Rehabilitation Act: Major Programs, 105th Congress Legislation, and Funding

Rehabilitation Act: Major Programs, 105th Congress Legislation, and Funding

94-224 EPW
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Rehabilitation Act: Major Programs,
105th Congress Legislation, and Funding
Updated June 8, 1998
Carol V. O’Shaughnessy
Specialist in Social Legislation
Alice D. Butler
Technical Information Specialist
Education and Public Welfare Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Rehabilitation Act: Major Programs,
105 Congress Legislation, and Funding
th
Summary
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides comprehensive vocational
rehabilitation (VR) services to help individuals with physical and mental disabilities
become employable and achieve independence. Authorization of appropriations for
the Act expired at the end of FY1997.
The Act’s major program, the federal-state VR program under Title I, provides
formula grant funds to states for VR services. Funded at $2.2 billion for FY1998, it
represents 88% of total funding under the Act. Persons are eligible for VR services
if they have a physical or mental impairment that results in a substantial impediment
to employment. Under the law, all individuals with disabilities are presumed to
benefit from VR services, unless evidence is shown otherwise. The program is
required to give priority to persons with severe disabilities.
In FY1995, over 1.25 million persons were served. In FY1995, over 209,500
persons were rehabilitated, of whom 76% had severe disabilities. Persons are
considered as “rehabilitated” if, after receiving VR services, they maintain a suitable
rehabilitation objective, usually employment, for at least 90 days. The Act also
authorizes research, training, and demonstration programs; independent living
programs; and the National Council on Disability, among other programs.
On May 16, 1997, the House passed H.R. 1385, the Employment, Training, and
Literacy Enhancement Act of 1997, which would reauthorize the Act through
FY2000. Among other things, H.R. 1385 would allow persons with disabilities the
option to assume primary responsibility for their individualized plans for
employment (IPE) (now called individualized written rehabilitation programs
(IWRP)) and would clarify and expand consumer choice provisions. In approval of
H.R. 1385, the Committee on Education and the Workforce indicated that the Act
needs significant and careful review, and, for a number of reasons, is unable to
complete a comprehensive review during the 105 Congress. The Committe
th
e
indicated that there will be major reform of the program during the 106 Congress.
th
On May 5, 1998, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 1385, the Workforce
Investment Partnership Act of 1998, which incorporates the Rehabilitation Act
Amendments of 1998 (approved by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources
as S. 1589). The bill takes a more expansive approach to amending the Act than the
House bill. Among other things, it would link the VR program to services that would
be available under Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1998. It would also give
consumers more responsibility in developing their individualized rehabilitation
employment plans (IREP); simplify eligibility requirements by presuming that
recipients of social security disability and supplemental security income are eligible
for VR services; and require states to make information and referral services
available to consumers who do not meet state requirements for VR services.
FY1998 appropriations for Rehabilitation Act programs are $2.553 billion. The
President has requested $2.613 billion for FY1999.

ABSTRACT
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides vocational rehabilitation services for individuals
with physical and mental disabilities. This report provides information on legislation in the
105th Congress, a description of the major programs authorized by the Act, other programs
not authorized under the Act, but generally considered to be rehabilitation services, and
funding for these programs. This report will be updated as legislative action occurs.

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Major Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Federal-State VR Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Client Assistance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)
3
Training and Demonstration Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
National Council on Disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Rights and Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Employment Opportunities for Individuals with Disabilities . . . . . . . . 4
Independent Living Services and Centers for Independent Living . . . . 4
Special Demonstration and Training Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Other Related Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
105 Congress Legislation
th
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
FY1998 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
FY1999 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
List of Tables
Table 1. Vocational Rehabilitation and Related Programs for Persons
with Disabilities, FY1997-FY1998 Funding, and FY1999 Request . . . . . . 13

