the 21st century, we
          cannot afford to ignore the talents, energy
          and creativity of the 54 million Americans
          with disabilities.

               --President William J. Clinton,
               October 2, 1997

Executive Order 13078 established the Presidential Task Force on
Employment of Adults with Disabilities on March 13, 1998, to
create an aggressive strategy to address barriers to employment
for adults with disabilities. These barriers have resulted in a
staggering and unacceptable rate of unemployment, including
underemployment and nonemployment of adults with disabilities.
Re-charting the Course: First Report of the Presidential Task
Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities is the first
step toward developing an aggressive strategy. The report
summarizes activities and initial recommendations for actions,
while the work of the Task Force continues.

As our nation considers multiple systemic changes to employment
policy and practice, it is critical that we do all that is
possible to ensure that every person who can work and wants to
work has the chance to do so. Many creative changes are being
made at the national, state, and local levels, demonstrating
that future solutions do not need to be bound to the ideas and
approaches of the past. The intent is not to place blame for
former actions, but to facilitate innovation. A new way of
thinking about employment, a new way of organizing jobs, a new
way of providing choice and control to adults with disabilities
is the agenda of the Task Force. Fulfilling this agenda will
ensure that adults with disabilities are members of our nation's
workforce.

Adults with disabilities are ready, willing, and able to cross
the bridge into the 21st Century with dignity and pride in their
accomplishments, pride in the contributions they make through
their jobs. The barriers in their path to employment are
removable. People with disabilities do not need to overcome
their disabilities, they need to overcome the obstacles that
public policy and attitudes have unfortunately placed between
them and jobs. Many of their barriers to employment are ours as
a nation, embedded in policies, practices, and attitudes that
have evolved over decades. In Mrs. Lederman's letter to
President Clinton, she poignantly states the current environment
for adults with disabilities in seeking employment: "The way the
law is now, it completely takes away all motivation to work. . .
. Finding a job is such a complicated and hard issue that one
soon thinks he is a loser for life."

Creation of the Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults
with Disabilities represents a critical and exciting opportunity
to address these barriers. Activities of the Task Force display
the commitment of the multiple federal agencies collaborating,
thinking creatively across traditional boundaries and turf, to
eliminate barriers. Task Force members are committed to building
alliances and working as partners with adults with disabilities,
business and industry, employers, families, and other interested
persons, realizing that coalitions are one of the keys to
building a future workforce that truly reflects America at its
finest. In the words of an esteemed disability rights leader,
Justin Dart, Jr., "Together we shall overcome."

The Task Force commends the President for his leadership in
establishing the Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults
with Disabilities and looks forward to productive dialogue and
actions as Task Force activities continue. Together we will
create change across America that results in opening the doors
to employment in the 21st century for adults with disabilities.

----------
References Cited in the Report

         American Heritage College Dictionary. 3rd ed. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1993.

         Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, 347 US
483 (1954).

     Funk, R. "Disability Rights: From Caste to Class in
     the Context of Civil Rights." Images of the disabled:
     disabling images Ed. A.Gartner and T. Joe. New York:
     Praeger, 1987.

     Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
     Online. Internet. Nov. 1998. Available at:
     http://www.kff.org/archive/health.html.

     Mills v. Board of Education of the District of
     Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C.1972).

National Council on Disability. Achieving Independence: The
Challenge for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Council
on Disability, 1996.

         PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279
(E. D. Pa. 1972).

Schriner, Kay Fletcher, and Andrew I. Batavia. "Disability Law
and Social Policy." Encyclopedia of Disability and
Rehabilitation. Ed. Arthur E. Dell Orto and Robert P. Marinelli.
New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA-Simon & Schuster
Macmillan, 1995. 260-270.

Shapiro, Joseph P. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a
New Civil Rights Movement. New York: Times Books-Random House,
1993.

State ex relBeattie v. State Board of Education of City of
Antigo, 169 Wisc. 231, 172     N.W. 153, (1919).

----------
Appendix A

Summary of
Section 2 Mandate Work Group Reports

Section 2 of the Executive Order provides explicit instructions
from the President regarding formation of six work groups,
agencies which should participate on the work groups, and the
mandate or set of tasks for which the work group would be
responsible. As can be seen, each work group was directed to
prepare a report of its recommendations and submit it to Task
Force for its members' consideration. It is important to
recognize that Task Force has yet to endorse these
recommendations.

Excerpted below is the complete Section 2 from the Executive
Order.

Sec. 2. Specific activities by Task Force members and other
agencies.

               (a) To ensure that the Federal
               Government is a model employer of
               adults with disabilities, by
               November 15, 1998, the Office of
               Personnel Management, the
               Department of Labor, and the Equal
               Employment Opportunity Commission
               shall submit to the Task Force a
               review of Federal Government
               personnel laws, regulations, and
               policies and, as appropriate,
               shall recommend or implement
               changes necessary to improve
               Federal employment policy for
               adults with disabilities. This
               review shall include personnel
               practices and actions such as
               hiring, promotion, benefits,
               retirement, workers' compensation,
               retention, accessible facilities,
               job accommodations, layoffs, and
               reductions in force.

               (b) The Departments of Justice,
               Labor, Education, and Health and
               Human Services shall report to the
               Task Force by November 15, 1998,
               on their work with the States and
               others to ensure that the Personal
               Responsibility and Work
               Opportunity Reconciliation Act is
               carried out in accordance with
               section 504 of the Rehabilitation
               Act of 1973, as amended, and the
               Americans with Disabilities Act of
               1990, so that individuals with
               disabilities and their families
               can realize the full promise of
               welfare reform by having an equal
               opportunity for employment.

               (c) The Departments of Education,
               Labor, Commerce, and Health and
               Human Services, the Small Business
               Administration, and the
               President's Committee on
               Employment of People with
               Disabilities shall work together
               and report to the Task Force by
               November 15, 1998, on their work
               to develop small business and
               entrepreneurial opportunities for
               adults with disabilities and
               strategies for assisting
               low-income adults, including those
               with disabilities to create small
               businesses and micro- enterprises.
               These same agencies, in
               consultation with the Committee
               for Purchase from People Who Are
               Blind or Severely Disabled, shall
               assess the impact of the
               Randolph-Sheppard Act vending
               program and the
               Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act on
               employment and small business
               opportunities for people with
               disabilities.

               (d) The Departments of
               Transportation and Housing and
               Urban Development shall report to
               the Task Force by November 15,
               1998, on their examination of
               their programs to see if they can
               be used to create new work
               incentives and to remove barriers
               to work for adults with
               disabilities.

(e) The Departments of Justice, Education, and Labor, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Social Security
Administration shall work together and report to the Task Force
by November 15, 1998, on their work to propose remedies to the
prevention of people with disabilities from successfully
exercising their employment rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 because of the receipt of monetary
benefits based on their disability and lack of gainful
employment.

(f) The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor
and the Census Bureau of the Department of Commerce, in
cooperation with the Departments of Education and Health and
Human Services, the National Council on Disability, and the
President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities
shall design and implement a statistically reliable and accurate
method to measure the employment rate of adults with
disabilities as soon as possible, but no later than the date of
termination of the Task Force. Data derived from this
methodology shall be published on as frequent a basis as
possible.

(g) All executive agencies that are not members of the Task
Force shall (1) coordinate and cooperate with the Task Force;
and (2) review their programs and policies to ensure that they
are being conducted and delivered in a manner that facilitates
and promotes the employment of adults with disabilities. Each
agency shall file a report with the Task Force on the results of
its review on November 15, 1998.

Summaries of each of the six work group reports* along with
names and agency affiliations of each group's members are
provided in the following section.

A note on work group members: The reports in the following
section reflect the judgment as well as considerable knowledge
base of the individuals who were selected by their agencies for
their expertise on policies and programs related to employment
of adults with disabilities.

NOTE TO READERS: The Presidential Task Force provides an
important reminder to all readers of this report. The reports of
the work groups included in this document should not be viewed
as any formal statement of policy or adopted plans of action
approved or endorsed by any executive agency or any other branch
of government. Readers should view this report as a "work in
progress." The recommendations and other contents of this report
will be subject to thorough and rigorous review by the Task
Force members and appropriate governmental agencies. Any branch
or agency of the federal government will take no action until
thorough reviews have been completed and formal adoption by
appropriate agencies has been secured.

_________________
*Scheduled for spring 1999 is an addendum report which will
address Section 2 (d), the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's examination of HUD programs. The addendum report
will also address Section 2 (g) that requires all executive
agencies that are not members of the Task Force to (1)
coordinate and cooperate with the Task Force and (2) review
their programs and policies to ensure that they are being
conducted and delivered in a manner that facilitates and
promotes employment of adults with disabilities.

Work Group on the Review of
Federal Government Personnel Laws, Regulations, and Policies

_________________________________Mandate from Section 2 (a) of
the Executive Order__________________________________

To ensure that the federal government is a model employer of
adults with severe disabilities, by November 15, 1998, the
Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Labor, and the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall submit to the Task
Force a review of federal government personnel laws,
regulations, and policies and, as appropriate, shall recommend
or implement changes necessary to improve federal employment
policy for adults with disabilities. This review shall include
personnel practices and actions such as hiring, promotion,
benefits, retirement, workers ' compensation, retention,
accessible facilities, job accommodations, layoffs, and
reductions in force.

BACKGROUND

As part of the review, barriers and best practices were
identified with respect to the recruitment, hiring, and
employment of adults with disabilities in the federal sector and
developed recommendations to improve conditions in these areas.
Materials reviewed included:

--policies and procedures of 65 of the 89 federal agencies,
pertaining to hiring and employment of individuals with
disabilities;

--Title 5 of the U.S. Code and Title 5 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, concerning federal sector employment; and

--the regulation implementing Section 501 of the Rehabilitation
Act; EEOC federal sector decisions and complaints received by
the Access Board pertaining to federal employees with
disabilities.

In addition, representatives of unions and disability
organizations were contacted as well as individuals with
disabilities who are knowledgeable about barriers and best
practices in the area of hiring and employment of individuals
with disabilities in the federal sector.

>From 1982 to 1997, representation of persons with severe
disabilities in the permanent federal civilian workforce
increased from .81% to 1.16%. The peak year of representation
for persons with disabilities was 1993; since that year,
however, representation for persons with severe disabilities
declined from 1.24% to 1.16%. The critical figure that provides
perspective for this report is that 5.95% of the people
available to work in the civilian labor force are persons with
severe disabilities. While the federal government has made
significant hiring gains, the percentage of persons with severe
disabilities in the federal workforce (1.24% at its peak in
1993) still lags far behind availability (EEOC, 1998).

EFFORTS ALREADY UNDERWAY

As a result of the review, three examples of federal agency
"best practices" for employees with disabilities were
identified, providing valuable models for all federal agencies.
These included:

-- The Department of Education's Self-Evaluation and
Implementation Process: In 1995, the department conducted a
comprehensive accessibility self-evaluation resulting in
implementation of several model programs, including
establishment of centralized funding for reasonable
accommodation equipment and services, including personal
assistance services; development of guidelines for assuring that
all software purchases are fully accessible (Requirements for
Accessible Software Design); establishment of a department-wide
alternate format center for production of braille, audio tape,
and large print materials; and installation of software which
put a virtual TTY (teletypewriter) on each desk.

-- The Department of Agriculture's Technology Accessible
Resources Gives Employment Today (TARGET) Center: Established in
1992, the TARGET Center provides a wide range of services to
USDA employees with disabilities and to other federal agencies
upon request. These services include: evaluations,
demonstrations, and assessments of accommodations; technology
review; disability awareness presentations; coordination of
training; provision of a resource information library on
accommodations, vendors, and technology; contracting of
assistive services; technical support; consultations with
managers and employees; and information provided in alternate,
accessible formats.

-- The Department of Defense's Computer/Electronic
Accommodations Program (CAP): CAP was established in 1990 as the
centrally funded DOD program that provides assistive technology
to allow DOD employees with disabilities to access computer and
telecommunication systems. CAP services are available to
individuals with visual, hearing, dexterity, and cognitive
disabilities and take into account the individual's specific
situation, including functional capabilities and computer
compatibility. CAP also provides funding for sign language
interpreters, readers, and personal assistants for DOD employees
in training classes that last more than two days.

A number of other federal agency "best practices" with respect
to the recruitment, hiring, and employment of adults with
disabilities were also identified.

BARRIERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Barriers which affect the employment of adults with
disabilities, along with recommendations for their elimination,
are described below.

A. Recruitment and Hiring Barriers

ISSUE: Excepted Appointing Authorities--These are provisions
through which people with disabilities can be exempted from the
competitive appointment process for federal employment. In them,
individuals with psychiatric disabilities are held to standards
which are more strict than those to which people with mental
retardation and physical disabilities are held. People with
psychiatric disabilities are subject to OPM's basic
qualification standards established for the occupation and grade
level, are subject to a two-year appointment limitation, and are
not eligible for conversion to the competitive service.

RECOMMENDATION--

--The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and other appropriate
agencies should explore measures aimed at eliminating the
stricter standards currently applied to individuals with
psychiatric disabilities seeking to qualify for excepted
appointments and thereby extending to them those opportunities
currently available to individuals with severe physical
disabilities and mental retardation.

ISSUE: Vacancy Announcements--Availability of reasonable
accommodations does not appear to be indicated on the vacancy
announcements and other recruiting materials of the vast
majority of federal agencies. This poses a barrier to
individuals with disabilities seeking federal government
employment who are unsure of their right to, or the availability
of, reasonable accommodations during the application process and
during the employment relationship.

RECOMMENDATION--

--OPM, in consultation with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) should develop language for federal vacancy
notices that explicitly states that reasonable accommodation is
available. OPM should also revise its regulations to require all
federal agencies to include this notice in vacancy announcements
and other recruiting materials.

B. Reasonable Accommodation Barriers

ISSUE: Reasonable Accommodation Policies and Procedures--Both
potential and current federal employees with disabilities are
faced with significant problems when seeking reasonable
accommodation. It is often unclear who is responsible for
determining, approving, and obtaining accommodations. Requests
for reasonable accommodation often are not handled promptly,
chiefly because there are no time limits on decision making.
Individuals with nonvisible or hidden disabilities have a
particularly difficult time obtaining needed accommodations.
And, supervisors and managers often are unaware of the legal
requirements governing the obligation to provide reasonable
accommodations. Presently, there are no government-wide, uniform
procedures for processing applicant and employee requests for
reasonable accommodation, nor are there model procedures for
processing such requests. Among federal agencies with written
procedures for processing accommodation requests, some are
exceedingly and unnecessarily complex, while others require
intrusive and extensive medical information that is not
necessary and that may be inappropriate.

RECOMMENDATION--

--EEOC should issue regulations or other appropriate directives
providing guidelines which federal agencies may choose to adopt
in establishing agency-wide, written reasonable accommodation
policies and procedures for applicants and employees with
disabilities. Such guidelines should promote policies that make
it easy and simple to request an accommodation. They should
provide for a fair, prompt and balanced review of an
accommodation request; a meaningful dialogue between supervisor
and employee where necessary; and a review of medical evidence
by a medical professional, where the medical reasons for the
accommodation are in dispute.

Agencies that choose to develop their own policies should ensure
that these policies include the standards on reasonable
accommodation requests provided below.

1. Explain how an employee or job applicant initiates a request
for reasonable accommodation. If the agency requires an
applicant or employee to complete a reasonable accommodation
request form, the form must be provided as an attachment to the
written procedures.

2. Specify to whom the request must be submitted and from whom
the employee will receive a final decision.

3. Designate a time period during which reasonable accommodation
requests will be granted or denied, absent extenuating
circumstances. If designated time deadlines are not met,
responsible agency officials should explain the delay to the
employee.

4. Explain the responsibility of the employee or applicant to
provide appropriate medical information related to the
functional impairment at issue and the requested accommodation.

5. Explain the agency's right to request relevant supplemental
medical information if the information submitted does not
clearly explain the nature of the disability, the need for the
reasonable accommodation, or does not otherwise clarify how the
requested accommodation will assist the employee to perform the
essential functions of the job or to enjoy the benefits and
privileges of the workplace.

6. Explain the agency's right to have medical information
reviewed by a medical expert of the agency's choosing at the
agency's expense.

7. Provide that reasonable accommodation decisions should be in
writing and specify the reasons for denial, when applicable.

8. Provide a "plain English" explanation of certain key legal
terms used in the policy (e.g., reasonable accommodations,
disability, qualified person with a disability, and undue
hardship), and reference applicable statutes and regulations as
a source of the actual wording of the terms.

9. Provide that reassignment will be considered as a reasonable
accommodation if the agency determines that no other reasonable
accommodation will permit the employee to perform the essential
functions of his or her current position. In the case of
reassignment to a lower graded position, the agency has the
option of providing pay retention because the action is not for
personal cause.

10. Designate a system of record keeping that tracks the
processing of requests for reasonable accommodation and
maintains the confidentiality of medical information received in
accordance with applicable law and regulations.

11. State in the policy that employees have the right to file a
complaint in the event that their requests for reasonable
accommodation are denied.

12. Clearly and expressly explain the role and responsibility of
each agency official or office in the grant or denial of
reasonable accommodation requests.

ISSUE: Procurement and Payment for Reasonable
Accommodations--For procuring and paying for job accommodations,
some federal agencies provide centralized procurement and
funding for specified accommodations. In other agencies,
responsibility for procurement and payment is given to
individual offices or divisions. It is logical to assume that a
supervisor is more likely to reject an accommodation on the
basis of cost where the funds for purchasing the accommodation
come from the supervisor's budget. On the other hand, a
supervisor is less likely to consider the cost of an
accommodation where the funds for purchasing an accommodation
come from a centralized budget. Clearly, the reluctance of
supervisors to spend their own funds on reasonable
accommodations is a real barrier.

RECOMMENDATION--

--The Administration should explore administrative methods to
establish a central point of contact and a single source of
payment through a new appropriation for assistive technology and
related services for all federal job applicants and federal
employees with disabilities. In establishing this central point
of contact, agencies should not be mandated to pay into a
centralized accommodations fund based on the number of
individuals with disabilities they hire, employ, or accommodate
or to be charged back for the cost of accommodations provided to
their employees under this system. There should be no direct
link between the number of employees with disabilities an agency
hires, employs, or accommodates and cost charged to the agency.
This unified system of administration, procurement, and funding
would enable the government to take advantage of bulk purchase
values and other economies of scale, reduce administrative and
procurement costs, and remove the nuisance and expense factors
that too often are disincentives for supervisors and agencies
considering hiring or accommodating individuals with
disabilities. Each agency would not have to develop its own
system and expertise for procurement of assistive technology and
other devices; instead, one set of experts would suffice.

ISSUE: Reassignment--The ADA specifically mentions reassignment
to a vacant position as a form of reasonable accommodation for
individuals who, because of a disability, can no longer perform
their current jobs. In 1992, Congress amended the Rehabilitation
Act to make ADA standards regarding nondiscrimination in
employment (including ADA standards on reassignment) applicable
to the federal government. Federal regulatory standards
governing reassignment, however, have not been changed to
accommodate this statutory mandate.

RECOMMENDATIONS--

--EEOC should revise its regulation regarding reassignment in
the federal government to incorporate the ADA standards for
reassignment.

--EEOC should provide guidance about the applicable ADA
provisions that apply to reassignment and, specifically, about
the application of the ADA's undue hardship standard.

