by Christopher Gray
For many years, there has been a growing trend in the delivery of services for people who are blind which emphasizes a single, monolithic approach to how a blind person can receive rehabilitation services. This model of rehabilitation training does not begin from a premise that each person is an individual self-actualizing human being who can and should be able to have some control in shaping his or her life as a newly blinded person. Instead of allowing each individual to come to terms with blindness in ways that couple personal resources and behaviors with the teaching of specific concepts and skills, the approach prescribes a single model which is unilaterally applied to all trainees, with no regard for their beliefs or opinions. We have witnessed this trend hardening into such an unyielding dogma that rehabilitation clients are being forced out of rehabilitation programs if they choose to use a monocular to enhance their low vision, or to travel with a guide dog as their mobility aid. Further, a structured and single-minded philosophy of blindness is preached to rehabilitation clients, and these pronouncements about the “proper approach to blindness” allow no freedom of thought and, in fact, border on indoctrination, rather than education.
The American Council of the Blind, in conjunction with other responsible organizations who provide rehabilitation services to people who are blind, is taking a firm stand in opposition to this disregard for individual freedom and the rights of individuals to freedom of choice in their rehabilitation training. No longer can we stand on the sidelines and allow individuals to be victimized by a model that provides them no say whatsoever about the nature of the services which they can receive.
Below are two letters that have been sent to the Department of Education during the month of March that raise important questions about aspects of these service models and express deep concern to those who oversee the Rehabilitation Services Administration. First is a letter from the National Council of Private Agencies for the Blind and Visually Impaired. It outlines a series of concerns and requests that, we can only hope, will be seriously addressed by the Department of Education at the highest levels. The second letter is from ACB’s executive director in support of the first letter, which asks for immediate dialogue on issues of concern to ACB and to the overall community of rehabilitation service providers. These letters are presented so that ACB members and friends can become more fully aware of and conversant with some of the key issues at hand. Further, we believe that it will be beneficial to all blind people in this country for you to begin asking questions like those raised in this correspondence of your own local rehabilitation service delivery systems. These letters represent the beginning of a concerted and concrete series of correspondence, resolutions and other means to promote the right of consumer choice in the rehabilitation process for people who are blind. I am sure you will agree with me that, by supporting and assisting in these efforts, we are standing up for the finest traditions of ACB, in support of individual rights and the personal freedom of every blind person who needs rehabilitation training to exercise intelligent choice while embarking on a path to a new life of coping with blindness, and living according to one’s own plans and ideals, coupled with support for a base of training that comes out of professionalism rather than philosophical dogma.
March 6, 2003
Dr. Robert Pasternack, Assistant Secretary
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
Mary E. Switzer Building, Room 3006
330 C Street SW
Washington, DC 20202
Re: RSA Actions and Conflicts of Interest
Dear Dr. Pasternack:
I write as President of the National Council of Private Agencies for the Blind and Visually Impaired (NCPABVI), a membership organization of over 75 private agencies representing 38 different states and the District of Columbia. This letter is written after our business meeting held February 19 in Los Angeles as part of the Vision Loss Symposium, our first meeting since the November New Mexico conference on residential rehabilitation facilities sponsored by RSA and the awarding of the $150,000 grant for a study of two certification bodies. These two federally funded events have sparked serious questions and concerns about RSA actions and activities among NCPABVI members and I write to convey those concerns.
Since RSA Commissioner Wilson’s office had contacted me in the very early planning stages of the New Mexico Rehabilitation Training conference asking for NCPABVI representatives to be on the planning committee, I pass along questions and concerns about the conduct of that conference on behalf of our members. Feedback I received from our members of this planning committee was to the effect that from the earliest stages the conference program would not be reflective of the entire blindness field and that any planning input other than that of one consumer organization was essentially ignored. This national conference, sponsored with public funds, promoted only one modality, ignoring the wealth of positive experiences and expertise available from the NCPABVI members, other national and consumer organizations, and other attendees. With the exception of the consumer organization to which the commissioner belongs, the entire field of services to people with a vision disability disagrees with the use of that single modality as the only modality. I urge you to seek input from organizations of parents, professionals, providers, and national organizations when conducting RSA-sponsored events. If you do, the isolation of this one modality will become evident.
I also want to convey NCPABVI’s agreement with the recent position statement from the Academy for Certification of Vision Education and Rehabilitation Professionals (ACVREP) raising serious concerns related to the $150,000 publicly funded study of two orientation and mobility certification programs. We are concerned about the process used by RSA in making this grant, an apparent conflict of interest in this study by RSA, and a bias against one of the certification bodies being studied.