Rehabilitation Act: Major Programs,
105th Congress Legislation, and Funding
Background1
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides comprehensive vocational
rehabilitation (VR) services designed to help individuals with physical and mental
disabilities become employable and to achieve independence and integration into
society. The Rehabilitation Act was originally enacted in 1920 as a means of
returning injured workers to their jobs. The program was expanded in 1943 to help
meet the manpower shortage after the entry of the United States into World War II.
Amendments in 1973 gave service priority to persons with severe disabilities if such
persons had employment potential. The 1978 amendments expanded the Act by
adding a major new service category, comprehensive services for independent living,
for persons with severe disabilities without current employment potential.
Amendments in 1986 strengthened services to persons with severe disabilities by
authorizing supported employment services for persons unable to maintain
competitive employment without special assistance.
Amendments in 1992 reauthorized the Act for 5 years through FY1997. Among
other provisions, the law included amendments to establish a general presumption
that persons with disabilities, including persons with severe disabilities, can benefit
from VR services in terms of an employment outcome, unless the state VR agency
can show evidence otherwise. This presumption allows some persons, who would
not have otherwise been eligible, to enter the program. The amendments also
required that eligibility for VR services be determined within 60 days of application;
increased client choice of VR services; increased requirements for consumer control
of rehabilitation policy and service delivery and for rehabilitation efforts on behalf
of minority individuals; and created a new Title VIII for special demonstration and
training programs. Amendments in 1993 made technical changes to the Act.
H.R. 1385, which passed the House on May 16, 1997, would reauthorize the Act
through FY2000, among other things. On May 5, 1998, the Senate passed its version
of H.R. 1385, which incorporates the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998
(originally approved by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources as S. 1589
on February 4, 1998). The Senate bill would reauthorize the Act through FY2004,
among other things.
1 For further information on issues related to the federal-state vocational rehabilitation
program authorized under Title I, see CRS Report 97-537 EPW, Rehabilitation Act of 1973:
Challenges Confronting the Federal-State Vocational Rehabilitation Program, by Carol
O’Shaughnessy.

CRS-2
Major Programs
The Rehabilitation Act authorizes a variety of rehabilitation service, research,
training, and advocacy programs designed to assist persons with disabilities obtain
employment. It also authorizes special independent living services programs for
those unable to become employed. Most of the Act’s programs are administered at
the federal level by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) in the
Department of Education. The programs are described below; and appropriations for
FY1997 and FY1998, and the President’s request for FY1999 are presented in Table
1.
Federal-State VR Program. The federal-state VR program, authorized under
Title I, provides formula grants to states for VR services to assist persons with
disabilities to prepare for and engage in gainful employment. Funding for the
federal-state VR program represents 88% of total federal funding for the Act in
FY1998. Funds are administered at the state level by vocational rehabilitation
agencies designated by each state. States are required to match federal funds at a rate
of 21.3%, except for construction costs for community rehabilitation facilities (50%
match) and innovation and expansion grant activities (10% match).
Persons are eligible for VR services if they have a physical or mental
impairment that results in a substantial impediment to employment and if they can
benefit from VR services provided under the Act. Under the law, all individuals with
disabilities are presumed to have the potential to engage in employment, and benefit
from VR services. The program is required to give priority to those persons with
severe disabilities. Funds are allocated to states according to a formula based on state
population and per capita income, with the lower per capita income states receiving
a relatively higher allotment on a per capita basis.
States provide a comprehensive array of VR services, including assessment of
individuals’ eligibility and vocational rehabilitation needs, counseling, vocational and
other training services, guidance and work-related placement services, and
rehabilitation technology services. Services are provided under an individualized
written rehabilitation program (IWRP) which is developed to achieve each person’s
employment objective. The IWRP is considered a key document in the development
and planning of rehabilitation goals and services for consumers. It must meet a
number of requirements. For example, it must include each person’s employment
goals, consistent with his/her strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, and
capabilities. It also must specify services to be received and providers of services.
On average, persons receive services for approximately 2 years. Persons are
considered as “rehabilitated” if, after receiving VR services, they maintain a suitable
rehabilitation objective, usually employment, for at least 90 days. In FY1995, more
than 1.25 million persons were served by the federal-state VR program (i.e., persons
whose cases were active during the year). That same year, nearly 210,000 persons
were rehabilitated. The remainder stayed in the program, dropped out, or were not
rehabilitated.
The number of persons served under the VR program has been affected by
various factors. One of the most important factors is the 1973 federal mandate that