ISSUE: Electronic and Information Technology--Virtually all
federal positions now require the use of computers to complete
everyday job tasks. If software procured by agencies is not
accessible to people with disabilities, the technology creates a
barrier to employment. At present, most federal agencies do not
appear to have systematic means for evaluating the accessibility
of their information technology, nor for assessing the effect on
accessibility when new systems and software are developed,
purchased, or upgraded. There are currently no government-wide
standards for accessible technology, and few agencies are aware
of the model accessibility guidelines put forward by GSA. The
focus at most agencies seems to be on providing individual
solutions for technology access problems encountered by
employees with disabilities. In Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act (reauthorized in Work Force Investment Act,
August 7, 1998, PL 105-220), the Access Board is directed to
develop and publish standards for electronic and information
technology accessibility within 18 months and requires federal
agencies to develop, procure, and use accessible technology.

RECOMMENDATIONS--

--All government agencies should adopt the Education
Department's Requirements for Accessible Software Design as an
interim standard until the Section 508 standards are published;

--All government agencies should ensure that all hardware and
software purchased, modified, or upgraded by such agencies are
accessible to people with disabilities;

--All government agencies should test new and current
information technology systems for accessibility and consider
upgrading or modifying any inaccessible systems used by
employees or job applicants;

--All government agencies should ensure that all employee
information provided on their interdepartmental computer
networks as well as public information provided on their Web or
Internet sites is accessible to people with disabilities; and

--All government agencies should ensure that employees with
disabilities receive an assessment of technology access needs,
and receive the appropriate assistive technology hardware,
software, or peripherals to make all information technology
systems used on the job accessible.

ISSUE: Interpreters and Personal Assistance Services--As
employers, federal agencies are required to provide interpreters
to individuals with hearing disabilities as a form of reasonable
accommodation under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973. Interpreting services represent both an ongoing cost and a
logistical challenge to locate qualified interpreters and
schedule events appropriately. Some federal agencies, however,
fail to do an adequate job of planning and allocating resources
effectively and do not establish clear policies and procedures
regarding interpreting services. In addition, personal
assistance services are required by other employees as a
reasonable accommodation. Just as interpreters are key
accommodations to persons with severe hearing impairment and
computers, TTYs, and other pieces of equipment are key
accommodations to persons with visual impairments, personal
assistance services, such as readers for visually impaired
persons and attendants for mobility impaired persons are key
workplace accommodations.

RECOMMENDATIONS--

--All government agencies that provide training to employees of
other federal agencies should review their policies on provision
of interpreters and other auxiliary aids and services for people
with disabilities in order to ensure that their written policies
state their obligation under the Rehabilitation Act to provide
interpreter services and that these policies are followed.

--All government agencies should ensure that internal training
opportunities are offered equally to employees with disabilities
and that interpreters or other auxiliary aids and services are
planned for and provided.

--All government agencies should provide sign language
interpreter services for training and other public events and,
when requested, provide effective communications through other
means such as Computer Assisted Real-time Transcription (CART)
or assistive listening systems.

C. Barriers Resulting from Regulations Governing Collection,
Retention, and Distribution of Medical Information

ISSUE--The ADA significantly restricts the kinds of questions
that employers may ask applicants or employees about disability
and limits circumstances under which employers may require
medical examinations of applicants and employees. While Congress
amended the Rehabilitation Act to make provisions of Title I of
the ADA applicable to the federal sector, there is concern among
some agencies and employees with disabilities that regulations
governing collection, retention, and disclosure of medical
information have not been revised to reflect provisions of the
ADA adequately. The following provisions contain areas of
potential conflict between the law and the regulations: medical
qualification determinations, nondiscrimination restrictions on
medical examinations and disability-related inquiries, employee
medical file system records, and conditions for disclosure of
records.

RECOMMENDATION--

--EEOC and OPM should take a coordinated effort to resolve
conflicts between their regulations and applicable
Rehabilitation Act standards governing the collection,
retention, and disclosure of medical and disability-related
information about applicants and employees.

D. Part-Time Work Barriers

ISSUE: Establishment of Part-Time Positions--The issue of
part-time work relates to employment of adults with disabilities
in the federal sector because, without viable options for
part-time work, some adults with disabilities will be unable to
enter or to remain in the workforce. The Federal Employees
Part-Time Career Employment Act of 1978 was created to increase
federal part-time career employment. When passing the Act,
Congress explicitly recognized that part-time employment
provides a real alternative for individuals with disabilities.
Although agencies are mandated to establish part-time career
employment programs, there is evidence that agencies may not be
routinely establishing, or evaluating the need for, part-time
positions within their organizations.

RECOMMENDATION--

--OPM should remind agencies annually of Congressional intent to
promote part-time employment and should encourage agencies to
expand part-time opportunities, especially for individuals with
disabilities, and to promote part-time employment within their
respective organizations.

--OPM's existing USAJOBS site should be modified to provide a
separate search category for part-time employment.

ISSUE: Public Education--Information on availability of
part-time employment is not readily available or easily
accessible. Currently, prospective part-time employees must
individually review each vacancy to determine if it is a
full-time or part-time position. Since so few part-time
positions are advertised, this effort is usually futile.

RECOMMENDATION--

--OPM should create a part-time employment Internet site with
specific vacancy announcements to promote part-time employment
in the federal government. Such changes would make it easier for
prospective employees to apply for part-time jobs and would
generally promote part-time employment in the federal sector.

E. Architectural Barriers at Federally Owned and Leased
Facilities

ISSUE: Buildings owned or leased for occupancy by the federal
government are subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of
1968. Based on accessibility complaints received by the Access
Board, the architectural barriers most commonly mentioned at
federal facilities involve entrances, ramps, doors, and
accessible routes connecting these features. Other facility
features about which complaints often are made involve parking
spaces, curb ramps, and toilet rooms. In other instances,
complainants allege that accessible features, though present, do
not conform to accessibility standards. Although procedures
exist within agencies to ensure that federal construction,
alteration, and leasing covered by the Barriers Act meet
applicable accessibility standards, incidents of noncompliance
still occur.

RECOMMENDATIONS--

--All government agencies should conduct self-evaluations of
their facilities to determine compliance with the current
federal accessibility standards and, to the extent that
noncompliance is identified, develop a plan to bring facilities
into conformance with requirements.

--The Access Board shall provide agencies with technical
assistance in doing their self-evaluations, if necessary.

--Pending rulemaking currently underway which will revise and
harmonize accessibility standards implemented under both the
Barriers Act and the Disabilities Act, all government agencies
should implement a policy to follow the most stringent standard.

F. Lack of Statement Prohibiting Disability-based Discrimination

ISSUE: Although OPM regulations contain several provisions that
prohibit discrimination in employment and list bases for
employment-related complaints, these provisions do not
explicitly refer to disability as a prohibited basis for
employment decision making. Moreover, although Section 720 of
the regulations requires agencies to make efforts to increase
minority and female representation in the federal work force,
there is no OPM regulation that notifies agencies that the
Rehabilitation Act requires affirmative action on behalf of
people with disabilities.

RECOMMENDATIONS--

--OPM should amend its regulations to include an explicit
prohibition on discrimination on the basis of disability.

--OPM should amend all regulations that address discrimination
to include disability as an explicitly prohibited consideration
in employment decisions.

--OPM should amend all regulations that address discrimination
to state explicitly that the Rehabilitation Act requires
affirmative action on behalf of individuals with disabilities
and should refer agencies to EEOC regulations and management
directives for guidance on the scope of that obligation.

NEXT STEPS--BEYOND NOVEMBER 15, 1998

Recommendations for Further Review and Action by the Task Force

-- The Task Force should evaluate whether or not the federal
government is currently providing effective outreach to
disability rights organizations, rehabilitation agencies, and
other similar entities about employment opportunities. If
current practices are found to be inadequate, the Task Force
should formulate specific strategies for outreach in order to
increase the pool of qualified applicants with disabilities.

-- The Task Force should determine what entity will serve as the
government-wide central point of contact for assistive
technology and services for federal job applicants and employees
with disabilities who request reasonable accommodation as well
as the source of funding for the administrative costs and
accommodations provided by that entity.

-- The Task Force should continue to review OPM's and EEOC's
regulations and programs to determine if they pose any other
barriers to the recruitment, hiring, and retention of qualified
individuals with disabilities in the federal government that
have not been identified in this report.

-- The Task Force should evaluate the effectiveness of training
federal supervisors, managers, and senior executives on
disability issues, including applicable laws and regulations
related to the recruitment, hiring, and employment of adults
with disabilities.

-- The Task Force should evaluate whether or not federal
agencies provide adequate interpreter services to their deaf
employees who need such services as a form of reasonable
accommodation.

REFERENCES

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal
Operations, Federal Sector Programs. Annual Report on the
Employment of Minorities, Women and People with Disabilities in
the Federal Government. Washington: GPO, 1997.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Annual Report on the
Employment of Minorities, Women and People with Disabilities in
the Federal Government: Fiscal Year 1997. Washington, DC: 1998.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Secretary's Advisory Committee
for Employees with Disabilities. A Time for Change: A Report of
the USDA Secretary's Advisory Committee for Employees with
Disabilities. MP-1551. Washington: GPO, 1998.

U.S. Department of Education. Requirements for Accessible
Software Design. Washington: 1995. Online. Internet. Available
at: http://gcs.ed.gov/coinfo/clibrary/software.htm.

Members of the Work Group on
Review of Federal Government Personnel Laws, Regulations, and
Policy

CO-CHAIRS:
Peggy Mastroianni, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nancy Segal, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

MEMBERS:

Elizabeth Bacon, President's Committee on Employment of Adults
with Disabilities
Ken Bates, Office of Personnel Management
Shannon Brown, Department of Defense
Philip Calkins, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Vivian Cole, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Judy Gilliom, Department of Defense
Kim H. Green, Department of Labor
Jeffery Hill, Access Board
Carla Holt, Department of Education
Gary Hozempa, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Jennifer Kemp, Department of Defense
Ray Kogut, Office of Management and Budget
Christopher J. Kuczynski, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission
Annabelle Lockhart, Department of Labor
Carol Miaskoff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Mark Maxin, Department of Labor
Jennifer Mechem, Department of Education
Mary-Jean Moore, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Kevin Packman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
John Riedel-Alvarez, Office of Personnel Management
Jocelyn Samuels, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Sharon Snellings, Office of Personnel Management
Jim Sober, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Tali Stepp, Department of Labor
Beth Stewart, Access Board
Tina Vay, Office of Personnel Management
Tony Waller, Government Services Administration
Bud West, Department of Labor
Sharon Woodward, Department of Labor

Work Group on the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

_________________________________Mandate from Section 2 (b) of
the Executive Order__________________________________

The Departments of Justice, Labor, Education, and Health and
Human Services shall report to the Task Force by November 15,
1998, on their work with the States and others to ensure that
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act is carried out in accordance with section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, so that individuals with disabilities
and their families can realize the full promise of welfare
reform by having an equal opportunity for employment.

BACKGROUND

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)
are both sweeping in their impact on the nation and its economy.
Both laws are meant to challenge and transform deeply ingrained
stereotypes and prejudices about who among us can work and
become self sufficient. Similarly, other federal statutes--the
Rehabilitation Act, the Welfare-to-Work legislation, and most
recently, the Workforce Investment Act--serve both to complement
and to further these same purposes. The federal government,
therefore, has a historic opportunity and the responsibility to
work with states, communities, disability constituencies,
employers and others to ensure that:

-- the nation's civil rights statutes--including the ADA and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act--are complied with in a
clear, consistent, and fair manner as required by PRWORA;

-- successful, cost-effective approaches for moving adults with
disabilities from welfare to employment be identified and
implemented throughout the U.S.; and

-- such approaches build, strengthen and expand upon the
significant knowledge, research and experience that already
exists on how to assist adults with disabilities to work and to
contribute to their families, communities, and nation.

The major principle which needs to guide these efforts is that
adults with disabilities participating in the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families program (TANF) should have an equal
opportunity to benefit from all aspects of welfare reform, which
includes having access to the proper support services to enable
them to work and to keep their families healthy, safe, and
intact. Concerted efforts, therefore, must be undertaken by the
federal government, the states, communities, businesses, and all
others to remove the employment barriers and disincentives to
work that exist for TANF recipients with disabilities and to
replace these with an environment and tools that promote the
equal employment opportunity and economic self-sufficiency.

Nationally, welfare caseloads have dropped 41 percent since
President Clinton first took office in January 1993. Of those
who are still on the rolls, it is suspected that a higher
proportion consists of people with disabilities or have other
serious barriers that make it difficult for them to work.
Studies of the demographic characteristics have shown that the
prevalence of disability among those on welfare is quite high.
Analyses using national surveys have consistently found that
approximately 20% of female welfare recipients have either a
work limitation due to a physical, mental, or other health
problem or a functional disability (Adler 1993; Loprest and Acs
1996). One of the few studies of state-level data found an even
higher prevalence--30% of female recipients of cash assistance
under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC)
in California reported some type of work limitation (Meyers,
Lukemeyer, and Smeeding 1996).

Estimates of the proportion of adult welfare recipients with a
mental health condition--usually some form of depression--range
from a low of 4% to as high as 28% (Leon and Weissman 1993;
Olson and Pavetti 1996; Jayakody and Pollack 1997; Quint et al.
1994).

The prevalence of learning disabilities has been estimated to be
even higher. Some studies have indicated that approximately 40%
of the adult welfare population may have a learning disability
(Nightingale et al. 1991; Giovengo and Moore 1997; Kansas
Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services 1997; 1998).

While states have always had to grapple with the issue of
disability in the welfare population, the passage of PRWORA and
the transformation of welfare from an income support program to
a time-limited, cash assistance program with a focus on work has
made this a much more real concern.

Federally established participation rates for work activities
and time limits on the receipt of cash assistance are expected
to lead state and local welfare agencies to require a greater
proportion of welfare recipients to engage in work or work
preparation activities. The implications of these changes for
TANF recipients with disabilities are likely to be dramatic.
There are areas in which significant opportunities for persons
with disabilities appear to exist, and there are other areas
where the new provisions may cause hardship or difficulty if not
adequately addressed.

On the positive side, in the current strong economy, there is
demand for workers in many fields. Increased numbers of TANF
applicants and recipients with disabilities can be engaged in
programs which will equip them with tools and skills to take
positive steps toward employment and self-sufficiency. TANF
agencies across the country are developing and implementing
policies and procedures to carry out this work and to involve
larger segments of their caseloads than they have in the past.

However, because only a small fraction of the caseload was
involved in employment-related activities under the former AFDC
and JOBS programs and many individuals were completely exempted
from participation, there is limited experience among state and
local TANF staff in working with parents with disabilities to
obtain employment. Similarly, there is often a lack of prior
experience effectively identifying persons with "hidden
disabilities," such as learning disabilities, mild mental
retardation, or mental health problems. TANF workers may not
recognize that different types of supports are available and may
be needed in order for them to comply with work requirements and
succeed in the labor market. Also, since caseloads have fallen
more than 40 percent nationwide, states have more resources to
address the needs of people who are hard to serve who remain on
the rolls. States should be encouraged to be proactive in
seeking out and serving TANF recipients who have hidden
disabilities.

Previous research has indicated that many TANF recipients fear
the loss of Medicaid health coverage if they go to work. In most
cases, TANF recipients who go to work are eligible for
transitional Medicaid benefits for 12 additional months. The
potential loss of Medicaid benefits may prove an even greater
barrier for persons with disabilities who may need high-cost
medications or long-term medical care and may not have access to
adequate (or any) health insurance through an employer.

There are larger-scale efforts at service consolidation in which
welfare offices are being integrated into the workforce
development system. As with other aspects of welfare reform,
these efforts are relatively new, and there is little
documentation of the effectiveness of programs or the impacts on
clients. The implications of integration initiatives for TANF
recipients in general or those with disabilities are not yet
known. In many instances, service integration or consolidation
is likely to mean less duplication and more streamlined service
delivery. However, it may also result in less specialization by
workers, an increased focus on those seen as being most
job-ready, and an increased requirement to be able to
self-identify the need for support services. In some cases, all
job seekers will use the same service delivery system (e.g., a
one-stop career center) and may need to be able to negotiate the
system to find services they need. Agencies participating on the
Task Force are aware of these issues and, in many cases, have
begun to look at ways to ameliorate some of the negative
implications.

EFFORTS ALREADY UNDERWAY

A. State-Level Efforts

As of September 30, 1998, 45 states plus Puerto Rico, Guam, and
the Virgin Islands were funded (a total of approximately $1.2
billion) as FY 1998 welfare-to-work state formula grants. Three
states have submitted their FY 1999 formula grant plans for
approval. Fifty-one welfare-to-work competitive grants (totaling
$198 million) were awarded in June and July 1998. A second round
of competitive grants will be announced by the end of November
1998.

The Urban Institute reviewed states' welfare-to-work policies
for individuals with disabilities as part of a project sponsored
by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Social
Security Administration (Thompson 1998). Although states are
early in the process of deciding who should be required to
participate in welfare-to-work services, the majority of states
are beginning to use the flexibility provided under PRWORA in
ways that could increase participation in welfare-to-work
programs among persons with disabilities.

One common way states have broadened participation requirements
is by allowing for very few formal exemptions but still
maintaining mechanisms (e.g., deferrals, postponements) to
modify the obligation to participate of some recipients who have
disabilities or other significant barriers to employment.

Another approach entails having caseworkers take a harder look
at individuals who would have been exempt in the past in order
to assess more fully if they are capable of participating in any
work or self-sufficiency activity or having medical review teams
or other agencies review disabling conditions in an attempt to
apply more consistent standards when determining whether or not
the individual should be required to participate.

Other states have adopted a universal participation approach
that requires all those on TANF to participate in some type of
activity. States requiring universal participation use highly
individualized service planning strategies that emphasize
recipients' capabilities and acknowledge that the path to
self-sufficiency may be long. The activities that can be counted
toward federally imposed work participation rates are varied and
in many cases are not limited to work or work-related activities

State policies also vary with respect to whether or not
individuals with disabilities are subject to time-limited
benefits. Slightly more than half of states (26) exempt persons
with disabilities from time limits. Many states have not yet
determined who will receive a hardship exemption to the time
limit. For now, these states consider all recipients--including
individuals with disabilities--subject to the time limit.

In addition to the Urban Institute report, the National Governor
Association's Center for Best Practices published "Serving
Welfare Recipients with Learning Disabilities in a > Work First'
Environment." This paper raised the need for appropriate
intervention models for serving persons with learning
disabilities receiving or seeking services from TANF, citing
mounting evidence that many persons on TANF have low skills that
are attributable to learning disabilities and not just issues of
dropping out or lack of effort.

B. Interagency Efforts

Interagency work groups have been formed to provide
federal-level guidance and coordination of activities related to
PRWORA and welfare reform. One work group, consisting of staff
from the departments of Justice, Health and Human Services,
Labor, Education, Agriculture and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, has drafted two documents. The first,
"Civil Rights Laws and Welfare Reform--An Overview," is designed
to assist entities that provide funds, employment, training,
food stamps, and other benefits under welfare reform in applying
federal nondiscrimination laws to welfare programs. The second
document, "Technical Assistance for Caseworkers on Civil Rights
Laws and Welfare Reform," is designed to provide caseworkers
with examples of how civil rights laws apply in situations
commonly encountered in casework.

C. Departmental Efforts

Federal departments are actively involved in providing technical
assistance, civil rights enforcement and guidance initiatives,
and research and demonstration projects.

The Department of Education: State vocational rehabilitation
(VR) agencies are key partners in many states attempting to
address issues of disability within the TANF population. Some
states have adopted a policy whereby the existence of a
VR-written employment plan for a VR consumer will count as
meeting that state's work requirement. In addition, VR agencies
have relationships with some TANF offices that allow for VR
expertise with disability assessment to be utilized for all or
some TANF recipients. The TANF/VR partnerships have created a
more seamless and efficient means of determining who on the TANF
rolls can benefit from specialized services or are VR eligible
and how services can best be provided.

