by Christopher Gray
On Thursday, October 23, acting executive director Melanie Brunson and I met at the Switzer building with Joanne Wilson, Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration. We had been invited over to touch base on general issues and to provide consumer input on behalf of ACB. Wilson made quite a point of her interest in this kind of input and observed how many groups have not taken advantage of similar opportunities to provide input in the past. The nature of our meeting allowed a free-form opportunity for us to raise any issue of our choosing, and that is exactly what we did.
I began by discussing matters related to freedom of choice in rehabilitation settings around the country, and by reminding Wilson of our previous discussions on this topic. Wilson’s stated position was that freedom of choice is provided for in current RSA regulations. She has agreed to send the specific regulations to ACB for our review and comment.
I want to remind ACB leaders and members how important it is for us to promote our Thirteen Principles of Consumer Cooperation at all levels of government. I have now had several conversations with Wilson on this topic. However, I cannot point to specific affiliates who are working diligently to promote the Thirteen Principles in their states. I’d very much appreciate hearing some discussion on this matter. Do we need to distribute new copies of this document? Do we need some new initiatives with regard to these points?
From there, the discussion turned to the reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act. According to Melanie, it is pretty clear now that many of the key provisions we have worked for will not be included in the Senate’s bill. The House version is far worse in the opinion of many Washington insiders. I suggested to Wilson that ACB was prepared to continue our efforts, perhaps even working with the conference committee, to get key provisions into this act.
I don’t recall, and a brief search through messages on Leadership and ACB-L does not show me, any meaningful discussion of our members’ making proactive efforts with key senators concerning rehab reauthorization. It would be very helpful to me, Melanie and other leaders to hear of some of your work and efforts. If we do not all engage in concerted efforts in this area, we have only ourselves to blame when services are not improved, those in industrial settings are not protected from the discriminatory actions perpetrated upon them by RSA, and the Randolph-Sheppard program falls into more and more jeopardy.
In concluding this part of our discussion, we agreed that at least one bright spot in rehab reauthorization might be additional funding for the older blind program. With particular regard to this funding, we discussed a perception that has been shared with me by many members of ACB: that the infusion of funds into this program has attracted a good deal of unwanted attention from the independent living movement around the country. I told Wilson of my concern that in some cases this group had shown itself to be very unfriendly to the interests and needs of people who are blind, and that we need to be sure that, if and when independent living centers received money from this or any other rehabilitation programs, the funded organization can demonstrate a true ability to provide a reasonable level of appropriate services to the blind population served by the grant.
Wilson pointed out that this particular area of Title VII funding is not specifically available to independent living centers and that misappropriation of such funding should be brought to the attention of RSA.
Then Melanie asked for an update concerning the active participation regulations. Wilson explained that the regulations have become bogged down in the approval process and that discussion is still under way about the wording of key provisions. She is hopeful for more progress in the next six months, but also believes that the group which worked on the regulations originally may have to meet again to review new language.
Finally, I told Wilson that guide dog users believe that they do not have freedom of choice in rehabilitation settings around the country with specific regard to use of their dogs. Wilson said that her perspective is that there are about 90 agencies providing rehabilitation services to people who are blind around the country. Wilson said that approximately five of these centers require the non-visual curricula that some claim to be unfriendly to users of guide dogs. She believes that, based on this low number, a guide dog user has plenty of choice in the rehabilitation system around the country.
Melanie and I each pointed out that our members are unhappy at the prospect of being required to travel far from their homes in order to receive services, or even outside their home states. I also pointed to several progressive programs in the country such as in California and Washington that seemed to strike a more appropriate balance which accommodates guide dog users in learning a full range of rehabilitation skills. Wilson believes that difficulties happen so seldom that this really is not the problem that people perceive it to be. In concluding the discussion of this matter, I said to Wilson that if one of ACB’s 10 largest affiliates believes this to be a problem, that perception should be considered by RSA as formal input from ACB and given due consideration.
The meeting lasted approximately 90 minutes. Commissioner Wilson engaged in specific dialogue on all topics raised on behalf of ACB’s membership.
I look forward to discussion and input from ACB members on the topics raised herein.