CRS-3
the program give priority to those with the most severe disabilities. This mandate has
affected the composition of the population rehabilitated by increasing the number and
proportion of persons rehabilitated with severe disabilities and decreasing the number
and proportion of persons with nonsevere disabilities. From FY1975 to FY1995
there was a 35% decline in the total number of persons rehabilitated. In that same
time period, however, the proportion of persons with severe disabilities who were
rehabilitated increased from 36% in FY1975 to 76% in FY1995. In recent years, the
numbers of persons rehabilitated has been rising, up 9% between FY1992 and
FY1995. During that same period, the percentage of severely disabled persons
rehabilitated as a proportion of all persons rehabilitated increased from 70% to 76%.
VR caseload trends have been affected by two requirements that were added by
the 1992 amendments. These are the presumption that all applicants for VR services
can benefit from rehabilitation unless the state can demonstrate otherwise; and that
VR agencies make eligibility determinations within 60 days of a person’s application.
According to RSA, the presumption of benefit provision has resulted in fewer
persons being determined to be ineligible for services because they are too severely
disabled. The acceptance rate for applicants rose from 57% in 1992 to 72% in
FY1996. The 60-day eligibility determination requirement has contributed to an
increase in the total number of persons served by the VR system. Between FY1992
and FY1996, the number of persons served rose 32% from 949,000 to 1.25 million
individuals.
Client Assistance Program. As a condition of receiving funds for the federal-
state VR program, states are required to operate a client assistance program (CAP),
also authorized under Title I. The CAP provides advice and assistance to clients and
applicants on benefits available under the Act. Funds are allotted to states according
to a formula based on states’ relative population. In FY1996, the CAP served over
51,000 individuals seeking information and referral services and handled over 10,500
client cases.
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR).
Title II authorizes funding for research and training activities administered by
NIDRR. Among the activities supported are rehabilitation research and training
centers, rehabilitation engineering research centers, and research and demonstration
projects. This is a discretionary program and funds are awarded on a competitive
basis to a wide variety of organizations, such as institutions of higher education and
providers of rehabilitation services.
Training and Demonstration Projects. Title III authorizes a number of
training programs for personnel who provide rehabilitation and other services to
persons with disabilities. Training activities include short- and long-term training,
in-service training, and continuing education programs. It also authorizes special
demonstration projects to develop innovative rehabilitation initiatives; demonstration
programs on supported employment services; grants for rehabilitation services to
migratory and seasonal farmworkers and their families; and grants for special
recreational activities for persons with disabilities. Training and demonstration
project funds are awarded on a competitive basis to a wide variety of organizations,
such as state vocational rehabilitation agencies, public and private nonprofit, and in
the case of, training funds, to institutions of higher education.

CRS-4
National Council on Disability. Title IV authorizes the National Council on
Disability, an independent federal agency comprised of 15 members appointed by the
President. Among its functions, the National Council is responsible for establishing
polices for the NIDRR and for providing advice to the President, the Congress and
the Commissioner of RSA on programs under the Act.
Rights and Advocacy. Among other provisions, Title V authorizes the
Architectural Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) that is responsible for
assuring compliance with federal statutes requiring accessibility for persons with
disabilities. The Access Board is an independent federal agency comprised of 25
members, 13 of whom are appointed by the President with the remainder appointed
by the heads of various federal agencies.
Title V also authorizes a formula grant program to states for activities to protect
and advocate for the rights of individuals who are not eligible for protection and
advocacy programs authorized under other federal laws (that is, the protection and
advocacy programs authorized under the Developmental Disabilities and Bill of
Rights Act, the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986,
and services under by the Rehabilitation Act’s Client Assistance Program). Funds
are awarded to states based on states’ relative population (with a portion of funding
set aside for training and technical assistance).
In addition to these programs, Title V authorizes affirmative action for persons
with disabilities within the federal government and requires contractors with the
federal government to take affirmative action to employ and advance persons with
disabilities. Section 504 prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities
under any program or activity receiving federal funds.
Employment Opportunities for Individuals with Disabilities. Title VI
authorizes a number of activities to develop employment opportunities for persons
with disabilities.
The projects with industry (PWI) program promotes opportunities for
competitive employment for individuals with disabilities and involves the leadership
of private industry as part of the rehabilitation process. Funds are awarded on a
competitive basis to a wide variety of agencies and organizations, such as business
and industrial corporations, rehabilitation facilities, labor organizations, and trade
associations.
The state allotments for supported employment program helps persons with
severe disabilities maintain competitive employment in integrated work settings.
Funds are allotted to states based on states’ relative population.
Independent Living Services and Centers for Independent Living. Title
VII authorizes three programs that provide a wide range of services to individuals
whose disabilities are so severe that their ability to function independently in the
family or community, or to maintain employment is limited. Independent living
services may include counseling, housing assistance, rehabilitation technology,
mobility training, and personal assistance services.