The Department of Health and Human Services: In carrying out
their lead responsibility of working with states in implementing
the TANF program and other key provisions of PRWORA, the
Administration for Children and Families sponsors three
technical assistance projects. Each project to a varying degree
can be useful vehicles to assist states and others in better
understanding and addressing the employment needs of TANF
recipients with disabilities. To date, the projects have focused
on creating a forum for states to discuss implementation
strategies related to TANF and state and local technical
assistance needs and priorities; disseminating information to
interested parties via the Internet, conferences, and training
seminars; and offering technical assistance designed to equip
states, communities, and stakeholders with knowledge and
expertise necessary to make welfare reform work for persons with
developmental disabilities and their families.
The HHS Regional Offices of the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) are
conducting compliance reviews of TANF programs to determine
whether or not reasonable modifications and accommodations are
sufficient for TANF recipients with disabilities in terms of job
assignments or whether child care services are provided in a way
that are responsive to the needs of both children with
disabilities and TANF parents who are themselves disabled. The
Office of Civil Rights will also conduct voluntary compliance
and outreach activities for state and local agencies
implementing TANF. Such initiatives with state and local
governments, provider and beneficiary organizations, and
advocacy groups are intended to prevent future problems through
early identification of problems and interventions to avoid or
correct them.

The Department of Labor: DOL is responsible for the
Administration's $3 billion Welfare-to-Work program, which is
designed to serve the hardest-to-employ welfare recipients.
Applicants for grants under the Welfare-to-Work program were
encouraged to target assistance to specific categories of
eligible individuals, including those with disabilities. It
should be noted that funds can be used to serve noncustodial
parents of TANF children as well as the custodial parents. (The
great majority of noncustodial parents are fathers, and these
fathers can have the same kinds of disabilities and job barriers
that TANF mothers can have. Noncustodial parents who work are
more likely to pay child support.) Several states are developing
innovative and promising approaches to addressing employment
needs and capabilities of TANF recipients with disabilities. For
example, Nevada will provide specialized job readiness and
skills classes for persons with learning disabilities in
conjunction with work experience. As of August 17, 1998, 39
states and Guam have been approved and funded for state formula
grants of approximately $765 million, and 51 competitive grants
have been awarded for a total of $198 million.

The Labor Department's Veterans' Employment and Training Service
(VETS) helps disabled veterans find and keep unsubsidized jobs
in the civilian labor force by providing grants to states that
fund Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists.
Since 1976, these employment specialists, disabled veterans
themselves, have provided a variety of employment services
through the nation's public employment system. Services include
individually tailored employment counseling, job development,
placement, and follow-up services for thousands of disabled
veterans. In cooperation with the Department of Veterans'
Affairs (VA), DVOPs work closely with the VA's vocational
rehabilitation counselors to provide vocational guidance and
placement assistance to job-ready disabled veterans when they
complete their rehabilitation program. Many disabled veterans
are also assisted through employment and training programs
funded through the Job Training Partnership Act. Disabled
veterans are often homeless and are, therefore, eligible for
assistance under VETS' Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Project
(HVRP). HVRP service providers help disabled homeless veterans
with counseling, job assessment, rehabilitation, skills
training, and job placement.

In addition to the Welfare-to-Work funds, the Department of
Labor also administers the Disability Employment Grant program
designed to address the 73 percent unemployment rate of those
with severe disabilities. The grants are competitively awarded
under the Job Training and Partnership Act (JTPA) Titles III &
IV and fifteen grantees are currently funded for a total of $6.8
million. The grants demonstrate linkages with One-Stop Career
Center and School-to-Work systems, SSI/SSDI Return-to-Work
programs, vocational rehabilitation services, and other agencies
addressing transportation, housing, health care, job coaching,
or natural support issues.

The Department of Transportation: Quite simply, transportation
is the "to" in "welfare to work." DOT's programs support safe,
efficient, affordable and accessible transportation to the
American public. Many welfare recipients, particularly persons
with disabilities, have no access to personal transportation.
Public transportation is frequently the only available means of
personal mobility, and that includes mobility to the workplace.
The Department's Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides
funding and other assistance to transit operators nationwide to
improve existing service, invest in new service, and provide a
level of basic mobility in our communities. When evaluating
proposed new major transit investments, such as a new subway
system, one of the factors that FTA considers is how well the
proposed system will serve low-income households. Under the ADA,
it is DOT's responsibility to ensure that these systems and
services are accessible to and usable by persons with
disabilities. Where the existing transit system is not yet
accessible, or where an individual cannot use
otherwise-accessible fixed-route transit, DOT ensures that
complementary paratransit service is provided as required by law.

BARRIERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Barriers which affect employment of adults with disabilities in
the federal sector, along with recommendations for their
elimination, are described below.

ISSUE: Civil Rights and Equal Employment Protections--The
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
mandates that in implementing welfare reform, states must comply
with the Nation's civil rights laws, including the Americans
with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
States and others are now just beginning to understand the
complex set of challenges and opportunities they face in respect
to addressing the employment-related needs and abilities of
individuals with disabilities on the TANF rolls.

RECOMMENDATION--

--The federal government should equip states with the
information, technical assistance, and support they need to
carry out their responsibilities effectively in this regard so
that TANF recipients with disabilities and their families have
equal opportunities to realize the full promise of welfare
reform by working and keeping their families healthy, safe, and
intact.

ISSUE: Screening and Assessment--Undiagnosed and hidden
disabilities of TANF recipients can significantly hinder their
ability to gain and sustain employment as well as to meet other
essential requirements of TANF (e.g., satisfying the GED
requirement). More work is needed to develop reliable and useful
screening and assessment procedures that states can use both to
identify these individuals and to provide them with the types of
services and accommodations they require to gain self
sufficiency. These types of actions should always be taken
before an individual with an undiagnosed or any other disabling
condition is sanctioned for failure to comply with TANF
requirements.

RECOMMENDATIONS--

--All government agencies should work with states, program
administrators, caseworkers, disability advocates, and
researchers to develop valid, reliable, and useful screening and
assessment instruments that will enable persons with a wide
range of disabilities to be identified as the first step towards
receiving appropriate services and accommodations.

--The Administration should encourage states to use these
screening and assessment instruments, and departments and
agencies should take full advantage of such efforts already
underway in a number of states.

--The Department of Health and Human Services should explore
ways to encourage states to use screening and assessment
instruments that enable early identification of people with
disabilities.

--The Department of Education should provide technical
assistance to states that currently do not conduct any
assessment for disability, drawing on effective assessment
models developed by RSA and VR staff in Washington State and
Alabama.

ISSUE: Service Coordination--Both PRWORA and the Welfare-to-Work
program underscore the need for the federal government and state
and local agencies to develop a new approach in dealing with
families on TANF. This will require doing business differently
and changing organizational behavior. In order to meet the
diverse needs of persons with disabilities, state TANF officials
and case workers will have to forge linkages with other
organizations and programs with which they may not have
previously worked. Individuals and organizations accustomed to
working in either the disability or welfare reform spheres have
a great deal to teach and to learn from one another and should
be strongly encouraged to do so.

RECOMMENDATION--

--All government agencies should work with states to take
advantage of the flexibility available under TANF to develop
innovative programs to integrate employment and human services
more effectively. Furthermore, promising programs should be
evaluated to determine their effectiveness and transferability
to other settings.

ISSUE: Transportation--A number of transportation-related
barriers have been identified and must be addressed in order to
assist adults with disabilities in making the transition from
welfare to work. These issues along with recommendations for
action are discussed fully in the summary report of the work
group addressing transportation issues.

RECOMMENDATION--

--The Departments of Transportation and Health and Human
Services should continue to work together on their Coordination
Council to explore ways to make more efficient use of the
several systems of human services transportation that exist in
any given area. Where necessary, other agencies such as HUD and
DOL should be brought into the Council.

ISSUE: Health Care Coverage--Creating greater access to
affordable, comprehensive health care coverage is a vital
prerequisite for enabling individuals with disabilities on TANF
to gain and sustain employment at living wages. The unique
health care needs of disabled and chronically ill individuals
frequently necessitate a continuity of health care coverage to
maintain self-sufficiency. Lack of such adequate health care
coverage is a disincentive for otherwise job-ready persons with
disabilities leaving the TANF rolls.

RECOMMENDATION--

--The Executive Branch should utilize its full policy and
budgetary expertise to continue to work with Congress to gain
passage of legislation this year that enables people with
disabilities to be employed and maintain their health coverage.
This should be done in a way that is consistent with the
Administration's commitment to preserving the budget surplus. (A
more detailed discussion of health care coverage issues as they
relate to work disincentives is provided in report number three,
along with recommendations for action.)

ISSUE: Evaluation and Technical Assistance--New strategies and
programs for assisting persons with disabilities to gain
employment requires thorough evaluation and assessment of what
works and what does not. The dissemination of information on
both effective and ineffective approaches is critical to the
development of additional programs and the avoidance of common
mistakes.

RECOMMENDATIONS--

--All government agencies should, with the cooperation and
assistance of the states, undertake research and demonstration
projects designed to integrate welfare program and employment
services more effectively.

--All government agencies should increase federal resources
devoted to technical assistance and training on welfare reform
and disability issues.

ISSUE: Increasing Employment Opportunities--This issue should be
addressed in at least four ways: strongly addressing disability
issues in welfare reform, working to create new employment
opportunities, strongly enforcing applicable civil rights laws,
and life course transitions.

RECOMMENDATIONS for Strongly Addressing Disability Issues in
Welfare Reform --

--The President should actively help the nation understand that
"disability" is not synonymous with "unemployable" and should
ensure that the rights of persons with disabilities in TANF to
reasonable accommodation and opportunities under the ADA and
other civil rights legislation are protected.

--The President should encourage federal staff to address
disability issues in welfare reform in an explicit manner. For
example, the departments of Health and Human Services and Labor
could add information on disability to current welfare reform
Internet sites.

--All government agencies should continue interagency efforts
related to welfare reform and disability issues, with a specific
emphasis on exploring ways to help individuals to avoid moving
onto welfare.

--All government agencies should work to eliminate use of terms
such as "hard-to-serve" and "persons with multiple barriers" in
descriptions of persons with disabilities; these terms are
offensive and thus counterproductive to assisting persons with
disabilities make the transition from welfare to work.

RECOMMENDATION for Working to Create New Employment
Opportunities--

--The Administration should 1) work with states, distressed
communities, businesses, foundations, researchers, disability
constituencies, and others to facilitate creation of career
ladder opportunities for low-income individuals with
disabilities in the field of home- and community-based services
by preparing those on TANF with disabilities to provide
consumer-driven personal assistance and other long-term supports
and services for and in partnership with individuals with
disabilities; 2) actively promote use of tax benefits by small
businesses and micro enterprises owned and controlled by people
with disabilities and other low income individuals residing in
communities with high concentrations of people on welfare; and
3) encouraging Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities to
develop a range of employment and micro enterprise opportunities
that would benefit low-income families and individuals with
disabilities on TANF.

RECOMMENDATIONS for Strongly Enforcing Applicable Civil Rights
Laws--

--The departments of Justice and Health and Human Services
should have discussions with states, providers, and advocacy
groups on how the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
interact with Medicaid programs.

--The departments of EEOC, Health and Human Services, Justice,
and Labor should explore ways to provide technical assistance to
the states and localities in relation to ADA, Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, and other civil rights laws in welfare
reform implementation.

--The Administration should encourage states to extend TANF time
limits for adults with disabilities on an individualized basis
as a form of reasonable accommodation.

RECOMMENDATION for Facilitating Life Course Transitions--

--The Administration should work with states, communities,
schools, and others to assist young people with disabilities
with the tools they need to believe in themselves and to pursue
positive futures; to avoid teen pregnancy, substance abuse and
other risk behaviors; to finish high school and go on to college
or work; to take full advantage of school-to-work and community
and national service opportunities; to experience, learn from,
and build on early life successes; and to assume positive
control and responsibility for their individual lives and
futures.

REFERENCES

Adler, Michele. A Disability Among Women on AFDC: An Issue
Revisited. @ Proceedings of the American Statistical
Association: Government Statistics Section, 1993.

Giovengo, Melinda, and Elizabeth J. Moore. AWashington State
Division of Employment and Social Services Learning Disabilities
Initiative: Final Report, Phase 1.@ State of Washington,
Department of Social and Health Services, 1997.

Jayakody, R., and H. Pollack. ABarriers to Self-Sufficiency
Among Low-Income Single Mothers: Substance Use, Mental Health
Problems, and Welfare Reform.@ Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and
Management. Washington, DC: November 1997.

Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. AKansas
Learning Disability Initiative.@ Unpublished program document.
Topeka, KS: October 1997.

- - -. A Learning Disability Initiative: Briefing Paper,
Preliminary Results.@ Unpublished program document. Topeka, KS:
February 1998.

Leon, Andrew C., and Myrna M. Weissman. AAnalysis of NIMH's
Existing Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) Data on Depression
and Other Affective Disorders in Welfare and Disabled
Populations.@ Unpublished manuscript. New York: Columbia
University College of Physicians and Surgeons, 1993.

Loprest, Pamela, and Gregory Ace. AProfile of Disability Among
Families on AFDC.@ Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1996.

Meyers, Marcia K., Anna Lukemeyer, and Timothy M. Smeeding.
AWork, Welfare, and the Burden of Disability: Caring for Special
Needs of Children in Poor Families.@ Income Security Policy
Series, Paper No. 12. Center for Policy Research Maxwell School
of Citizenship and Public Affairs, 1996.

Nightingale, Demetra, Regina Yudd, S. Anderson, and Bert Barrow.
AThe Learning Disabled in Employment and Training Programs. @
Research and Evaluation Report Series 91E. Washington, DC: U. S.
Department of Labor, 1991.

Olson, Krista, and LaDonna Pavetti. APersonal and Family
Challenges to the Successful Transition from Welfare to Work. @
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1996.

Quint, J. C., B. Fink, and S. Rowser. ANew Chance: Implementing
a Comprehensive Program for Disadvantaged Young Mothers and
Their Children. @ New York: Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation, 1994.

Thompson, Terri S., Pamela A. Holcomb, Pamela Loprest, and
Kathleen Brennan. A State Welfare-to-Work Policies for People
with Disabilities: Changes Since Welfare Reform.@ Washington,
DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planing and
Evaluation, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1998.

Members of the Work Group on
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

CHAIRS:
Lynn Jennings, Department of Labor

Bob Williams, Department of Health and Human Services

MEMBERS:

Marc Brenman, Department of Transportation
Nancy Campbell, Department of Health and Human Services
Nayda Cruz, Department of Labor
Lois Engel, Department of Labor
Tahira Henderson, (intern) Department of Transportation
Andrew Imparato, National Council on Disability
Alexandra Kielty, Department of Labor
Dennis Lieberman, Department of Labor

William Marton, Department of Health and Human Services

Kathleen A. O'Brien, Department of Health and Human Services
Curtis Richards, Department of Education
Jenn Rigger, Department of Education
Liz Savage, Department of Justice
Ron Stroman, Department of Transportation

Helen Williams, Department of Labor

Work Group on the
Small Business and Entrepreneurial Opportunities

_________________________________Mandate from Section 2 (c) of
the Executive Order__________________________________

The Departments of Education, Labor, Commerce, and Health and
Human Services, the Small Business Administration, and the
President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities
shall work together and report to the Task Force by November 15,
1998, on their work to develop small business and
entrepreneurial opportunities for adults with disabilities and
strategies for assisting low-income adults, including those with
disabilities to create small businesses and micro- enterprises.
These same agencies, in consultation with the Committee for
Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, shall
assess the impact of the Randolph-Sheppard Act vending program
and the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act on employment and small business
opportunities for people with disabilities.

BACKGROUND

In spite of severe obstacles, people with disabilities have
historically shown strong interest in entrepreneurship.
Information from the 1990 national census shows that people with
disabilities have higher rates of self employment and small
business experience than people without disabilities (12.2
percent versus 7.8 percent). Even so, self employment and small
business opportunities for people with disabilities are often
overlooked by government programs and by many people with
disabilities as an avenue from the public rolls to self
sufficiency. The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA)
reports that in 1996 only 2.6 per cent of 225,000 vocational
rehabilitation clients with successful closures became self
employed or started a small business. However RSA's own
demonstration programs on self employment have reported self
employment rates between 20 and 30 per cent, substantially above
the reported rate of vocational rehabilitation self employment
or small business closures.

There are two broad categories of people with disabilities of
concern regarding self-employment and small businesses
ownership: 1) those who already have businesses and need
contacts, counseling, and technical assistance regarding
procurement and opportunities to be awarded contracts, and 2)
those who want to become self-employed or small business owners
and face a multitude of barriers, both their own and those of
the "system." People with disabilities face a range of
impediments as they try to be competitive in this environment.
Not only do they encounter the same financial, legal, and
resource acquisition problems experienced by all entrepreneurs,
they also must surmount the many disability-related barriers to
success described in this document. It seems clear that with the
most optimistic outlook, a meaningful addressing of the
challenges of changing the systemic barriers to helping disabled
persons who wish to become self-employed or small business
owners will not be easy and will take time.

EFFORTS ALREADY UNDERWAY

Public Sector: The following summary highlights existing public
sector activities that directly or indirectly address the
mandate.
Rehabilitation Services Administration

Vocational Rehabilitation. The RSA Strategic Plan for Employment
has as one of its core strategies development of greater
opportunities for self-employment, small business, home-based,
and other entrepreneurial opportunities. As noted above, of all
vocational rehabilitation clients who achieved employment
outcomes, 2.6% were individuals who had a self-employment
outcome. Another 318 individuals (.15% of total) achieved an
employment outcome under the state-operated business enterprise
program (see discussion of Randolph-Sheppard program below).

Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program. The Vending Facility
Program authorized by the Randolph-Sheppard Act provides persons
who are blind with remunerative employment and self-support
through operation of vending facilities on federal and other
property. In 1997, state licensing agencies report 3,090 vendors
in 3,427 vending facilities across the country. The total
earnings of all vendors in 1997 was $81.9 million, and the
national average earnings of the vendors was $27,889.

Special Projects and Demonstrations. RSA operates a
discretionary grant program to fund innovative approaches to
delivery of vocational rehabilitation services, and under this
program, RSA is currently funding seven special projects and
demonstrations to increase consumer choice. None of these
projects initially planned to focus on self-employment; however,
a significant number of project participants requested this
option. While the number of participants seeking self-employment
varies by project, in general, about 20-30% of project
participants achieved or are currently working towards
self-employment.

Institute on Rehabilitation Issues. The RSA-sponsored Institute
on Rehabilitation Issues (IRI) annually convenes a study group
to conduct an in-depth examination of topics of current interest
to persons working in the field of rehabilitation and to produce
a publication of their findings. This year, the study group
focused on "People with Disabilities in Self-Employment and
Small Business Development." The examination covered an overview
of the current status of small business in the U.S., the current
status of the vocational rehabilitation system related to
self-employment outcomes, recommendations regarding training of
vocational rehabilitation staff and consumers in self-employment
or business ownership issues, successful models of
self-employment, and an in-depth discussion of the implications
of self employment for the vocational rehabilitation system and
national disability policy.

National Institute on Disability Rehabilitation Research
currently has several research initiatives which focus on
employment statistics, policies, and vocational rehabilitation
practices and outcomes relevant to self-employment options for
people with disabilities.

Rehabilitation Act Reauthorization. The 1998 amendments to the
Rehabilitation Act (contained in the Workforce Investment Act)
highlight self-employment and business ownership as potential
employment outcomes. In addition, the law includes a new
category of services--provision of technical assistance and
other consultative services to eligible individuals who are
pursuing self employment or establishing a small business.