As you know, this publicly funded study was given through discretionary funds to Dr. Ram Aditya, a former professor at Louisiana Tech who is now at Florida International University, with no announcement, peer review, or public request for proposal (RFP). If this study is to be accepted by the blindness field and all involved in the provision of services, it would seem to be more in the field’s and RSA’s best interest to publicly attempt to find the best researcher available. The direction of the funds by RSA with no RFP to someone with a connection to one of the bodies being studied through their professional position in one university connected to one of the certification bodies will lead to questions about the ethics of the study itself as well as its purpose. It should be noted that in addition to Dr. Aditya’s former professorship in the one university program affiliated with one of the bodies, he is a psychologist with no previous background or experience in the field he proposes to study.
We are also concerned about a conflict of interest and bias from RSA when one sees Commissioner Wilson as having played such a prominent role in the formation of one of the certification bodies being studied. This apparent conflict of interest is only exacerbated by her use of discretionary funds in the process of granting the $150,000 when she would appear to have vested interest in one of the bodies being studied.
Regarding the study itself, a bias is evident in the very beginning of Dr. Aditya’s proposal when he refers to the new NFB affiliated certification body as being “inspired and guided” while the other certification (ACVREP) was merely brought about through “substantial efforts.” This statement reflects a more positive view towards the NFB certification and is made despite NFB’s own statements from their publication and NFB formal resolutions expressing the lack of need for either a university degree or a certification program for orientation and mobility. (Braille Monitor, publication of NFB, November 2000 & NFB Resolution 95-04, July 1995)
Lastly in relation to this funded research, the literature put out by NBPCB indicates their certification body was established as part of a grant by the Department of Education. Given this, one again questions the purpose and reason for such a study as well as use of public funds to establish an outside certification body when one already existed. If RSA and the Department of Education funded the establishment of one of the certification programs, is there not a conflict of interest in now conducting a comparative study of the two programs?
This conflict of interest is also apparent when RSA funds were used to publish a book, “Freedom for the Blind,” by James Omvig, current president of one of the bodies being studied and also identified with Commissioner Wilson as being vital to the establishment of the National Blindness Professional Certification Board (NBPCB). It is ironic that as far as we are aware, the funding of this publication by RSA was also done without any public notice of intent to publish such a book.
Members of NCPABVI urge you to use your position to insure that public funds and RSA activities are not inappropriately used to further the narrow agenda of only one consumer organization at the exclusion of other mainstream, parent and professional organizations and consumer groups. We believe RSA should encourage practices which reflect broader and all approaches to rehabilitation of people who are blind. Recent action by RSA has demonstrated the need for more thorough oversight and due diligence in order to avoid conflicts of interest and questions of ethics.
Thank you for your attention and consideration to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you and your planned response to these and other related RSA activities.
Sincerely,
David C. Ekin
President, National Council of Private Agencies for the Blind and Visually Impaired
March 10, 2003
Dr. Robert Pasternack, Assistant Secretary Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
US Department of Education
400 Maryland Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20202
Dear Dr. Pasternack:
I am writing on behalf of the membership of the American Council of the Blind (ACB) with respect to the attached letter sent to you from the National Council of Private Agencies for the Blind (NCPAB). We also by this writing convey our serious and growing concern for the apparently biased administration of RSA by Commissioner Wilson in favor of the interests of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) as set forth in the NCPAB attachment.
The American Council of the Blind is a national organization of consumers who have a vital and immediate interest in the programs operated by the Rehabilitation Services Administration and its partners in the state agency rehabilitation system. The alleged activities outlined in the letter of protest against Commissioner Wilson’s Federation-biased administration of RSA have had the effect of seriously diminishing any real informed choice for consumers seeking rehabilitation. In fact, practices such as denying guide dog users the ability to use their chosen means of mobility, forcing people to use sleep shades when they want to use their remaining vision in conducting daily tasks, and actively discouraging people with usable remaining vision from enhancing the utility of that vision through the use of low vision devices, constructively deny informed consumer choice guaranteed under the law. The very law which Ms. Wilson is charged to uphold.
ACB believes that the remedy to this egregious situation is to require Commissioner Wilson to cease and desist from her utilization of her office, her staff, and our tax dollars in advancing the parochial interests of the National Federation of the Blind and to take affirmative action to support a diverse service delivery system in which it is the consumer who chooses rehabilitation programming rather than the unwelcome imposition of a single model.
ACB therefore requests a meeting with you and Commissioner Wilson to discuss our concerns to avoid any misunderstandings or more direct action on our part. Please have your office call my assistant, Patricia Moreira, at the above number and extension 21 to arrange for the meeting. I thank you in advance for your cooperation in resolving this issue in favor of consumers who rely upon RSA for the valuable rehabilitation services we need.
Sincerely,
Charles H. Crawford
Executive Director, American Council of the Blind