CRS-5
The independent living services program authorizes grants to states to provide
a wide range of services to help persons with severe disabilities live independently
in the community. Funds are allotted to states based on states’ relative population.
The centers for independent living program authorizes grants to consumer-
controlled, community-based organizations that provide independent living services.
Funds are awarded to public and private organizations on a competitive basis.
The independent living services for older individuals who are blind program
provides special services to blind individuals age 55 or older. Services may include
outreach, visual screening, eyeglasses or other visual aides, mobility training, braille
instruction and guide services. Funds are awarded to states on a competitive basis.2
Special Demonstration and Training Projects. Title VIII, created by the 1992
amendments to the Act, authorizes demonstration projects related to transportation,
client choice, activities to achieve high quality placements, and transition programs
3
from school to work, among others. It also authorizes a variety of training initiatives
including distance learning through telecommunications, braille training projects,
parent information and training programs, and recruitment and retention of urban
personnel. Title VII also authorizes the National Commission on Rehabilitation
Services whose purpose is to study the quality of programs under the Act. Since
1993, part of the funding for Title III special demonstration programs and training
programs has been used to support demonstration projects and training activities
authorized by Title VIII.4
Other Related Programs
Other programs not authorized under the Rehabilitation Act, but included under
rehabilitation services in congressional budget documents, are the Helen Keller
National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults and the Technology-Related
Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act. The Helen Keller Center provides
specialized, intensive services to rehabilitate persons who are both blind and deaf.
In addition, the Center provides training for professional staff serving this group and
conducts research on the problems of the deaf-blind. The program is authorized
under the Helen Keller National Center Act and is administered by RSA.
2 If funding were to exceed $13 million, funds would be allotted to states based on states’
relative share of the population aged 55 and older. FY1997 funding is $10 million,
therefore, the formula is not effective.

3 For more information on client choice demonstration funded by RSA, see CRS Report 97-
247, Rehabilitation Act Reauthorization: Are Vouchers One Way to Increase Consumer
Choice? by Carol O’Shaughnessy.

4 In any year in which funding for Title III special demonstration programs/training program
exceeds the previous year’s appropriation by more than inflation, the excess must be treated
as if it were appropriated under Title VIII. However, Title III special demonstration
programs/training program funds may be used to support programs authorized under Title
VIII in any year.

CRS-6
State grants, discretionary projects and special studies are authorized under the
Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act. The purpose
of the Act is to support programs that help make assistive devices and services
available to persons with disabilities. This program is administered by NIDRR.
Funds are allotted to states on a competitive basis.
105 Congress Legislation
th
Authorizations of appropriations for the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 expired at
the end of FY1997. Title I of the Act provides for a one year extension of Title I
through FY1998. Under provisions of the General Education Provisions Act
(GEPA), other programs under the Act would also be extended for one additional
fiscal year through FY1998.
H. R. 1385, the Employment, Training, and Literacy Enhancement Act of 1987,
passed by the House on May 16, 1997, would reauthorize the Rehabilitation Act
through FY2000.5 The Senate version of H.R. 1385, the Workforce Investment
Partnership Act of 1998, passed by the Senate on May 5, 1998, incorporates the
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 (originally approved by the Committee on
Labor and Human Resources as S. 1589 on February 4, 1998) would reauthorize the
Act through FY2004.
Both bills address some of the same issues, such as simplifying certain aspects
of the vocational rehabilitation process for consumers and expanding consumer
choice. However, in addition to the 4 year difference in the period for the
reauthorization, the bills differ substantially in their scope. The House-passed bill
would take a more limited approach to amending the Act than that of the Senate-
passed bill. In its report on H.R. 1385, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce indicated that the nature of the amendments contained in the Committee-
approved bill are limited in scope, and that although the Act needs significant an
6
d
careful review, it is unable to complete such a review during the 105 Congress. It
th
also indicated that there will be major reform of the program during the 106th
Congress when the Act will be reviewed for reauthorization again. The Committee
cited conflicting views about the effectiveness of the federal-state vocational
rehabilitation system as a reason for the need for a comprehensive review.7
The House Committee report also indicated that the delayed and uneven
implementation of the 1992 amendments contributed to the postponement of a review
5 H.R. 1385 was introduced on April 17, 1997; approved by the Subcommittee on
Postsecondary Education, Training, and Life-Long Learning on April 24, 1997; and reported
by the Committee on Education and the Workforce on May 8, 1997.
6 The Committee-approved bill did not contain certain proposals that were approved on a
bipartisan basis as part of en bloc amendments approved on the House floor. These include
modifications of requirements relating to the IWRP, informed consent, and state personnel
development plans, among others.
7 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Education and the Workforce. Report of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce on H.R. 1385. Report No. 105-93. May 8,
1997. Washington, D.C.