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) was created by
Congress in 1953 to help America's entrepreneurs form successful
small enterprises by offering financing, training, and advocacy
for small firms. In addition, the SBA works with thousands of
lending, educational, and training institutions nationwide to
provide procurement assistance, loan guarantees, and small
business start-up and expansion counseling and training. As a
result of its involvement with the Task Force, the SBA has
reviewed its programs with regard to greater use by people with
disabilities and has made the following commitments:

-- To develop and implement program initiatives to increase the
number of federal procurement opportunities, including 8(a)
contracts, for people with disabilities.
-- To make its programs and services more accessible to people
with disabilities.
-- To expand its Pre-Qualification Loan Program to increase
lending to entrepreneurs with disabilities.
-- To develop small business on-line training materials, in
accessible formats, to assist firms in understanding and
complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
-- To implement a study to identify barriers and develop a
focused outreach program to assist disabled veterans to consider
entrepreneurial opportunities and achieve success in business.

The President's Committee on Employment of People with
Disabilities recently established a project to promote self
employment and small business opportunities. Its activities
included contracting with World Institute on Disability to
convene a Blue Ribbon Panel on Small Business, Self-Employment,
and Disability in Chicago from July 29 to 31, 1998, and
contracting with Job Accommodation Network (JAN) to take lead in
providing information and referrals regarding small business and
self-employment for people with disabilities.

Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled is an independent federal agency responsible for
administering the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) program. Its
mission is to use the purchasing power of the federal government
to provide people who are blind or have other severe
disabilities with employment and training that will develop job
skills as well as prepare them for employment options outside
the JWOD program, including self employment or small businesses.
The Committee's primary means of achieving this objective is to
direct the government to procure commodities and services that
are provided by state, local, and private nonprofit
organizations which employ persons who are blind or have other
severe disabilities for at least 75% of their direct labor
workforce.

The Department of Labor's Office of Small Business Programs
(DOL, OSBP) administers three programs that could assist people
with disabilities who are small business owners: 1) DOL's
procurement-related utilization of small, small disadvantaged,
and small women-owned businesses and minority colleges and
universities; 2) DOL's central source for compliance assistance
information and referral services for small entities; and 3) DOL
interaction with and support of minority colleges and
universities. After a review of its programs and practices to
find ways to increase opportunities for people with disabilities
who own small businesses, OSBP has committed to develop a
contact list of associations representing small businesses owned
by persons with disabilities as well as self-employed persons
with disabilities, to include these associations in all
information dissemination efforts targeted to small firms, and
to seek information from such associations on kinds of issues,
access, and formats to consider for effective communications
with entities owned or headed by disabled persons.

Federal Reserve Bank has some district offices that have
partnered with community organizations to link banks with
self-employment programs that target services to disabled
entrepreneurs and, in turn, to link these with state vocational
rehabilitation agencies.

Private Sector: A number of existing private sector resources
can be expanded and leveraged to address the mandate, including
micro enterprise programs. With over 450 programs around the
country, micro enterprise development programs represent a
burgeoning industry that provides a range of services to
entrepreneurs, including training and technical assistance,
business incubation, mentoring, financing programs and links to
financial institutions, access to markets, and economic literacy
and asset-development training. A dozen or so of these programs
target services to people with disabilities through
collaborations with banks, state vocational rehabilitation
agencies, and private firms, among others. Lending institutions
are supporting economic development in the disability community
by working with targeted micro enterprise programs to help
capitalize small businesses run by disabled entrepreneurs.
Foundations, such as the Mott Foundation and the Levi Strauss
Foundation, and banks, such as the Bank of America and Wells
Fargo Bank are providing funds for economic development, in
general, and micro enterprises for people with disabilities, in
particular. Comerica Bank in Detroit is, developing a loan fund
specifically for entrepreneurs with disabilities. Also, a
growing number of universities, and non-profit disability
organizations, including trade associations, independent living
centers, and other service providers--in efforts that tend to be
unrelated to one another--are providing direct services, and
conducting related public policy and advocacy that address the
mandate.

BARRIERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Although a number of services and resources exist for
entrepreneurs with disabilities, significant attitudinal,
architectural, technology, programmatic, and policy barriers
prevent people with disabilities from accessing them. In
addition, critical service gaps and lack of coordination among
various programs and providers sharply reduce opportunities for
would-be entrepreneurs. Below are the primary barriers facing
people with disabilities in becoming self-employed and/or
operating a small business. Instrumental in identification of
these barriers were findings of the National Blue Ribbon Panel
on Self Employment, Small Business, and Disability, a July 1998
meeting of specialists with expertise in facilitating self
employment and small business opportunities for people with
disabilities, including representatives of government agencies
and private non-profit organizations as well as financiers and
individuals and organizations of individuals with disabilities
who are successful in self employment or small business.

ISSUE: Attitudinal Barriers--Attitudes are the most pervasive of
the many barriers to economic activity by people with
disabilities. Negative and or inaccurate beliefs about
disability as well as self-employment have created tremendous
barriers to progress both in the public and private sector.
These erroneous beliefs inform policies and programs and often
severely limit opportunities.

RECOMMENDATION--

--All government agency staff should undergo in-depth training
on disability awareness and cultural competence as well as
training on specific programs, i.e., vocational rehabilitation,
independent living, assistive technology, etc.

ISSUE: Systemic Work Disincentives--People with disabilities who
seek economic security through self-employment or owning of
small businesses face severe and unique financial penalties
during transition from public benefits to self-sufficiency,
including potential loss of cash benefits from Social Security
or Supplemental Security Income disability programs; health care
benefits associated with cash programs; and housing, food
stamps, and other subsidies.

RECOMMENDATION--

--Re: Loss of Benefits--The Task Force should continue to
develop return-to-work provisions that will ensure a smooth,
financially secure transition from dependence on public programs
to the independence that results from successful
entrepreneurship. At the same time, the beneficiary's ability to
return to the rolls quickly and easily if the business fails
must be protected.

--Re: Health Care Coverage--Among the most critical issues to be
addressed is access to affordable and comprehensive health care
coverage that meets the needs of people with disabilities and
their dependents.

--Department of Health and Human Services (HHS's) Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation should develop
demonstration projects to determine methods for providing
comprehensive, affordable health insurance to entrepreneurs with
disabilities.

(Note: During the last session of Congress, Senators Jeffords
and Kennedy proposed legislation that included some of these
proposals.)

ISSUE: Technical Assistance, Training, Information Needs --The
lack of entrepreneurial skills and experience (knowing how to
operate the business, manage marketing, selling, cash flow,
product knowledge, etc.) is one of the most significant barriers
for would-be entrepreneurs with disabilities. Mainstream
technical assistance, training, and information resources that
could bridge this gap are often inaccessible, disorganized,
unavailable, or provide information that is inaccurate.

RECOMMENDATIONS--

--Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) is the primary
federal agency assisting people with disabilities to achieve
self sufficiency through employment. As such, RSA and its state
VR agency partners are positioned to provide substantive
training and other services that will lead to self employment or
to small business outcomes. RSA should develop a major policy
initiative supporting self employment and small business as
outcomes for people with disabilities. The initiative, which
should be similar in scope to the recent successful
welfare-to-work program, should direct RSA's state partners to
recognize their obligation to present entrepreneurship to their
clients as an acceptable outcome at the same time they discuss
other employment options. Specifically, RSA should:

-- provide technical assistance to state agencies on how to
prepare vocational rehabilitation counselors to assist their
clients in pursuing self-employment and small business as
careers.

-- develop a curriculum for vocational rehabilitation counselors
and managers that includes the principles of economic
development and specific information about how to start a small
business.

-- encourage state vocational rehabilitation counselors to
assist their clients with interests in this area to access
business-related training courses and to encourage them to join
relevant professional trade organizations.

-- encourage state vocational rehabilitation agencies and
independent living centers, in partnership with local Small
Business Development Centers, to provide direct assistance
services to businesses owned by people with disabilities.

-- encourage state vocational rehabilitation agencies and
independent living centers to partner with other outside
organizations and agencies to develop a resource network
supporting eligible individual's efforts to start new businesses.

--President's Committee on Employment of People with
Disabilities should develop a multimedia marketing and education
strategy promoting entrepreneurship for people with
disabilities, utilizing resources from all government agencies
with programs impacting on the ability of people with
disabilities to pursue self employment or small business
enterprises. The campaign should target several audiences,
including people with disabilities, agencies operating programs
supporting entrepreneurship, vocational rehabilitation
counselors, bankers, and the general public. This strategy
should include collection and dissemination of information about
best practices currently in use and development of a
comprehensive Web site that provides technical assistance for
entrepreneurs with disabilities.

--HHS's Administration on Developmental Disabilities should
either modify existing grant projects or develop new projects
researching supported employment as a career choice for people
with developmental disabilities.

--All government agencies should collect statistics on the
numbers of people with disabilities utilizing services or being
served by programs, including a subtotal of disabled veterans
involved.

ISSUE: Government Program-Related Barriers--Government programs
serving people with disabilities often discourage
self-employment as a vocational option, are governed by policies
that are confusing and have unnecessary and burdensome "red
tape," lack coordination with other agencies, and do not have
outreach efforts focusing on business people with disabilities.
Four specific programmatic barriers include:

-- Negative vocational rehabilitation policies exist in many
states; when procedures exist, they don't present a complete or
consistent business development model.

RECOMMENDATIONS--

--RSA should review its regulations and policies and make
changes needed to promote self employment and small business
ownership.

--RSA should identify and encourage replication of exemplary
state agency performance evaluation systems that provide
incentives for counselors and managers to promote small business
opportunities for eligible individuals.

--RSA should carefully examine its requirements for case closure
and performance indicators relative to individuals who choose
self employment or small business ownership as an employment
option, revising any requirements or practices that may
discourage such outcomes.

--RSA should seek statutory changes that will allow state
vocational rehabilitation agencies to establish post-employment
funds to support businesses owned by people with disabilities
during critical periods in the business' growth, including the
purchase of services to provide mentoring or other types of
technical assistance.

--SBA should undergo additional disability awareness training
and training on specific programs, i.e. Pro-Net, technical
assistance and vocational rehabilitation, independent living,
etc.

--SBA should implement its commitment to a broad outreach
program targeting people with disabilities, including providing
materials and information in fully accessible formats.

--SBA should expand the scope of Small Business Development
Centers to include individuals with disabilities and should
direct them to develop working relationships with vocational
rehabilitation agencies and counselors.

-- People with disabilities do not qualify as a "disadvantaged
group" under government programs designated for members of that
group, and businesses owned by people with disabilities have not
been encouraged to compete for government contracts as a
minority.

RECOMMENDATIONS --

--All government agencies should modify their procurement
programs to make them available to business persons with
disabilities, and this modification should include establishment
of outreach programs.

--SBA should implement its commitment to develop an outreach
program to encourage, educate, and involve people with
disabilities in all its procurement programs: 8(a); Small
Disadvantaged Business, HUBZones; PRO-Net; subcontracting; etc.

--Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration
should modify its programs to include people with disabilities
who are interested in pursuing self employment and small
business opportunities.

--Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency
should ensure that its programs include minorities with
disabilities interested small business opportunities.

--HHS's Administration on Developmental Disabilities should
either modify existing grant projects or develop new projects
researching supported employment as a career choice for people
with developmental disabilities.

-- Entrepreneurs with a disability often lack access to capital,
often do not have satisfactory credit ratings because of their
inability to find employment, and they lack assets to use as
collateral because the benefit programs that have provided their
income do not provide sufficient funds for living expenses and
savings. Many income support programs also have rules that
severely limit the ability of people with disabilities to
accumulate capital.

RECOMMENDATIONS--

--SBA should ensure that funding is available for start-ups and
for continuation of businesses of people with disabilities.
Businesses often need outside financing for growth stages of the
business.

--SBA should recognize grants and other funds from state
vocational rehabilitation agencies as equity. Pilot programs in
one or two states could demonstrate successful models for
cooperation between SBA and RSA.

--SBA should increase participation of people with disabilities,
including disabled veterans, in all of its loan programs,
including loan guarantees and direct loans.

--RSA should seek statutory changes that would allow state
vocational rehabilitation agencies and independent living
centers to provide equity grants for clients to leverage funds
or loan guarantees from the Small Business Administration,
banks, venture capital firms, and others.

--Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with
Disabilities should consider mechanisms, such as tax provisions,
to allow business persons with disabilities to recover the cost
of disability-related work expenses not experienced by business
persons without disabilities.

--Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with
Disabilities should further study the issue of capital
acquisition for people with disabilities. Particular attention
should be given to the effects of poor credit histories and
years of poverty-level subsistence on the ability of people with
disabilities to access the normal credit markets.

--Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with
Disabilities should consider creative actions such as:

-- creating low interest loan funds and grant programs for
people with disabilities to fund business start-ups and leverage
other resources,

-- creating a national investment corporation for people with
disabilities,

       -- expanding the federal Fair Lending Act to include
people with disabilities.

ISSUE: Disability-Specific Barriers--Additional barriers facing
business people with disabilities include lack of assistive
technology, personal assistance services, accessible
transportation, and mentors.

RECOMMENDATIONS--

--All government agencies should ensure that their programs and
activities meet their legal obligation to ensure effective
communication with all people with disabilities. This
requirement applies to all forms of communication, including
speech, print, telecommunications and electronic media.

--The Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration must aggressively pursue development
of telecommunication regulations which direct that all
telecommunications modalities are fully accessible to and
useable by people with disabilities.

--National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDRR) should collect information about people with
disabilities who are or seek self employment or small business
ownership.

REFERENCES

Arnold, Nancy. Unpublished study using data from the 1988, 1993,
and 1995 editions of Annual Report to the President and to the
Congress on Federal Activities Related to the Vocational
Rehabilitation of 1973, as Amended and from data provided by the
Rehabilitation Services Administration for 1994, 1996, and 1997.
Rural Employment and Economic Development. Research and Training
Center on Rural Rehabilitation. University of Montana

Blue Ribbon Panel on Small Business, Self Employment, and
Disability. President's Committee on Employment of People with
Disabilities and World Institute on Disability. Chicago. 29-31
July 1998.

Stoddard, Susan, Lita Jans, Joan M. Ripple, Louis Krause.
Chartbook on Work and Disability in the United States, 1998.
Online. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research, Office on Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services, U.S. Department of Education. Available at
http://www.infouse.com/disabilitydata/

U.S. Department of Education, Office on Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Rehabilitation Services Administration.
911 Case Services Report. Washington, DC: 1996.

U.S. Department of Education, Office on Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Rehabilitation Services Administration.
Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program. 1997 15 Report on
Vending Facilities.

U.S. Department of Education, Office on Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Rehabilitation Services Administration.
Special Projects and Demonstrations. Unpublished internal agency
evaluation report.

Members of the Work Group on
Small Business and Entrepreneurial Opportunities

CHAIR:

John Lancaster, President's Committee on Employment of People
with Disabilities

CO-CHAIR:

Betsy Myers, Small Business Administration

MEMBERS:

Sheryl Algee, Department of Labor
Bettie Baca, Small Business Association
Joe Cordova, Rehabilitation Services Administration
Ellen Daly, President's Committee on Employment of People with
Disabilities
Speed Davis, President's Committee on Employment of People with
Disabilities
Ken Fletcher, Small Business Association
Robert Hartt, Committee For Purchase
LaVern D. James, Department of Commerce
Sheryl Kennerly, Committee For Purchase
Letizia Marcial-Nieves, Department of Labor
Jim O' Connor, Small Business Association
Jane Perrine, Department of Commerce
June Robinson, Department of Labor
Beverlee Stafford, Rehabilitation Services Administration
Courtney Timberlake, Office of Management & Budget
Cliff Toulson, Small Business Association
Fritz Trakowski, Department of Labor
Verl Zanders, Department of Health and Human Services

Work Group on the Review of the
Department of Transportation's Policy and Programs

_________________________________Mandate from Section 2 (d) of
the Executive Order__________________________________

The Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban
Development shall report to the Task Force by November 15, 1998,
on their examination of their programs to see if they can be
used to create new work incentives and to remove barriers to
work for adults with disabilities.

BACKGROUND

DOT's role in disability, employment, and transportation is to
ensure that the nation's disability nondiscrimination and access
laws are enforced; to endeavor to lower barriers in
transportation wherever possible; to see that new transportation
infrastructure, vehicles, and transportation enhancements do not
create new barriers and are as accessible as possible; to
directly fund accessibility changes where authorized; to ensure
that its own facilities are accessible, its employment open, and
its disabled employees accommodated and provided with auxiliary
aids and services; to research new accessibility issues and
solutions; to collect data on disability and transportation; to
disseminate useful information; and to encourage its customers,
clients, recipients, and stakeholders to employ people with
disabilities, lower existing barriers, and avoid creating new
ones.

DOT has the primary responsibility for implementing and
enforcing the transportation and related requirements of Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the
Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (ACAA). With respect to its own
operations and those of its grantees, it is also responsible for
carrying out the employment and nondiscrimination requirements
of Sections 501, 504, and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(as amended). Therefore it is DOT's responsibility to ensure
that all new transportation facilities and vehicles are
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; that
existing barriers are removed as required by law; and that its
facilities are accessible and its programs and practices are
nondiscriminatory. Toward that end, DOT conducts research into
accessibility issues and technologies; collects relevant data on
disability, travel, and employment; and above all, ensures that
those entities covered by its accessibility regulations comply
with the law.

In a recent survey by Lou Harris for the National Organization
on Disability, 30% of adults with disabilities identified
inadequate transportation as a problem. However, only 17% of
non-disabled adults consider daily transportation a problem in
any way, representing a gap of 13 percentage points. Seven out
of ten (69%) adults with disabilities say that their disability
prevents them in some way from getting around, attending
cultural or sports events, or socializing with friends outside
their home as much as they would like to, compared to only 64%
in 1994, and 56% in 1986. Sixty percent of adults with
disabilities feel that access to public transportation has
gotten better for people with disabilities over the past four
years. Generally speaking, the more severely disabled people
are, the more accessibility of transportation is a concern to
them.

Given the requirements for accessible public transportation and
paratransit service under the ADA, which has been in effect for
more than eight years, the results of the NOD/Harris poll may
seem puzzling. Shouldn't these requirements have produced
appreciable results by now? The answer is yes--but only to the
extent that public transportation service is available in a
given community. The ADA requires that all new transit buses
acquired since 1990 be accessible; however, it does not mandate
the existence of bus service where none is provided or require
the replacement of buses. It requires all new subway stations
and railcars to be accessible, but does not require the
establishment of new stations or subway stations. It requires
that all modifications to facilities meet standards for
accessible design, but except in the case of key rail stations
does not mandate retrofitting of existing facilities. It
requires complementary paratransit service for persons with
disabilities who cannot use the fixed route system, but only
during the same operating hours and within the same service area
as the fixed route system, if there is a fixed route system.
Sidewalks must have curb cuts, but construction of a sidewalk
where none exists is not required.

Persons with disabilities tend to be more dependent on transit
service than the general public, and the prevailing development
and transportation patterns in the U.S.--dominated by sprawling
development patterns and highly dependent on highways and
private automobiles--put all transit-dependent populations at a
disadvantage. The costs associated with purchasing, maintaining,
registering, insuring and operating a motor vehicle can be a
significant barrier to personal mobility for many people; the
costs associated with an adapted vehicle are even more so for
persons with disabilities. These factors, combined with the fact
that the deadline for full compliance with the paratransit
provisions of the ADA January 1997 and that the deadline for
modifications to key rail stations may in some cases be extended
until July 2020, perhaps shed some light on the reasons adequate
transportation is still cited as a problem for many persons with
disabilities.

Events Leading to the Current Situation

In 1973, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act became law. It
prohibited discrimination on the basis of disability by
recipients of federal financial assistance. Such recipients
included public transit providers. Discrimination was defined to
include lack of access in many situations. In 1976, the Urban
Mass Transit Administration (UMTA), the predecessor the Federal
Transit Administration, issued regulations that required
"special efforts" in planning mass transportation facilities to
be used by elderly and disabled persons. It also required that
new transit vehicles and facilities be accessible to people with
disabilities. More stringent regulations were published in May
1979. They required all existing city bus and rail systems to
become fully accessible within three years. This included 50% of
the buses in fixed-route service. The Americans with
Disabilities Act refocused attention on the accessability of
transportation vehicles to people with disabilities. For
extraordinarily expensive facilities, the time limit could be
extended to 10 years for bus, 30 years for rail, and 5 years for
rail cars.

In 1981, the Court of Appeals ruled that the 1979 regulations
were ultra vires, beyond DOT's authority under Section 504.
Revised final regulations were published in 1986. The rulemaking
engendered fierce debate between those who felt that persons
with disabilities have the right to be mainstreamed into the
rest of society, and those who believed that there were more
cost-effective ways of providing transportation for persons
using paratransit. ("Urban Transportation Planning in the United
States," DOT, 1997) This tension between disability advocates
and those concerned about cost of accessibility modifications
continues today.

It was thought for a time that Section 504 included airlines
also. However, after litigation, the Supreme Court decided they
were not. Congress rectified the situation by passing the Air
Carrier Access Act of 1986, which provided some of the same
protections to air travelers as did Section 504.
In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act extended Section
504 concepts to many more forms of transportation, including
those which are not recipients of federal financial assistance.
However, Congress carved out exceptions in timing and degree for
certain modes of transportation where providing access would
have meant unusual and expensive retrofitting or new
construction. Disability advocates were very active in bringing
about greater accessibility for modes of transportation in the
United States, and continue to be very active in such areas as
accessibility of over-the-road buses.

C. Actions Taken by the Work Group

DOT approached its tasks by assembling a working group led by
the Director of Civil Rights and comprising representatives from
its nine operating administrations, departmental offices, and
groups which represent employees with disabilities. The Office
of Civil Rights Senior Policy Advisor has coordinated DOT's
efforts. Four meetings were held.

In addition, the Secretary held a "town hall" meeting with all
DOT employees, during which employees with disabilities raised
important issues regarding accommodation and employment issues.
Subsequently, the Secretary met with senior DOT officials and
DOT employees with disabilities to discuss these issues. Of
primary concern to employees was that the Department had never
completed the self-evaluation of its program and physical
accessibility as required by Section 504. The Secretary promptly
committed to completing this evaluation, and efforts to do so
are underway. Employees also cited inconsistencies among the
various agencies within DOT with respect to accommodations
requested by employees with disabilities (TDD's, Braille
printers, large-screen monitors, interpreters, etc.) The
Secretary committed to establishing a Disability Services
Center, a central point of contact for all DOT employees and
their supervisors that will provide a consistent level of
service for accommodations and related technical assistance.

DOT has also increased its visibility with regard to the
disability community. High-ranking officials have participated
in events such as the annual meeting of the President's
Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, civil
rights staff has participated in the Washington, D.C. Abilities
Expo, and, in general, DOT staff has begun to incorporate
accessibility issues into remarks, presentations and papers at
industry conferences and events.

EFFORTS ALREADY UNDERWAY

The Department has many efforts underway that are closely
connected to and supportive of Task Force objectives. These
efforts largely involve enforcing DOT and ADA regulations,
bringing covered entities into compliance, providing technical
assistance, and publishing guidelines to assist customers in
meeting their responsibilities under the ADA and DOT
regulations. The Department also researches safety issues and
develops safety standards, including those pertinent to people
with disabilities.

Accessibility of Key Transit Stations. The Federal Transit
Administration has committed to bring existing key stations into
compliance with the ADA. FTA is working with transit properties
through informal means, including Voluntary Compliance
Agreements (VCA) to achieve full compliance. There are 689 key
stations at 33 transit properties. Prior to this initiative, 215
key stations were documented as accessible and 94 were covered
by VCAs. As a result of a current initiative, 322 key stations
at 21 transit properties are now covered by VCA's committing the
properties to full compliance by the year of 2001.  There are a
total of 689 key stations at 33 transit properties. These do not
include new stations. FTA's recent initiative included 350
stations at 22 properties. The remaining 11 properties have 339
stations that were either self-certified to be in compliance or
are currently covered under an existing time extension, VCA, or
letter agreement. Of the 350 stations that were part of FTA's
VCA initiative, 322 are covered under the new VCA's. Of the
total universe of 689 key stations, only 28 stations at 7
properties are either not self-certified to be in compliance,
not covered under a VCA, or awaiting FTA's decision on their
requests for time extensions. (The time extension process is
only used for stations beyond 2001.) Also relevant is that each
month, properties with existing time extensions and VCA's may
expire, leaving the grantee in compliance or not. There is also
a regularly scheduled key station assessment being done that
could find a station out of compliance.

ADA Assistance Line. The Federal Transit Administration has
established a toll-free ADA Assistance Line (1-888-446-4511
[Voice]; 1-800-877-8339 [TTY]) and e-mail account
(ada.assistance@fta.dot.gov) within its Office of Civil Rights,
where the public can request assistance on accessibility matters
relating to transit service. Inquiries received through these
channels regarding other modes of transportation are routinely
referred to the appropriate DOT agency by FTA civil rights staff.

Air Carrier Access Act. On May 22, 1998, DOT released a report
on accessible lavatories for single-aisle aircraft. DOT is
seeking consensus among air carriers, consumers, airports,
equipment manufacturers, oxygen suppliers, and safety regulators
on the use of oxygen by passengers on airlines when disabled
individuals need special private supplies. This process may
include regulatory negotiation. DOT recently showed its
commitment to providing guidance and enforcement of the ACAA by
issuing regulations on providing reasonable accommodations in
seating for mobility impaired passengers.

Airport Ground Transportation. The Federal Aviation
Administration plans to make increased efforts to monitor
airport operators to ensure that buses connecting terminals and
parking facilities meet accessibility requirements of DOT ADA
regulations. FAA regional offices will remind airports of their
obligations under the rule and will inspect buses during site
visits.

Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility. DOT has issued regulations on
over-the-road bus accessibility, which require a phased in
system of buses fully accessible to people with mobility
impairments. People with disabilities have the right to receive
truly equal service, to ride in their own wheelchairs on the bus
rather than being carried to a bus seat. Access cannot be
restricted merely because a bus company speculates there may be
a safety risk. If an accessible bus is requested but not
provided, the company must pay compensation to the person with a
disability, ranging from $300 and $700. Regulations cover large
over-the-road carriers such as Greyhound, as well as many other
private intercity bus providers, charter bus companies, tour bus
companies, airport shuttles, and others.

The regulations will be implemented in stages. By October 2001
(one year later for small operators), fixed-route over-the-road
bus companies must provide service in an accessible bus to a
passenger who requests it with 48 hours notice. Before those
dates, companies must provide boarding assistance onto
inaccessible buses, if accessible buses are not available. They
must also transport passengers' wheelchairs on those
inaccessible buses.

Bus fleets must be made accessible over several years. In the
year 2000, all new buses purchased or leased by large
fixed-route companies must be accessible. Half the fleets of
large fixed-route operators must be accessible by 2006, and the
entire fleets by 2012. In certain cases, the Secretary of DOT
can grant a time extension beyond the 6 and 12-year dates.

Smaller companies have additional time to comply and they may
provide equivalent service instead of acquiring accessible
buses. Even so, passengers must be able to travel in their own
wheelchairs. Travel time, destinations, and cost must be equal
to that of passengers without disabilities.

Passengers must have enough time to use facilities at rest
stops. They must have assistance if needed. This is true whether
or not the bus is accessible. Rest stops must be accessible if
the bus company owns, leases, or controls them, or contracts for
their use.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. DOT will develop
programs and outreach materials on the benefits for persons with
disabilities of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 is the newly signed surface
transportation infrastructure statute.

-- Sidewalk improvements to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act are specifically made eligible for funding
under the Federal Highway Administration's Surface
Transportation Program.

-- Guaranteed funding for Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
programs such as the Formula Grants for Special Needs of Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (49 U.S.C. ' 5310)
are authorized to increase from $67 million for FY 1999 to $91
million in 2003.

-- The FTA Urbanized Area Formula program is also authorized for
higher funding. This is anticipated to provide additional
resources for transit operators to purchase more new transit
vehicles, eliminating inaccessible vehicles in their fleets more
quickly.

-- Like ISTEA, TEA-21 continues a higher Federal matching share
(90 percent) for the incremental costs of vehicle related
equipment needed to achieve the requirements of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. An 80 percent Federal share is provided
for most other eligible costs.

-- TEA-21 creates the Rural Transportation Accessibility
Incentive Program (TEA-21 Section 3038). The program will assist
in financing the incremental capital and training costs
associated with implementing the Department's Final Rule on
accessibility requirements for Over-The-Road-Buses (OTRBs)
called for in the ADA. The program is authorized at $24.3
million over the duration of TEA-21.

-- TEA-21 established a new FTA transit enhancements program. In
urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more, at least
one percent of the Urbanized Area Formula funds apportioned each
fiscal year shall will be used for activities defined as transit
enhancements. Among the eligible activities in this program is
"enhanced access for persons with disabilities to mass
transportation."

-- TEA-21 also redefines transit agency capital expenses in
areas over 200,000 population to include a share of ADA
paratransit costs.

It should be noted that all funding is subject to the standard
budget and appropriations processes.

Licensing and Disability. Many jobs in the transportation
industry and infrastructure, such as pilots, air traffic
controllers, bus drivers, and interstate truckers, are not
available to people with certain medical conditions, such as
serious visual impairments and epilepsy. However, waivers and
special conditions are sometimes available. The revised medical
standards that went into effect in September 1996 eliminated
some outdated requirements for vision and hearing to obtain
certification, and a separate policy change issued in December
1996 ended the absolute ban on pilots with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (applies to third-class medical certification
applicants only). But regulatory changes aside, improved
understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of medical disorders has
enabled the FAA to expand the scope of discretionary issuances
of medical certification to pilots who have potentially
disqualifying conditions.

The Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) continues to investigate waivers,
exemptions, and pilot programs for interstate commercial truck
driver standards. Currently, there are some restrictions on
licensing for persons with specific disabilities, such as
serious visual impairment, epilepsy, and diabetes. Panels of
medical experts are determining whether old restrictions should
be continued or whether performance-based standards should be
used instead. Issues under review include drivers with epilepsy,
diabetes, endocrine problems, vision impairments, and limb loss.
FHWA is working with the Department of Justice to address
litigation on some of these issues.

Intelligent Transportation Systems. DOT is exploring the
possible effects of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) on
transportation for all users, including people with
disabilities. ITS involves the use of technological innovations
in electronics, communications, and information processing to
improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and safety of surface
transportation systems. The Joint Program Office for ITS, the
Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit
Administration are funding experiments in ITS from which
benefits could be extracted for people with disabilities. One
such project in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, involves automatic
vehicle location (AVL), geographic information systems (GIS),
decision support systems (DSS), local area networks (LAN),
global positioning systems (GPS), mobile data terminals (MDT),
and advanced fare media (smart cards). The system is being
evaluated for paratransit and fixed route services, access to
jobs (welfare to work), and access to recreational facilities
for all transportation systems users, including those with
disabilities. DOT is also evaluating a proposal to use ITS to
link regional human services transportation and make better use
of underutilized transportation assets in providing
transportation for former welfare recipients to jobs, job
orientation, and job training.

ITS may also make it possible for people with disabilities to
occupy jobs from which people with specific disabilities have
been disallowed. Intelligent components of vehicle systems, such
as "smart" airbags, may make it safer for people who use hand
controls and short-statured people to use motor vehicles.

BARRIERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ISSUE: Basic Mobility--Due to the automobile-dependent nature of
our society, basic mobility for most Americans still means the
family car. Transit service can fulfill this function where it
is available, but the sprawling nature of suburban development
often makes transit service impractical to provide or to use.
Many people with physical disabilities, even those that appear
severely limiting, can and do operate motor vehicles with
appropriate adaptive devices. Others may hire another individual
to drive their vehicles for them. But adapted vehicles and
adaptive driving systems can be prohibitively expensive to
purchase, insure, maintain and operate, and certain
modifications can only be performed on certain types of
vehicles. This tends to limit the availability of the private
vehicle as mode of basic mobility.

RECOMMENDATIONS--

--The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) should continue to
work with the transit industry to assure that public transit
service is accessible to and usable by people with disabilities,
as required by federal law.

--State departments of transportation, human services, and labor
should assist transportation providers in improving and
increasing their services. Because public transportation
providers are often metropolitan or regional entities, state
agencies should use their influence and their knowledge of local
needs and resources to effect improvements.

--Public transportation services should not be cut back where
cuts would deprive former welfare recipients with disabilities
of the opportunity to travel between home and work.

ISSUE: Travel Time, Spatial Mismatch, and Trip Chaining--The
prevailing development patterns in the U.S. place many
employment centers and job opportunities in suburban locations
that are not well-served by transit, and are not
pedestrian-oriented. Housing and commercial development sites
are seldom located near each other. This limits the employment
opportunities of persons with disabilities who do not have
access to personal transportation. In addition, many low-income
persons with disabilities live in older, urban areas, making
travel to suburban office parks difficult if not impossible.
Where transit service is available, the trip often involves
multiple transfers and excessive travel times, limited service
areas, or limited hours of service. Missed connections and the
occasional malfunctioning wheelchair lift compound these
difficulties. TEA-21 requires that when evaluating proposed new
transit investments for federal funding purposes, DOT should
consider factors such as suburban sprawl, improved mobility,
land use patterns, and the degree to which mobility to the
transit-dependent population is increased.

RECOMMENDATIONS--

--DOT, the Welfare-to-Work Partnership, and corporations should
follow through on the initiatives and ideas developed at the
White House Summit on Welfare to Work and Transportation Access,
held September 14, 1998. Employers should work together with
public and private transportation organizations to find
innovative ways such as partnerships to bring workers from old
inner cities to the jobs.

--DOT should continue its efforts on Access to Jobs and Livable
Communities, and HUD should continue its efforts on Bridges to
Work.

--FTA should, when evaluating proposed new transit investments,
consider factors such as suburban sprawl, improved mobility,
land use patterns, and the degree to which mobility to the
transit-dependent population is increased, as specified in
TEA-21.

--The Small Business Administration and other agencies should
work together to encourage job development in neighborhoods near
where many welfare recipients live. To help alleviate the
problem of especially long and difficult commute times from home
to job for people with disabilities, special efforts, including
administration initiatives such as Empowerment Zones,
Brownfields, and Sustainable Development, should be made to
bring jobs to people.

--The Task Force should explore ways that telecommuting could
alleviate transportation difficulties for persons with
disabilities and to increase employment. People with
disabilities should not be left out of the change of the
American economy to the benefits of high technology.

ISSUE: Travel Training--Many people with disabilities,
especially those new to the world of work, need to be trained on
how to use public transportation.

RECOMMENDATION--

--ED, DOT, public school districts, and metropolitan transit
authorities should work together to educate people with mobility
and cognitive impairments on how to use public transportation
(travel training). This training should begin in school, to aid
the transition from school to work.

ISSUE: Data Collection--More statistical collection and analysis
is needed about the use of transportation infrastructure by
people with specific types of disabilities, and about potential
use by this population if given aspects of transportation were
more or fully accessible. It would be useful to conduct research
on the availability of financial assistance from a variety of
sources for modifications to privately owned cars to accommodate
physical disabilities, so that the individuals can drive
themselves in their own vehicles.

RECOMMENDATION--

--DOT should add such projects to its research agenda.

ISSUE: Planning and Coordination of Resources --The DOT/HHS
Coordination Council coordinates the efficient provision of
humans services transportation. Paratransit is very expensive,
so the Coordination Council is looking for efficient models from
other systems, such as those for the aging. Congress has now
required this coordination. The Coordination Council is
considering expanding to include other federal agencies, and the
name of the Council has recently been changed to Coordinating
Council on Access and Mobility.  The new Council's proposed
strategic plan includes identifying ways to integrate disability
employment issues with transportation coordination. The Council
is also considering how human services transportation can be
used as a tool for encouraging and creating economic
development.

RECOMMENDATIONS--

--DOT and HHS should continue to work together on their
Coordination Council to explore ways to make more efficient use
of the different systems of human services transportation that
exist in any given area. Where necessary, other agencies such as
HUD and DOL should be brought into the Council.

--DOT and private sector organizations such as ITS America, in
the context of the overall goals of the ITS program, should
explore, including as one component, how Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) deployments can be developed and
used to link the various human services transportation systems
so that they are easy to use, administratively simple for the
funding agencies, and cost effective.

--HHS and DOL should continue to work with state human services
departments to ensure that their human services work plans
include solving transportation problems.

--DOT should work with metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs) to ensure transportation from home to work for people
with disabilities is taken into consideration in developing and
carrying out regional transportation plans and projects. These
plans should include human services transportation and should
also include meeting the needs of those who may no longer be
eligible for vouchered transportation.

ISSUE: Access to Voter Registration --The Motor Voter law
includes provisions to make voter registration more accessible.
Much voter registration under the law takes place at state motor
vehicle department buildings (DMVs). DOT's National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration has jurisdiction over DMVs.

RECOMMENDATION--

--In areas where it has not been ascertained that state DVMs are
fully accessible, DOT should conduct compliance reviews and
initiate other efforts to determine how accessible the state
DMVs are. If a high level of physical and program accessibility
does not exist in all state DMVs, DOT will consider issuing
subregulatory guidance and exploring other ways to encourage
access.

REFERENCES

Louis Harris & Associates. "Highlights of the N.O.D./Harris 1998
Survey of Americans with Disabilities." Online. National
Organization on Disability. Internet. Nov. 1998. Available at:
http://www.nod.org/presssurvey.html#survey.

Members of the Work Group on
Review of the Department of Transportation's Policy and Programs

CHAIR:

Ronald A. Stroman, Office of Civil Rights

CO-CHAIR:

Marc Brenman, Office of Civil Rights

MEMBERS:

Susan Abrams, Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs
Alice Alexander, Office of the Secretary
Phyllis Alston, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Bob Ashby, Assistant General Counsel for Regulations and
Enforcement
Douglas Birnie, Federal Transit Administration
Brenda Bobo, U.S. Coast Guard
Linda J. Brown, Federal Highway Administration
John Budnik, Office of Assistant Secretary for Management
John Day, Federal Transit Administration
Gail Edwards, Federal Highway Administration
Helen Hagin, Research and Special Programs Administration
Nate Hayes, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Cheryl Hershey, Federal Transit Administration
Bert Jackson, Federal Railroad Administration
Nancy Johnson, Federal Highway Administration
Ira Laster, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy
Diane Litman, Chief Information Officer
Arthur Lopez, Federal Transit Administration
David Micklin, Federal Aviation Administration
Diana Marino, Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs
Ed Morris, Federal Highway Administration
Mary-Elizabeth Peters, Federal Transit Administration and DOT
Employees with Disabilities
Maria Pugh, Federal Aviation Administration
George Quick, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pat Randall, Maritime Administration
Denise Schossler, Assistant Secretary for Management
Rita Simons, Office of Civil Rights
Linda Somerville, Maritime Administration
Norman Strickman, General Counsel
Mark Tessier, Federal Highway Administration
Gabrielle Valdivieso, Transportation Administrative Services
Center and DOT Deaf Employees
Brenda Wilson, Federal Transit Administration
Michael Winter, Federal Transit Administration
Richard Wong, Federal Transit Administration
Blane Workie, General Counsel

Work Group on the
Estoppel Issue

_________________________________Mandate from Section 2 (e) of
the Executive Order__________________________________

The Departments of Justice, Education, and Labor, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Social Security
Administration shall work together and report to the Task Force
by November 15, 1998, on their work to propose remedies to the
prevention of people with disabilities from successfully
exercising their employment rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 because of the receipt of monetary
benefits based on their disability and lack of gainful
employment.