CRS-7
of the Act until next Congress. For example, regulations implementing the 1992
regulations were not published in final by the Department of Education (ED) until
February 1997. Also, evaluation standards and program indicators, required to be
published by September 30, 1994, have not yet been published in final.8 In addition,
RSA is currently conducting a major evaluation of the federal-state vocational
rehabilitation program authorized under Title I.9
Despite differences in their overall approach to amending the Act, both House-
and Senate-passed bills address some of the same issues. The following describes
selected issues addressed by the bills.
Streamlining the Vocational Rehabilitation Process. A theme in 105th
Congress legislation that has continued since the last reauthorization is the objective
of streamlining and simplifying the VR process for consumers. The 1992
amendments included provisions to make the eligibility process more efficient and
timely, and to make it easier for rehabilitation counselors to accept persons for
service.1 Many consumers and their advocates continue to be interested in ways to
0
further streamline the rehabilitation process. This interest is reflected in a number
of proposals in the 105 Congress legislation, including changing the way in whic
th
h
a consumer’s VR services are planned, and simplifying certain aspects of the
eligibility determination process.
VR Consumers’ Rehabilitation Goals and Services Plans. Under current law,
after rehabilitation counselors determine an individual’s eligibility and assess his/her
vocational rehabilitation needs, the next step is to develop an individual written
rehabilitation program (IWRP). Each person eligible for services must have an
IWRP which is jointly developed, agreed upon, and signed by both the VR counselor
and the consumer. Under the law, an IWRP is considered a key document in the
development and planning of rehabilitation goals and services for consumer.
Some observers have asserted that development of an IWRP, as currently
stipulated, for all consumers may be too cumbersome and unnecessary, and may
involve time of counselors that could otherwise be spent on other responsibilities.
In addition, there has been ongoing concern about expanding consumer involvement
in the rehabilitation process. Observers have indicated that some consumers may
8 For a discussion of evaluation standards and program indicators, see CRS Report 97-537
by Carol O’Shaughnessy.

9 An interim report has been submitted to RSA. Research Triangle Institute. A Longitudinal
Study of the Vocational Rehabilitation Service Program: Second Interim Report:
Characteristics and Perspectives of VR Consumers. Submitted to the Rehabilitation
Services Administration, Department of Education, December 1996.

10 The 1992 amendments included requirements that an applicant’s eligibility be determined
within 60 days of application. They also included a provision calling for “presumptive
eligibility,” that is, upon application, each individual is presumed to be able to benefit from
the program in terms of an employment outcome unless the state agency can demonstrate
that the individual is incapable of this.

CRS-8
need only limited assistance, not long-term intensive intervention, and can identify
what services they want without going through the extensive IWRP process.
Both House and Senate bills would simplify the planning of vocational
rehabilitation for consumers who choose to develop their own plans and increase
consumer involvement in the rehabilitation process. The House-passed bill would
change individualized written rehabilitation program (IWRP) in current law to
individualized plan for employment (IPE); the Senate-passed bill would change it to
individualized rehabilitation employment plan (IREP).
H.R. 1385, as passed by the House , would create an option for a consumer to
11
assume primary responsibility for the development of his/her IPE. The bill would
allow a consumer the option to choose whether the IPE will be developed by the
consumer (or a representative), and then approved by the counselor, or whether the
IPE will be developed and approved by both the consumer (or his/her representative)
and the counselor.
The Senate bill would also require that an individual be given information on
his/her options for developing the IREP. This must include information on the
availability of assistance from a VR counselor in developing all or part of the IREP,
but the bill would allow the individual to determine the extent of VR counselor
assistance. The counselor must inform the consumer about components that must be
included in the IREP. The IREP is to be agreed to, and signed by the consumer (or
his/her representative), and approved and signed by the VR counselor.
Both bills would add certain new provisions related to the IPE/IREP. They
would add requirements that plans contain timelines for achievement of employment
goals/objectives ; be amended, as necessary, by the consumer, in collaboration with
12
the counselor, when there are substantive changes in goals, services, or providers;
and be developed and implemented so that the individual has informed choice in
selecting employment goals, services, providers, and methods to procure services.
They would also add a new requirement that the plan identify the need for extended
services by persons with the most severe13 disabilities who are in supportive
employment.
Both bills would retain many current law requirements related to the
IWRP/IPE/IREP. For example, they would retain a requirement that the plan be
written. They would also retain requirements that the plan identify a consumer’s
employment goals/outcomes, consistent with his/her unique strengths, resources,
priorities, concerns, abilities, and capabilities, and informed choice; services to be
1 1 As introduced, H.R. 1385 would have allowed a consumer of VR services to request a
“limited written program” which would have substituted for the IWRP. Some advocates
were concerned that there was no specification as to what would constitute a limited written
program, and that without such specification, the rights of some consumers would be in
jeopardy.
12 The word “goal” is used in H.R. 1385; “objective” is used in S. 1579.
1 3 Current law and H.R. 1385 refer to persons with “severe” disabilities; the Senate bill
changes this to refer to persons with “significant” disabilities.