BACKGROUND

Many individuals who have applied for or received payments under
a disability benefit plan have faced barriers in asserting
claims under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Many courts have concluded that a statement of inability to work
made in an application for disability benefits was legally
inconsistent with a claim of employment discrimination under the
ADA. Such a rule severely undermines one of the ADA's most
important objectives--to allow individuals with disabilities to
move from dependence on disability benefits programs to
independence and economic self-sufficiency.

The primary purposes of the ADA are to eliminate barriers that
prevent individuals with disabilities from participating in "the
economic and social mainstream of American life" and to provide
equal employment and other opportunities for persons with
disabilities. By contrast, the Social Security Act, workers'
compensation laws, and private disability insurance plans are
intended to provide income replacement for individuals who,
because of disability, are generally unable to work.

These different policy objectives have resulted in different
definitions of individuals who are entitled to protection under
Title I of the ADA and individuals who are entitled to
disability benefits. Title I of the ADA protects "qualified
individuals with disabilities." This definition focuses on the
ability of an individual with a disability to perform the
essential or fundamental duties of a particular employment
position with or without reasonable accommodation. Disability
benefit plans, such as those established under the Social
Security Act, consider only the individual's general incapacity
to work. Unlike the ADA, most disability benefits plans do not
consider whether or not an individual could perform a particular
job for a particular employer. Nor do many disability benefit
plans distinguish between a job's essential and marginal
functions. Finally, the effect of reasonable accommodation on a
person's ability to do his or her job is generally not
considered when determining eligibility for disability benefits
and is not considered in the federal Social Security disability
programs. It is not inconsistent for an individual to meet both
the ADA's definition of "qualified individual with a disability"
and the definition of "disability" under a disability benefit
plan.

However, courts have dismissed ADA claims brought by individuals
who had applied for disability benefits based on inability to
work, reasoning that a plaintiff who had asserted on a benefits
application that she or he could not work could not be a
qualified individual with a disability under the ADA. Often,
plaintiffs in these cases could not work because they had been
denied a requested reasonable accommodation. In other instances,
employers had encouraged plaintiffs to file for disability
benefits upon their termination. Courts rarely considered these
or other relevant facts that might have demonstrated that
particular plaintiffs were in fact qualified individuals with
disabilities under the ADA.

In February 1997, the EEOC published an enforcement guidance,
which analyzed the differences between the ADA's purposes and
standards and the purposes and standards of the Social Security
Act and other disability benefits programs. The EEOC concluded
in the guidance that representations made in applications for
disability benefits are relevant, but that such representations
alone did not determine whether a plaintiff was a qualified
individual with a disability under the ADA. In accordance with
the guidelines, EEOC filed a number of AMICUS briefs urging the
appellate courts to reject the estoppel argument.

Since the issuance of the guidance, most of the circuits that
have addressed this issue have concluded that statements made in
support of an application for disability benefits are only one
piece of evidence to be considered in determining whether the
plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability. While
most circuit courts now apply a standard like the one set out in
the EEOC's enforcement guidance, many courts are nevertheless
concluding that the particular individuals before them are not
qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of
the ADA. See, e.g., Blanton v. Inco Alloys Intern., Inc., 123
F.3d 916 (6th Cir. 1997); Weigel v. Target Stores, 122 F3d 461
(7th Cir. 1997). Other circuit court decisions have remanded
cases to the district courts for development of a factual record
on the issue of whether particular plaintiffs are qualified
individuals with disabilities. See, e.g., Johnson v. State of
Oregon, --- F.3d ---, 1998 WL 181297 (9th Cir. 1998); Griffith
v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 135 F.3d 376 (6th Cir. 1998); Swanks
v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 116 F.3d 582 (D.C. Cir.
1997). It is not yet clear whether and to what extent district
courts will apply the standards set out in the EEOC 's guidance
in the cases that have been remanded.

Additionally, two circuits have applied a higher evidentiary
standard than the one set out in the EEOC 's enforcement
guidance when considering ADA claims by plaintiffs who have also
applied for disability benefits. In Cleveland v. Policy
Management Systems Corp., 139 F3d 513 (5th Cir. 1997) the Fifth
Circuit held that an ADA plaintiff's claim for disability
benefits creates a rebuttable presumption that the individual is
not a qualified individual with a disability. This means that
the burden is shifted to the plaintiff, who has to present other
evidence to prove that he or she is in fact a qualified
individual with a disability. Since the Cleveland decision was
issued, not one of the many court decisions in the Fifth Circuit
has found an individual who applied for disability benefits to
be a "qualified individual with a disability" under the ADA. The
Cleveland decision is under consideration for writ of certiorari
before the U.S. Supreme Court. The writ of certiorari is a
discretionary device used by the Supreme Court to select the
cases it wishes to hear. A writ allows the Court to inspect the
record of a case tried in a lower court for any irregularities.

The Eighth Circuit held in Moore v. Payless Shoe Source, Inc.,
139 F.3d 1210 (8th Cir. 1998) that plaintiffs must produce
strong countervailing evidence to overcome prior representations
made in applications for disability benefits. The court did not
explain what type of evidence would be necessary to meet this
standard, concluding only that Moore had failed to produce such
evidence and was thus not a qualified individual with a
disability entitled to the ADA's protection.

EFFORTS ALREADY UNDERWAY

In July 1998, the Solicitor General filed a brief in support of
a petition for writ of certiorari in the Cleveland case, in
response to a Supreme Court order inviting the government to
file a brief setting forth its views. The filing of the brief
involved a coordinated effort with both the Social Security
Administration and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The Solicitor General urged the Supreme Court to agree to review
this case because the Fifth Circuit's ruling frustrates the
ADA's purposes by denying to most applicants for or recipients
of disability benefits the opportunity to pursue meritorious ADA
claims. On October 5, 1998, the Supreme Court agreed to review
the case this term.

RECOMMENDATIONS

--The Social Security Administration should continue to revise
its disability forms in a way that would make it less likely
that the courts could conclude that the application for or
receipt of benefits under the Social Security Act would preclude
an individual from pursuing a claim under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

--The Task Force, in conjunction with appropriate federal,
state, and professional entities, should initiate research and
policy analysis on the claims process for other income support
programs for individuals with disabilities (worker's
compensation, disability retirement, etc.) to assess whether or
not these systems limit an individual's ability to maintain an
ADA or Rehabilitation Act claim.

REFERENCES

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC Enforcement
Guidance: The Effect of Representations Made in Applications for
Disability Benefits on the Determination of Whether a Person is
a "Qualified Individual with a Disability" Under the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Americans with Disabilities
Act Manual (BNA), No. 62 at 70:1251 (Feb. 12, 1997).

Members of the Work Group on the
Estoppel Issue

CO-CHAIRS:

Liz Savage, Department of Justice

Chris Kuczynski, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

MEMBERS:

Steve Aleman, Department of Education
Suzan Chastain, Department of Labor
Eileen Houghton, Social Security Administration
Marie Strahan, Social Security Administration
Joyce Walker-Jones, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Work Group on the Measurement
of the Employment Rate of Adults with Disabilities

_________________________________Mandate from Section 2 (f) of
the Executive Order__________________________________

The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor and
the Census Bureau of the Department of Commerce, in cooperation
with the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services,
the National Council on Disability, and the President's
Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities shall design
and implement a statistically reliable and accurate method to
measure the employment rate of adults with disabilities as soon
as possible, but no later than the date of termination of the
Task Force. Data derived from this methodology shall be
published on as frequent a basis as possible.

BACKGROUND

Since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in
1990, policy-makers, analysts, and others concerned with the
labor market situation of people with disabilities have been
searching for an accurate employment measure for adults with
disabilities. The employment rate, as a measure of labor market
activity, gauges the impact of legislation and programs that are
designed to help persons with disabilities participate as fully
as possible in the labor market. The data also would show how
the cyclical expansions and contractions of the economy affect
employment among those with disabilities as compared to other
population groups.

Finding a way to define and measure disability accurately has
been a challenge. Compared with other personal characteristics,
disability has many dimensions. The definition of disability may
rest on individual perceptions, changes in environmental
barriers, or changes in the particular impairment or condition.

Efforts to produce a statistically accurate and reliable measure
of the employment rate for adults with disabilities have been
inconclusive. A cooperative initiative undertaken by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, the Bureau of the Census, the President's
Committee on the Employment of People with Disabilities, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the National
Council on Disability designed and tested a very small battery
of questions aimed at identifying persons with disabilities. To
determine whether or not these questions would identify
accurately persons with disabilities, they were inserted into
the Survey of Income and Program Participation in mid-1997. The
preliminary results of this test, which became available in
early 1998, were not encouraging. The test questions did a fair
job of identifying persons with severe disabilities, but a very
poor job of identifying all persons with disabilities. These
results suggested that a different approach might be needed, and
the agencies involved in this test began to look for one.

EFFORTS ALREADY UNDERWAY

In order to obtain data for calculating an employment rate, it
is likely that questions identifying persons with disabilities
will have to be added to a household survey that collects
employment information. Adding questions to a household survey
requires a great deal of research and the systematic efforts of
a number of subject-matter, cognitive research, and
survey-design specialists.

A research plan is currently being designed to produce
statistically reliable estimates of the employment rate of
adults with disabilities. It will:

1. Evaluate various definitions of disability that could be used
in conjunction with the collection of labor market data.

2. Evaluate existing survey questions and research. This can
provide useful information for the design of future questions.

3. Develop survey questions (or modify old ones) based on what
has been learned from research.

4. Test and evaluate questions.

5. Determine appropriate host instrument in which to field the
questions.

Although some of these activities can be done simultaneously,
this is likely to be a long-term effort involving experts in
many different fields and a great deal of research and testing.
It is possible, therefore, that the task will extend over much
of the life of the Executive Order. The project is also likely
to require a considerable investment of time, effort, and
resources on the part of the agencies involved.

Members are beginning to assist one another in analyzing
on-going surveys and making methodological improvements. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is assisting the Centers for
Disease Control with its employment questions in the National
Health Interview Survey. The BLS and the Census Bureau are
looking into consistency problems with disability data from the
Survey of Income and Program Participation. A comparison of
answers to the disability questions seems to indicate an
extraordinary amount of change over a year's time in the
disability status of the same persons.

In short, benefits to disability statistics research are already
beginning to emerge that should ultimately prove useful in
fulfilling the mandate.

WHAT REMAINS TO BE DONE

Two avenues will be explored towards obtaining reliable measures
of the employment rate of adults with disabilities. For the long
term, a research plan will be refined and pursued. This will
involve collecting and evaluating existing information on
collection of data on persons with disabilities and initiating
original research to fill in gaps that are identified. As
information is gathered and evaluated, new avenues for research
may be suggested, and the research plan may need to be changed
to reflect the new data.

In the short term, approaches will be examined to provide
interim measures of employment rates for adults with
disabilities. At present, two household surveys exist that
contain questions on both employment and disability. These are
the Survey of Income and Program Participation, and the National
Health Interview Survey. Both contain fairly extensive questions
on disability, but the questions each contains on employment are
based on different concepts. It will take some time to evaluate
both the absolute and relative merits of either survey for this
task.

NEXT STEP--BEYOND NOVEMBER 15

A great deal of developmental work, namely research and
evaluation, remains to be done. Such a research program requires
a reliable source of funding and personnel. Therefore, it is
recommended that the agencies involved in this effort examine
what resources can be devoted to it. Once the research and
development work is completed, a reliable source of funding will
have to be developed to produce regular estimates of the
employment rate for adults with disabilities.

Members of the Work Group on
Measurement of the Employment Rate of Adults with Disabilities

CHAIR:

Philip Rones, Bureau of Labor Statistics

MEMBERS:

Michelle Adler, Social Security Administration
Mary Bowler, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Scott Brown, Department of Education
Philip Calkins, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Jim Esposito, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Thomas Hale, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Howard Hayghe, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Gerry Hendershot, National Center for Health Statistics
Paul Hippolitus, President's Commission on the Employment of
People with Disabilities
Peter Hunt, National Center for Health Statistics
Andrew Imparato, National Council on Disability
David Keer, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research
Bill Marton, Health and Human Services
Mark Maxim, Department of Labor
Bill Mc Kinnon, Department of Labor
John Mc Neil, Bureau of the Census
Craig Perkins, Department of Justice
Toni Pochucha, Department of Justice
Gary Reed, Department of Labor
Tom Rush, Social Security Administration
Katherine Seelman, National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research
Elvira Sisolak, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

----------
Appendix B

A Demographic Profile of People with Disabilities

Eight Years After Passage of the American with Disabilities
Act--Where Do We Stand in Addressing Disability Issues? Public
Law 101-336, The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990,
begins with a statement of Congressional findings that provide
the rationale for what President George Bush referred to as "the
world's first declaration of equality for persons with
disabilities" (NCD, 1997, p. 179). In assessing where America is
today with respect to integration of people with disabilities in
society, it is worth re-examining some of the findings cited in
Section 2, Findings and Purposes (Public Law 101-336). Selected
findings (in bold italics below) cited by Congress in support of
passage of the ADA are reiterated, along with a brief discussion
of where the country is today with respect to the issues
highlighted in the findings.

$ Some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental
disabilities, and this number is increasing as the population as
a whole is growing older. At the time that the ADA became the
law of the land, the best estimates were that roughly 43 million
Americans had disabilities. As the second part of this finding
suggested, that number was growing significantly due to aging of
the population, as well as to other factors discussed later in
this chapter. Estimates of the number of people with
disabilities vary significantly, depending on the source cited.
Perhaps the most reliable source--Census Bureau data gleaned
from the 1994-95 Survey of Income and Program Participation
(SIPP)--suggest that there are currently about 54 million
Americans with some level of disability (McNeil, 1997). About 26
million of these individuals have disabilities characterized as
"severe" using SIPP definitions (McNeil, 1997). These data,
suggesting an increase of about 25 percent in the size of the
disability population in the first half of the 1990s, can be
attributed to the aging of the population.

$ Discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists
in such critical areas as employment, housing, public
accommodations, education, transportation, communication,
recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and
access to public services. In its 1996 report on Achieving
Independence, the National Council on Disability (NCD, 1996)
cited evidence that discriminatory practices persist in
virtually all of the areas cited in this Congressional finding.
Relatively low employment rates for people with disabilities may
also be partly a function of discrimination.

Census Bureau data indicate that 26.1 percent of people with
severe disabilities were employed in the mid-1990s (McNeil,
1997). This compares with a 76.9 percent employment rate for
people with disabilities that were not severe and an 82.1
percent employment rate for people without disabilities (McNeil,
1997). Other surveys, most notably the N.O.D./Harris surveys of
people with disabilities, suggest that employment rates for
people with disabilities are far lower than suggested by the
1994-95 SIPP results. Regardless of the data source consulted,
the conclusions are the same, people with severe disabilities
are not employed at rates comparable to those of people without
disabilities.

$ Unlike individuals who have experienced discrimination on the
basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, or age,
individuals who have experienced discrimination on the basis of
disability have often had no legal recourse to redress such
discrimination. Various provisions of the ADA have been phased
in over the eight years since its signing, and there is evidence
that more funding is needed for enforcement. In 1996, the
National Council on Disability specifically noted that A The
lack of adequate resources dedicated to enforcement limits the
impact of disability laws@ (NCD, 1996, p. 5). Specific to
employment, Trupin et al., (1997, p. 19) concluded that A . . .
enforcement mechanisms of the ADA have not proven sufficient to
begin narrowing the gap in employment rates between people with
and without disabilities.@ Enforcement of existing legislation
designed to eliminate disability-based discrimination in all
aspects of life, including employment, is clearly inadequate.
Enactment of potentially powerful legislative remedies, like the
ADA, without commitment of resources to enforcement will not
produce desired results. Both public and private assessments of
the ADA suggest that the lack of enforcement, particularly with
regard to employment, has diminished the impact that this
landmark legislation might otherwise have had.

$ Census data, national polls, and other national studies have
documented that people with disabilities, as a group, occupy an
inferior status in our society, and are severely disadvantaged
socially, vocationally, economically, and educationally. As the
nation prepares to enter the 21st century, the available data
continue to reflect the second-class status accorded people with
severe disabilities in American society. People with
disabilities generally have lower personal and household incomes
than does the general population (Kruse, 1998). People with
disabilities are much more likely to be living in poverty and
receiving means-tested incomes than are people without
disabilities (Kruse, 1998). While questions have been raised
about polling methods used and the accuracy of the results,
findings from the most recent N.O.D./Harris survey further
support the contention that people with disabilities have a
lower quality of life than their non-disabled peers (Louis
Harris and Associates, 1998). The N.O.D./Harris survey cited
evidence of diminished life quality with respect to income
levels, education, social activities, and overall satisfaction
with life (Louis Harris and Associates, 1998). The relationship
between employment and life quality is undeniable. Kruse (1998,
p. 20) attributed the diminished socioeconomic status of people
with disabilities "largely to lower employment rates."

$ The Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with
disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full
participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency
for such individuals. Virtually all of the available evidence
indicates that, the Nation is not attaining its "proper goals."
Achieving Independence included the observation, A Public policy
continues to send mixed messages to people with disabilities, on
the one hand stating independence as a goal and on the other
hand constructing significant obstacles to its achievement @
(NCD, 1996, p. 4). The lack of clarity of the message sent
regarding independence and avenues to its achievement is
reflected in the effect that disability has on the work
activities of people with disabilities. A The effects of a
disability on the work activity of individuals are pervasive
and, in a global sense, negative. This is particularly evident
in labor force activity rates: persons with severe disabilities
participated in the labor market at dramatically lower rates
than did persons with no disabilities or moderate disabilities @
(Hale, Hayghe, and McNeil, 1998, p. 10). Labor force
participation is influenced by the fact that A. . . disability
compensation programs often pay nearly as much as many jobs
available to people with disabling conditions, especially given
that such programs also provide health insurance and many
lower-paying jobs do not. Moreover, disability compensation
programs often make an attempt to return to work risky, since
health insurance is withdrawn soon after earnings begin and
procuring a job with good health insurance benefits is often
difficult in the presence of disabling conditions@ (Brandt and
Pope, 1997, p. 159). The Nation's Aproper goals @ will not be
realized so long as public policy does not promote employment of
people with disabilities. As suggested from the following brief
discussion, failure to take the steps needed to promote
employment of people with disabilities will have a significant
economic impact on society.

$ The continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary
discrimination and prejudice denies people with disabilities the
opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those
opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous,
and costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary
expenses resulting from dependency and nonproductivity. An
Institute of Medicine report cited data from the 1994 National
Health Interview Survey (NIHS) indicating that the loss in wages
associated with people with disabilities who could work, but
were not, amounted to $158.7 billion (Brandt and Pope, 1997).
This was the equivalent of 2.4 percent of the gross domestic
product for 1994 (Brandt and Pope, 1997). Kruse (1997) estimated
that employment of one million people with disabilities would
result in an annual increase of $21.2 billion in earned income,
along with decreases of $286 million in food stamp use and $1.8
billion in Social Security income benefits. These data suggest
the high cost that America pays for its failure to address
problems that contribute to unemployment and nonemployment of
people with disabilities. The American public should demand
action in correcting these problems through strategies that
promote full employment of all Americans, including Americans
with disabilities.

The Changing Construct of Disability and Its Implications for
Data Collection. Although the depth and quality of data on
disability and related issues, including employment, continue to
improve, enhancements in data collection have not kept pace with
an evolving understanding of disability and contributing
factors. Historically, disability has been viewed from the
perspective of medical pathology and individual functional
limitations that result from such pathology. In this traditional
model, the approach to reducing the impact of disability rested
almost exclusively in A fixing@ the person with the disability
(DeJong, 1979). With the advent of the independent living and
disability rights movements, greater attention began to focus on
the role of the environment as a factor in disability. DeJong
(1979) documented differences between the traditional view of
disability and an evolving view of disability in which the
environment played an important role. DeJong contrasted what he
called the Arehabilitation paradigm @ with what he labeled the
Aindependent living paradigm.@ The contrasts are summarized in
figure 1, below:


Figure 1: Comparison of Rehabilitation and Independent Living
Paradigms
Item Rehabilitation Paradigm Independent Living Paradigm

Definition of problem Physical impairment/Lack of vocational
skills Dependence on professionals, relatives, etc.
Locus of problem In individual In environment; in the
rehabilitation process
Solution to the problem Professional intervention by physician,
physical therapist, occupational therapist, vocational
rehabilitation counselor, etc. Peer counseling, advocacy,
self-help, consumer control, removal of barriers
Social role Patient/client Consumer
Who controls Professional Consumer
Desired outcomes Maximum ADL gainful employment Independent
living

Source: DeJong, G. (1979). AIndependent Living: From Social
Movement to Analytic Paradigm. @ Archives of Physical Medicine &
Rehabilitation, 60:435-446.


ALTERNATE VERSION:  FIGURE 1

Figure 1: Comparison of Rehabilitation and Independent Living
Paradigms

Item Rehabilitation Paradigm Independent Living Paradigm

Definition of problem                         Physical
impairment/Lack of vocational skills
Dependence on professionals, relatives, etc.

Locus of problem
               In individual
                In environment In the rehabilitation process


Solution to the problem

                    Professional intervention by physician,
physical therapist, occupational therapist, vocational
rehabilitation counselor, etc.

                                                      Peer
counseling, advocacy, self-help, consumer control, removal of
barriers


Social role Patient/client Consumer

Who controls
            Professional
                                            Consumer

Desired outcomes
Maximum ADL gainful employment
                 Independent living

Source: DeJong, G. (1979). AIndependent Living: From Social
Movement to Analytic Paradigm. @ Archives of Physical Medicine &
Rehabilitation, 60:435-446.

The social construct described by DeJong in his Aindependent
living paradigm@ suggests that our thinking about disability
must be altered to accommodate a much more complex array of
contributing factors than were included in the traditional
Amedical model @ that has guided disability policy for decades.
In fact, this realization was articulated in the Enabling
America report published by the Institute of Medicine. In the
report, the expert panel referenced the three data collection
series on which much disability policy is based--the National
Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the Current Population Survey
(CPS), and the Survey of Income and Program Participation
(SIPP). The report also highlighted the fact that A. . . the
design of each of these series predates the development of a
more contemporary understanding of the process by which
pathologies, impairments, and functional limitations give rise
to disability. . . .@ (Brandt and Pope, 1997, p. 61).

There is clearly a need for research to develop an appropriate
definition of disability which may be used in survey research to
measure as accurately and as reliably as possible the numbers
and status of people with disabilities. Indeed, in the Executive
Order establishing the Presidential Task Force on Employment of
Adults with Disabilities, directive (f) mandates that the
relevant Federal agencies,
A. . . design and implement a statistically reliable and
accurate method to measure employment rate of adults with
disabilities. . . .@ To fulfill the mandate, researchers must
draw upon traditional and contemporary models of disability
constructs.

It should be noted that when the Bureau of Labor Statistics
develops national employment and unemployment information
through the Current Population Survey, it uses specific
definitions of activities to determine an individual's
employment status. To be employed, for example, one must have
done work for pay or profit or worked in a family-owned business
for more than 15 hours, even though the respondent did not get
paid. Other statistical agencies, such as the National Center
for Health Statistics and the Bureau of the Census, have
different definitions of employment and other labor-force
status. These differences have a basis in the respondents'
current military status, the reference period in question, and
specific activities that may or may not count as employment.

What Is Known about People with Disabilities? The previous
discussion suggests that current data on disability were
gathered using measures that do not reflect current
understanding of factors that contribute to disability. However,
some of the available data are helpful in trying to assess the
scope of the problem that the Task Force is facing in its
efforts to promote full employment for people with disabilities.

As we prepare to enter the 21st century, the number of people
with disabilities is growing. Furthermore, the data that are
available to guide policy development and implementation suggest
that efforts to improve the quality of lives of people with
disabilities are not yielding the kinds of results that many
expect.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there are significant variations in
estimates of the number of people with disabilities, as well as
in rates of employment and nonemployment among people with
disabilities depending on the data source that one consults.
However, the conclusion that any informed reader must reach,
regardless of the source of the data on disability that one
uses, is that the majority of people with disabilities are not
employed.

Growth in the Number of People with Disabilities. Data, reported
by the Census Bureau using information from the 1994-95 Survey
of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) indicate that
approximately one in five, or about 54 million Americans have
some level of disability (McNeil, 1997). The report further
indicated that about approximately one in ten Americans, about
26 million people, had a severe disability. This represented
increases from the figures of 49 million people with a
disability and 24 million people reporting severe disabilities
when the data were examined three years earlier.

Other important findings from the Census Bureau report dealt
with issues of race and ethnicity, health insurance coverage,
and perhaps most importantly from the perspective of this
report, rates of employment and earnings of people with
disabilities.

$ Race/Ethnicity: The Census Bureau found some differences by
race and Hispanic origin in the prevalence of disability within
age groups. Within the 22-44-year-old age group, the proportion
with a severe disability was 5.6 percent among whites, 11.8
percent among blacks, and 6.7 percent among people of Hispanic
origin. In the 45-to54-year-old age group, the severe disability
rate was 10.5 percent among whites, 18.4 percent among blacks,
and 15.7 percent among people of Hispanic origin.

$ Health Insurance Coverage: Among people age 22 to 64 years old
with no disability, 79.9 percent were covered by private health
insurance, while 3.0 percent had only government coverage. In
contrast, among people with a severe disability in the same age
group, only 43.7 percent had private health insurance coverage,
while 39.6 percent had government coverage only.

$ Employment Rates: The employment rate for people 21 to 64
years of age was 82.1 percent among those with no disability,
76.9 percent among those with a disability that was not severe,
and 26.1 percent among those with a severe disability. Data
collected three years earlier for people in the same age group
showed employment rates of 80.5 percent for those with no
disability, 76.0 percent for those with a disability that was
not severe, and 23.3 percent for those with a severe disability.
The statistically significant increase in the employment rate of
people with severe disabilities between 1991 and 1994 is
noteworthy.

$ Earnings and Disability: Census Bureau data also showed that,
among those people who were working, the presence of a
disability was associated with lower earnings. Also women with
disabilities earned less than men with disabilities (McNeil,
1997).

These data suggest that the while the growth in the number of
people with disabilities has been accompanied by some
improvement in rates of employment, there is still a high
percentage of people with disabilities who are not working. For
people with severe disabilities, nearly three-quarters reported
being nonemployed. Data on earning levels suggest that people
with disabilities who are employed are likely to be earning less
than their non-disabled peers.

Some Data Suggest That Census Bureau Estimates May Be Low.
Generally speaking, Census Bureau data are thought to be the
most reliable estimates of disability rates and related
statistical data. However, other organizations also gather data
and make estimates of employment rates and other parameters
related to disability. Periodically the polling firm of Louis
Harris and Associates, working in collaboration with the
National Organization on Disability (N.O.D.) conducts a national
poll of people with disabilities to gather data on an number of
issues related to employment and life quality. The N.O.D./Harris
1998 Survey of Americans with Disabilities did not reveal the
gains in employment for people with disabilities suggested in
findings reported by the Census Bureau.

The N.O.D./Harris 1998 Survey of Americans with Disabilities
found that, among working-age adults with disabilities (ages
18-64), three out of ten (29%) were working full-time or
part-time, compared with eight out of ten (79%) of those without
disabilities (Louis Harris and Associates, 1998). Furthermore,
the findings from the poll suggest that the proportion of
working-age adults with disabilities has actually declined since
1986, when one in three (34%) were working (Louis Harris and
Associates, 1998). Other selected findings from the 1998 survey
also are indicative of a lower quality of life enjoyed by many
people with disabilities as compared with people without
disabilities. Among these are:

$ Among people with disabilities age 16 to 64 who are not
employed, seven out of ten (72%) say they would prefer to be
working.

$ Two out of three adults with disabilities say that their
disability has prevented (41%) or made it more difficult (26%)
for them to get the kind of job they would like to have.

$ Adults with disabilities who are working full-time are more
likely today than in 1994 to say that one of the barriers they
have faced in trying to find jobs is that Athe jobs I could get
don't pay enough@ (47% versus 31%).

$ One out of five (20%) of adults with disabilities aged 18 and
over has not graduated from high school, compared with one in
ten (9%) of adults without disabilities.

$ Adults who describe themselves as severely disabled are even
more likely not to have completed high school (22% versus 14% of
those who describe their disabilities as slight or moderate).

$ Fully a third (34%) of adults with disabilities live in a
household with an annual income of less than $15,000 in 1997,
compared with only about one in eight (12%) of those without
disabilities (Louis Harris and Associates, 1998).

The results of the N.O.D./Harris surveys are questioned by some
regarding the sampling processes used, the way in which
questions are posed, and the interpretation of the results.
Certainly, the methods used in these surveys are different from
those used in what some might consider more scientific data
gathering done by the Census Bureau and other government
agencies and academic institutions. Nonetheless, data from the
N.O.D./Harris surveys provide another indicator of the
perceptions of quality of life and factors that influence such
quality. In fact, the N.O.D./Harris 1998 survey data are
consistent with findings from the Census Bureau analyses in
supporting the finding that people with severe disabilities are
nonemployed at rates far higher than the nonemployment rates for
people without disabilities. The findings also provide further
evidence that discrimination directed toward and diminished work
opportunities afforded to people with disabilities contributes
to degradation in the quality of life enjoyed by them.

The Changing Composition of the Disability Population

A A Graying@ America. A contributing factor in the difficulties
associated with estimating rates of disability in the overall
population and in specific subsets of the population has to do
with the changing characteristics of the population. The
Agraying @ of the American population certainly contributes
significantly to the growth in the numbers of people with
disabilities. As the data from the supplement of the Current
Population Survey conducted in March 1997 (summarized in Figure
2) suggest, the implications of an aging population with respect
to disability rates are significant.

The rates for both severe and non-severe disabilities increase
dramatically as individuals advance through their working years
and beyond. These data suggest that there will be increasing
numbers of people with disabilities associated with aging,
including visual and hearing impairments, severe arthritis, and
functional impairments associated with stroke and other
cardiovascular diseases. For policy makers and program planners,
this trend is further complicated by the fact that the work life
of Americans is being extended further and further.


FIGURE 2: Work Disability and Severe Work Disability Increase
with Age

0
25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
0

_ Work Disability
G Severe Work Disability
0

Percent with Disability
0

Age Groups
0

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Web site--Table 197
www.census.gov/hhes/www/disable/cps
Supplemental Survey: CPS, March 1997
0


TEXT VERSION:  FIGURE 2

-----------------------------------------------------------------
------

FIGURE 2: WORK DISABILITY AND SEVERE WORK DISABILITY INCREASE
WITH AGE

Work Disability--Percent with Disability

16-24 years 4.2%

25-34 years 6.6%

35-44 years 9.3%

45-54 years 13.3%

55-65 years 23.2%

Severe Work Disability--Percent with Disability

16-24 years 2.7%

25-34 years 4.0%

35-44 years 6.1%

45-54 years 8.3%

55-65 years 15.9%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Web site--Table 197
www.census.gov/hhes/www/disable/cps

Supplemental Survey: CPS, March 1997

-----------------------------------------------------------------
------

Mental Health Problems Appear to Pose Special Challenges with
Regard to Employment. Sound data on the prevalence and incidence
of mental health problems are difficult to secure. LaPlante and
Carlson (1996) reported that, based on their analyses of data
from 1992, about two million Americans experience disability
related to schizophrenia, other psychoses, and non-psychotic
mental disorders, including anxiety disorders. Other sources of
data suggest that these estimates are low. The National
Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association (1998) estimates
that 17.4 million adults will experience an affective or mood
disorder each year. Estimates available from the National
Institute of Mental Health (1998) indicate that, every year,
about 1.8 million Americans experience schizophrenia and another
11.6 million (6.3% of the population) experience mood disorders.

Whichever estimates one uses, the conclusion is the same, mental
health problems contribute significantly to job-related
disability in the United States. This fact is emphasized by data
indicating that labor force participation rates for people with
mental health problems lag far behind those of people with other
types of disabilities (Trupin et al., 1997). Labor force
participation rates for people under age 45 with mental health
disabilities consistently fall far below rates of all persons
with disabilities in the same age group (Trupin et al., 1997).

A Need for Better Support of Children with Disabilities Who Will
Be Entering the Job Market. While the Agraying @ of America
poses one challenge with regard to employment and disability,
another challenge can be found at the other end of the age
spectrum. Data from the 1994-95 SIPP indicate that about 12.7
percent of the 35 million children in the six to 14 age range
have some type of disability, with 1.9 percent of children in
this age group having a disability classified as severe (McNeil,
1997).
As noted in the following table, the number of children between
the ages of 6 and 21 who are served under the federal IDEA, Part
B and Chapter 1 Handicapped Program increased steadily from 1990
to 1995. Of particular note are the relatively high numbers of
children with specific learning disabilities, speech or language
impairments, mental retardation, and serious emotional
disturbance. Finally, the dramatic rates of increase in students
with orthopedic impairments and other health impairments should
be noted.


TABLE 1: Number of Students Ages 6-21 Served* During the
1990-91 through 1994-95 School Years

Change from 1990-91
School Year through 1994-95

Disability Condition 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95
Number Percent

Specific learning disabilities 2,144,017 2,247,004 2,366,487
2,428,112 2,513,977 369,960 17.3
Speech or language impairments 987,778 998,904 998,049 1,018,208
1,023,665 35,887 3.6
Mental retardation 551,457 553,262 532,362 553,869 570,855
19,398 3.5
Serious emotional disturbance 390,764 400,211 401,652 415,071
428,168 37,404 9.6
Multiple disabilities 97,629 98,408 103,279 109,730 89,646
-7,983 -8.2
Hearing impairments 59,211 60,727 60,616 64,667 65,568 6,357
10.7
Orthopedic impairments 49,340 51,389 52,588 56,842 60,604 11,264
22.8
Other health impairments 56,349 58,749 66,063 83,080 106,509
50,160 89.0
Visual impairments 23,682 24,083 23,544 24,813 24,877 1,195 5.0
Autism NA 5,415 15,580 19,058 22,780 22,780 --
Deaf-blindness 1,524 1,427 1,394 1,367 1,331 -193 -12.7
Traumatic brain injury NA 245 3,960 5,395 7,188 7,188 --
All disabilities 4,361,751 4,499,824 4,625,574 4,780,212
4,915,168 553,417 12.7

*The data for 1990-91 through 1993-94 include children 6 through
21 years of age served under IDEA, Part B and Chapter 1
Handicapped Program. For 1994-95, all children ages 6-21 are
served under Part B, which includes children previously counted
under the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program. Autism and traumatic
brain injury were introduced as separate reporting categories in
the 1991-92 school year as a result of P.L. 101-476, the 1990
Amendments to IDEA.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).


ALTERNATE VERSION:  TABLE 1

TABLE 1: Number of Students Ages 6-21 Served* During the

1990-91 through 1994-95 School Years

Change from 1990-91

School Year through 1994-95

Disability Condition 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95
Number Percent

Specific learning disabilities 2,144,017 2,247,004 2,366,487
2,428,112 2,513,977 369,960 17.3

Speech or language impairments 987,778 998,904 998,049 1,018,208
1,023,665 35,887 3.6

Mental retardation 551,457 553,262 532,362 553,869 570,855
19,398 3.5

Serious emotional disturbance 390,764 400,211 401,652 415,071
428,168 37,404 9.6

Multiple disabilities 97,629 98,408 103,279 109,730 89,646
-7,983 -8.2

Hearing impairments 59,211 60,727 60,616 64,667 65,568 6,357 10.7

Orthopedic impairments 49,340 51,389 52,588 56,842 60,604 11,264
22.8

Other health impairments 56,349 58,749 66,063 83,080 106,509
50,160 89.0

Visual impairments 23,682 24,083 23,544 24,813 24,877 1,195 5.0

Autism NA 5,415 15,580 19,058 22,780 22,780 --

Deaf-blindness 1,524 1,427 1,394 1,367 1,331 -193 -12.7

Traumatic brain injury NA 245 3,960 5,395 7,188 7,188 --

All disabilities 4,361,751 4,499,824 4,625,574 4,780,212
4,915,168 553,417 12.7

*The data for 1990-91 through 1993-94 include children 6 through
21 years of age served under IDEA, Part B and Chapter 1
Handicapped Program. For 1994-95, all children ages 6-21 are
served under Part B, which includes children previously counted
under the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program. Autism and traumatic
brain injury were introduced as separate reporting categories in
the 1991-92 school year as a result of P.L. 101-476, the 1990
Amendments to IDEA.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).

Programmatic Response to a Changing Disability Milieu. Before
closing this chapter, it is worth taking a look at the way in
which disability-related service programs and support systems
are responding to a changing disability environment. In 1997,
Trupin and colleagues at the Disability Statistics
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center at the University of
California San Francisco completed a retrospective review of
data on Trends in Labor Force Participation Among Persons with
Disabilities, 1983-1994.

In the report of Trupin et al. (1997), it was noted that labor
force participation rates for persons with disabilities differ
Adramatically @ across conditions: persons with disabilities
caused by impairments and respiratory conditions have high labor
force participation rates, while those with disabilities caused
by mental, endocrine, and circulatory conditions have low rates
(Trupin et al., 1997). In the concluding paragraph of the
report, the following observations are made:

     The passage and subsequent implementation of the
     Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990,
     combined with an improvement in the labor force
     participation rate of persons with disabilities during
     the 1980s, raised expectations for further improvement
     in the employment of such persons during this decade.
     This report demonstrates that the disparity in labor
     force participation rates between persons with and
     without disabilities has, if anything, grown in recent
     years. Of course, we do not know whether the
     employment situation for persons with disabilities
     would have been worse in the absence of the ADA.
     Nevertheless, the findings reported here suggest that
     the enforcement mechanisms of the ADA have not yet
     proved sufficient to begin narrowing the gap in
     employment rates between persons with and without
     disabilities (Trupin et al., 1997, p. 19).*

Disregarding for a moment issues of individual dignity and
quality life that are tied so inextricably to one's perceptions
of self worth and value to society, the costs to society in
allowing a significant portion of our population to remain
nonemployed merit some consideration. In another study of
employment and disability, conducted by a faculty member at
Rutgers University, some projections of the potential economic
impact of increased rates of employment among people with
disabilities were included. These projections alone offer a
powerful argument for more effective and aggressive efforts to
promote opportunities for employment of people with disabilities.

     Calculations based on the numbers presented here
     indicate that the employment of an additional one
     million people with disabilities could be associated
     with as much as an overall $21.2 billion annual
     increase in earned income, $1.2 billion annual
     decrease in means-tested cash income, $286 million
     annual decrease in use of food stamps, $1.8 billion
     decrease in Social Security income, and decrease of
     284,000 in the number using Medicaid and 166,000 in
     the number using Medicare. The magnitudes of these
     numbers, which should be seen as preliminary estimates
     that can be refined in future work, combine with the
     substantial non-monetary benefits of employment to
     reinforce the search for methods of increasing
     employment among people with disabilities (Kruse,
     1997, p. 28).

Final Observations Regarding the Changing Face of Disability.
The data that are available indicate significant and ongoing
growth in the number of people with disabilities. Furthermore,
it is clear that new approaches to examining disability, the
factors that contribute to disability, and the impact that
disability has on individuals, families, and the larger society
are needed. Data collection approaches have not kept pace with
an evolving understanding of disability and related issues.

Notwithstanding shortcomings in the data that we have, the
picture that these data paint is not a pretty one. What we see
is a significant subset of America's populationC Curtis (1989)
referred to them as America's Alargest minority @--living lives
of diminished quality because they are denied employment. Based
on data from the 1993-94 Survey of Income and Program
Participation (SIPP), Kruse (1997) determined that employment
could be clearly ruled out for 160,000 individuals of an
estimated 31.1 million working-age people with disabilities.
This estimate suggests that nearly 30

_______________

*When reviewing these observations in view of other data, one
should recognize that the employment rate for people with
moderate disabilities may have remained steady, or even improved
somewhat, while the employment rate for people with severe
disabilities remains strikingly low.

million people with disabilities should be employed,
contributing members of their communities and of the larger
society. Kruse's estimate of a 51.0% employment rate for persons
with disabilities, based on SIPP data, varies significantly from
the 29% employment rate reported in the N.O.D./Harris 1998
Survey of Americans with Disabilities. However, regardless of
the figure used for comparison purposes, the results are the
same--a vast majority of people with severe disabilities are not
working nor do they have reasonable opportunities to pursue
personal dreams or enjoy the promise of the American Dream.

The data cited here paint only a partial picture. Anyone with
real concern about his or her fellow Americans and about the
health and welfare of the society we live in should look more
closely at the sources of the data selectively cited here. What
these sources show is that we are not responding well to the
challenges posed in providing reasonable opportunities for a
decent of quality of life for people with disabilities. We are
charting a course for change that must yield far better results
in the 21st Century. The nation simply cannot afford to waste
the largely untapped resource of millions of skilled and
talented Americans who are denied the right to contribute to and
be part of America's progress and prosperity.

References

Brandt, E.N. and A.M. Pope, eds. Enabling America: Assessing the
Role of Rehabilitation Science and Engineering. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, 1997.

Curtis, J. A The Largest Minority.@ Foundation News,
November/December 1989:18-23.

DeJong, G. A Independent Living: From Social Movement to
Analytic Paradigm. @ Archives of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 60 (1979): 435-446.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Department
of Justice. Appendix A: Public Law 101-336, The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. Americans with Disabilities Act
Handbook. Washington, DC: 1991.

Hale, T. W., H. V. Hayghe, and J. M. McNeil. APersons with
Disabilities: Labor Market Activities, 1994.@ Monthly Labor
Review, 121.9(1998):3-12.

Haub, C. and K. Pollard. AWorld Profile: Environment and
Population--United States.@ Population Today, 26.9 (1998): 1-7.

Kruse, D. A Demographic, Income, and Health Care
Characteristics, 1993. @ Monthly Labor Review, 121.9
(1998):13-22.

- - -. A Report to the U.S. Department of Labor--Employment and
Disability: Characteristics of Employed and Non-Employed People
with Disabilities. Jersey City, NJ: Rutgers University, 1997.

LaPlante, M. P., and D. Carlson. Disability in the United
States: Prevalence and Causes, 1992. San Francisco: Institute on
Health and Aging, University of California-San Francisco, 1996.

Louis Harris & Associates. AHighlights of the N.O.D./Harris 1998
Survey of Americans with Disabilities. @ Online. National
Organization on Disability. Internet. Nov. 1998. Available at
http://www.nod.org/presssurvey.html#survey

McNeil, J.M. A Americans with Disabilities: 1994-95. @ Current
Population Reports. P70-61. Aug. 1997.

National Council on Disability. Achieving Independence: The
Challenge for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Council
on Disability, 1996.

National Council on Disability. Equality of Opportunity: The
Making of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC:
National Council on Disability, 1997.

National Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association. AOverview
of Depressive Illness and Its Symptoms.@ Online. Internet.
Nov.1998. Available at: http://www.ndmda.org/depover.htm.

National Information Center for Children and Youth with
Disabilities. A Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Fact
Sheet Number 19 (FS19).@ Online. Internet. Nov.1998. Available
at: http://www.nichcy.org/pubs/factshe/fs19txt.htm.

National Institute of Mental Health. AMental Illness. @ Online.
Auburn University. Internet. Nov.1998. Available at:
http://www.duc.auburn.edu/~mcquedr/psyinfo/ment_ill.htm.

Trupin, L., D. S. Sebesta, E. Yelin , and M. P. LaPlante..
ATrends in Labor Force Participation Among Persons with
Disabilities, 1993-94. @ Disability Statistics Report 10 (1997):
1-39.

U. S. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey. March
1997. Online. Internet. Available at
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disable/cps.

U. S. Department of Education. Eighteenth Annual Report to
Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. 1996. Online. Internet. Available
at: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/OSEP96AnlRpt/chap1b.html#table1.5.
Nov. 1998.

----------
Appendix C

Summary of the President's Executive Actions
on the
Eighth Anniversary of The Americans with Disabilities Act


THE WHITE HOUSE

July 29, 1998

In commemoration of the eighth anniversary of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), the President signed an Executive
Memorandum aimed at increasing employment and health care
options for people with disabilities. He also announced the
release of a letter to Medicaid Directors clarifying that the
ADA obligates states to offer appropriate community based
services. Finally, to build on these actions, the President is
also announcing his commitment to work with Senator Jeffords and
Senator Kennedy to pass affordable, feasible legislation to help
people with disabilities maintain their health care coverage and
return to work. Today, the President met with his Task Force on
Employment of People with Disabilities and advocates of people
with disabilities. In this meeting, the President:

Signed A New Presidential Memorandum to Increase Employment and
Health Care Options for People with Disabilities. While the ADA
has been critically important to people with disabilities,
significant challenges remain. Since 1993, 15 million new jobs
have been created. But the unemployment rate among the 30
million working-age adults with disabilities continues to be
much higher than that of the general population--close to 75
percent for people with significant disabilities. The President
signed an Executive Memorandum that will direct the relevant
agencies to:

Expand Public Education About the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Although more and more Americans are becoming aware of the
ADA, too many employers and employees do not know their rights
and responsibilities under the ADA. Today, the President is
directing the Attorney General, the Chair of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Administrator of the
Small Business Administration to expand public education about
the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
to employers, employees, and others whose rights may be
affected, with special attention to small businesses and
under-served populations.

Increase Information About New Medicaid Buy-in Option. Many
people with disabilities are not able to leave Social Security
programs to return to work because they will lose their health
care coverage. As part of last year's Balanced Budget Act, the
President signed into law a new state option to allow
individuals with disabilities who return to work, the ability to
purchase critically necessary Medicaid coverage as their
earnings increase. Today, the President is directing the
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to
ensure that Governors, state legislators, and state Medicaid
directors work with consumer organizations to take advantage of
this important option.

Issuing Letter Clarifying That ADA Obligates States to Offer
Appropriate Community Based Services. Recent court cases,
including Helen L. vs. DiDario, have interpreted the ADA to
require states to provide Medicaid services in the most
integrated setting appropriate to people with disabilities.
Today, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) is
sending a letter to all State Medicaid Directors clarifying that
under these standards, if an individual living in a facility
could live in a community with the right mix of support
services, reasonable steps should be taken to provide community
based services provided it does not fundamentally alter the
state program.

Announcing Support For Policies to Improve Health Options for
Working Adults With Disabilities. The President also announced
his strong commitment to work with Senators Jeffords, Kennedy,
and other Members of Congress to pass affordable, feasible
legislation that helps people with disabilities maintain their
health care coverage and return to work. The Jeffords-Kennedy
proposal would increase Medicaid options and state resources for
people with disabilities. It would also allow all Americans
receiving Social Security Disability Insurance to retain their
Medicare when they return to work, eliminating a provision in
current law that often requires people with disabilities to
choose between work and health insurance. The President directs
the Administration to utilize all of its policy and budgetary
expertise at HHS, the Office of Management and Budget, and the
White House to work towards the passage of affordable
legislation before the Congress adjourns this year, consistent
with the Administration's commitment to preserving the budget
surplus.

----------
Appendix D

Summary of Disability-Related Legislative Initiatives*

National Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1920 Established
state/federal system of rehabilitation services.

Social Security of Act of 1935 Established federal/state system
of health services for "crippled" children; permanently
authorized civilian rehabilitation program.

Wagner-O'Day Act of 1938 Authorized federal purchases from
workshops for people who are blind.

Randolph-Sheppard Act of 1938 Authorized federal program to
employ people who are blind as vendors on federal property.

Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1954 Authorized innovation and
expansion grants, and grants to colleges and universities for
professional training.

Wagner-Peyser Act Amendments of 1954 Required federal/state
employment security offices to designate staff members to assist
people with severe disabilities.

Social Security Amendments of 1956 Established Social Security
Disability Insurance Trust Fund and provided for payments to
eligible workers who became disabled.

National Defense Education Act of 1958 Authorized federal
assistance for preparation of teachers of children with
disabilities.

Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health
Centers Construction Act of 1963 Provided grants for
construction of mental retardation research centers and
facilities; provided for training of educational personnel
involved with youth with disabilities; authorized grants to
states for construction of community mental health centers.

Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health
Centers Construction Act Amendments of 1965 Established grant
program to cover initial staffing costs for community mental
health centers.

Social Security Act Amendments of 1965 Established Medicaid
program for elderly people and for blind persons and other
persons with disabilities.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 Authorized
federal aid to states and localities for educating deprived
children, including children with disabilities.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1966
Created National Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children;
created Bureau of Education for the Handicapped in U.S. Office
of Education.

Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966 Established standards
for employment of workers with disabilities, allowing for
subminimum wages.

Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967 Authorized
regional resource centers; authorized centers and services for
deaf-blind children.

Handicapped Children's Early Education Assistance Act of 1968
Established grant program for preschool and early education of
children with disabilities.

Vocational Education Act Amendments of 1968 Required
participating states to earmark 10 percent of basic vocational
education allotment for youth with disabilities.

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 Required most buildings and
facilities built, constructed, or altered with federal funds
after 1969 to be accessible.

Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction
Amendments of 1970 Expanded services to individuals with
epilepsy and cerebral palsy; authorized new state formula grant
program; defined "developmental disability" in categorical
terms; established state-level planning council.

Urban Mass Transportation Act Amendment of 1970 Authorized
grants to states and localities for accessible mass
transportation.

Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act of 1971 Extended purchase authority to
workshops for people with severe disabilities in addition to
blindness; retained through 1976 preference for workshops for
people who are blind.

Social Security Amendments of 1972 Extended Medicare coverage to
individuals with disabilities; established Supplemental Security
Income program for elderly people and for blind persons and
other persons with disabilities.

Small Business Investment Act Amendments of 1972 Established the
"Handicapped Assistance Loan Program" to provide loans to
nonprofit sheltered workshops and individuals with disabilities.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Prohibited disability discrimination
in federally assisted programs and activities and federal
agencies; required affirmative action programs for people with
disabilities by federal agencies and some federal contractors;
established the Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board.

Education Amendments of 1974 Required states to establish plans
and timetables for providing full educational opportunities for
all children with disabilities as condition of receiving federal
funds.

Headstart, Economic Opportunity, and Community Partnership Act
of 1974 Required that at least 10 percent of children enrolled
in Headstart be children with disabilities.

Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 Established
Section 8 housing program for low-income families, including
individuals with disabilities and/or their families.

Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of
1975 Described congressional findings regarding rights of
persons with developmental disabilities; established funding for
protection and advocacy systems; added requirement that state
plan include deinstitutuionalization plan; required states to
develop and annually review rehabilitation plans for all clients.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 Required
states to establish policy assuring free appropriate public
education for children with disabilities as condition for
receiving Part B funds; established procedural safeguards,
procedures for mainstreaming children with disabilities to the
maximum extent possible, and procedures for nondiscriminatory
testing and evaluation practices.

Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental
Disabilities Amendments of 1978 Established National Institute
of Handicapped Research; established National Council on the
Handicapped; authorized grant program for independent living
services; replaced categorical definition of developmental
disability with functional definition; established minimum
funding level for protection and advocacy services.

Civil Rights Commission Act of 1978 Expanded jurisdiction of
Civil Rights Commission to disability discrimination.

Department of Education Organization Act of 1979 Established
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in new
cabinet-level Department of Education.

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 Empowered
Department of Justice to bring suit against states for allegedly
violating rights of institutionalized persons with disabilities.

Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 Authorized training and
placement services for "economically disadvantaged" individuals,
including persons with disabilities.

Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1983 Authorized
grants for training parents of children with disabilities.

Child Abuse Prevention Treatment Act Amendments of 1984 Required
states' child protection agencies to develop procedures for
responding to reports that newborns with disabling conditions
were being denied treatment; established conditions for
requiring such treatment.

Developmental Disabilities Act of 1984 Shifted emphasis to
employment in priority services; required Individual
Habilitation Plan for consumers; increased minimum funding for
protection and advocacy services.

Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984 Established Client
Assistance Programs as formula grant programs; made National
Council on the Handicapped an independent agency.

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 Expanded
the definition of "habilitation" for Home and Community-Based
Waiver recipients with developmental disabilities to cover
certain pre-vocational services and supported employment for
previously institutionalized individuals; authorized states to
cover ventilator-dependent children under the waiver program if
they would otherwise require continued inpatient care.

Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 Authorized a
new grant program for states to develop an early intervention
system for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their
families, and provide greater incentives for states to provide
preschool programs for children with disabilities between the
ages of three and five.

Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 Authorizes courts
to award reasonable attorneys fees to parents who prevail in due
process proceedings and court actions under Part B of the
Education of the Handicapped Act.

Employment Opportunities for Disabled Americans Act of 1986 Made
the Section 1619(a) and 1619(b) work incentives a permanent
feature of the Social Security Act; added provisions to enable
individuals to move back and forth among regular SSI, Section
1619(a) and Section 1619(b) eligibility status.

Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 Updated statute establishing
Gallaudet College and changed name to Gallaudet University;
authorized Gallaudet University to operate demonstration
elementary and secondary schools for deaf children; established
Commission on Education of the Deaf.

Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986 "Severe disability"
definition expanded to include functional (as well as
categorical) criteria; defined "employability" for first time;
added formula grant program for supported employment; renamed
research branch the National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research.

Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 Prohibited disability
discrimination in provision of air transportation.

Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986
Authorized formula grant program for statewide advocacy services
for person with mental illness, provided directly by, or under
contract with, the protection and advocacy system for persons
with developmental disabilities.

Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act Amendments of
1987 Raised minimum allotment levels for basic state grant
program and protection and advocacy systems; increased minimum
allotment for university-affiliated programs, basic state grant
program, and protection and advocacy systems.

Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities
Act of 1988 Provided grants to states to develop statewide
assistive technology programs.

Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 Added persons with
disabilities as a group protected from discrimination in housing
and ensures that persons with disabilities are allowed to adapt
their dwelling place to meet their needs.

Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1989 Included major expansion in
required services under Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening,
Diagnosis and Treatment Program (EPSDT).

Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 Required new television
sets to have capability for close-captioned television
transmission.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Prohibited disability
discrimination in employment, public services and public
accommodations operated by private entities; requires that
telecommunication services be made accessible.

Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 Changed eligibility
requirements and procedures for determining eligibility;
strengthened requirements for interagency cooperation;
strengthened consumer involvement requirements.

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 Allowed workers to take up
to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborn and adopted
children and family members with serious health conditions or to
recover from serious health conditions.

National Voter Registration Act of 1993 Required states to
liberalize their voter registration rules to allow people to
register to vote by mail, when they apply for driver's licenses
or at offices that provide public assistance and programs for
individuals with disabilities such as vocational rehabilitation
programs.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 Provided framework for
meeting national educational goals and carrying out systemic
school reform for all children with disabilities.

Telecommunications Act of 1996 Required telecommunications
manufacturers and service providers to ensure that equipment is
designed, developed and fabricated to be accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
Improved access to health care for some Americans by
guaranteeing that private health insurance is available,
portable and renewable; limiting pre-existing condition
exclusions and increasing the purchasing clout of individuals
and small employers through incentives to form private,
voluntary coalitions to negotiate with providers and health
plans.

Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 Included a provision that
prohibits insurance companies from having lower lifetime caps
for treatment of mental illness compared with treatment of other
medical conditions.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 Required work in exchange for time-limited assistance;
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) replaced the
former welfare programs, ending the federal entitlement to
assistance; states, territories, and tribes receive a block
grant allocation with a requirement on states to maintain a
historical level of state spending known as maintenance of
effort.

Balanced Budget Act of 1997 Section 4733 provided a new Medicaid
buy-in option for people with disabilities. This provision gives
states the option to allow individuals with disabilities who
return to work the ability to purchase Medicaid coverage as
their earnings increase up to 250% poverty, based on an
individual's net rather than gross income.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA)
Reauthorization Formally called P.L. 94-142 or the Education of
All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, IDEA required public
schools to make available to all eligible children with
disabilities a free appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment appropriate to their individual needs.

Workforce Investment Act of 1998 Required consolidation of
several federal education, training, and employment programs;
reauthorized Rehabilitation Act programs through fiscal year
2003 and linked those programs to state and local workforce
development systems.

___________________
*Adapted from Kay F. Schriner and Andrew I. Batavia, "Disability
Law and Social Policy," Encyclopedia of Disability and
Rehabilitation, NewYork: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1995, with
summaries of legislation enacted since 1995 contributed by Carri
George, Rebecca Ogle, Bobby Silverstein, and the Department of
Justice's 1997 publication, A Guide to Disability Rights Laws.
This chart includes laws and amendments to laws significant to
the context of this report and is not intended to be exhaustive
or all inclusive.

----------
Appendix E

Web Sites of Presidential Task Force Members

Commerce www.doc.gov

Education www.ed.gov

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission www.eeoc.gov

Health & Human Services www.dhhs.gov

Labor www.wdsc.org/disability;   www.ttrc.doleta.gov/onestop

National Council on Disability www.ncd.gov

Office of Personnel Management www.opm.gov

Small Business Administration www.sba.gov

Social Security Administration www.ssa.gov

Treasury www.ustreas.gov

Transportation www.dot.gov

Veterans' Affairs www.va.gov

----------
Appendix F

Glossary of Acronyms Used in This Report

A, B

ACAA Air Carrier Access Act
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADL Activities of Daily Living
AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children
APTS Advanced Public Transportation Systems
AVL Automatic Vehicle Location
BRIDGE Building Resources for Individuals with Disabilities to
Gain Employment

C, D

CART Computer Assisted Real-time Transcription C.F.R. Code of
Federal Regulations
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services
DMV Department of Motor Vehicles
DOD Department of Defense
DOL Department of Labor
DOT Department of Transportation
DSS Decision Support Systems

E, F

ED Department of Education
EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEPTA Federal Employees Part-Time Career Employment Act of 1978
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRS Federal Information Relay Service
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FY Fiscal Year

G, H, I

GIS Geographic Information Systems
GPS Global Positioning Systems
GSA General Services Administration
HCFA Health Care Financing Administration
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
IRWE Impairment Related Work Expenses
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
ITS Intelligent Transportation System

J, K, L

JOBS Job Opportunity Bank Service
JTPA Job Training and Partnership Act
LAN Local Area Networks
LD Learning Disabled

M, N

MDT Mobile Data Terminals
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organizations
NGA National Governor Association
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

O, P, Q

OCR Office of Civil Rights
OFC Office of Motor Carriers
OPM Office of Personnel Management
PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act

R, S, T

RSPA Research and Special Programs Administration SGA
Substantial Gainful Activity
SSA Social Security Administration
SSI/SSDI Supplemental Security Income/Social Security Disability
Insurance
TAG Technical Assistance Group
TANF Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

U, V, W

U.S.C. United States Code
VCA Voluntary Compliance Agreement

X, Y, Z

Y2K Year 2000

----------
End of Document