CRS-9
provided; providers and methods to procure providers; and rights and remedies
available to the consumer, among other things.
Simplifying Eligibility; Presumptive Eligibility by Recipients of SSDI and SSI.
Under current law, an individual is eligible for VR services if he/she meets the
definition of “an individual with a disability” (an individual who has a disability
resulting in a substantial impediment to employment and who can benefit from VR
services). The Senate bill would amend current law to stipulate that a person is
eligible if he/she meets the current law definition of an “individual with a disability,”
and requires VR services to prepare for, secure, retain, or regain employment.
The Senate bill would change current law to require presumptive eligibility for
VR services by recipients of SSDI and SSI. In addition, the bill allows state VR
agencies to use existing and current information available from other programs to
determine eligibility for VR services and in developing the IREP. This may include
information used by education officials and the Social Security Administration
(SSA). These provisions are intended to ease the eligibility determination process,
by reducing the need for development of new documentation for eligibility.
The House bill does not contain these provisions.
Information and Referral Services for Persons Not Served under a State’s
Order of Selection Criteria. Under current law, states that cannot serve all
individuals who are eligible for services must establish an order of selection process.
Order of selection refers to a process whereby a state establishes criteria to serve first
those eligible individuals with the most severe disabilities. Each state sets up its
order of selection criteria in accordance with certain federal regulatory requirements.
The Senate bill would direct states to provide a minimum level of services to
persons who otherwise would not be served because they are operating under order
of selection. That is, while it retains a requirement for order of selection, it would
expand current law to specify what assistance persons not served under order of
selection criteria would receive from the state VR agency. For such persons, the state
would be required to implement an information and referral system. The system
would be required to provide information to assist these individuals to prepare for,
secure, retain, or regain employment, and to refer them to other federal and state
programs, including the statewide workforce investment system established by the
bill.
In addition to information and referral services, the state would be given the
option of providing the following services to persons not included under its order of
selection criteria: individualized counseling and guidance, vocational exploration,
supervised job placement referrals, and assistance in securing reasonable
accommodations. However, these services are not to be purchased for such
individuals by the state VR agency with Title I funds.
The House bill does not contain these provisions.

CRS-10
Consumer Choice. Enhancement of client choice is an important goal in
vocational rehabilitation. Advocates have asserted that the more freedom a client has
to choose his or her own options for employment and training, and to participate in
development of vocational goals, the better the chances of a positive employment
outcome. The issues surrounding expanded consumer choice were addressed by a
number of 1992 amendments to the Act.14
The interest in expanded consumer choice has continued in the 105 Congress
th
reauthorization bills. First, as discussed above, the bills would require state VR
agencies to give consumers more responsibility for the development of their VR
plans. In addition, both bills would require that the state VR agency develop and
implement written policies and procedures on informed choice. These policies and
procedures must address ways to inform each applicant and eligible individual about
available opportunities to exercise informed. Policies must also address consumers’
decisions related to assessment, selection of employment goals, rehabilitation
services to achieve their goals, methods to procure services, and providers of
services.
Reporting on Program Outcomes. The Senate bill would add several new state
reporting requirements. These include data on the number of persons who receive
information and referral services, as described above. Also, the state would be
required to report on the number of persons who, after VR participation, were
employed 6 months and 12 months after securing or regaining employment. Current
regulations define a VR case “closed successfully” if the person is employed for 90
days after termination of VR services. Therefore, under the current program, there
is no need to follow a person for a longer period.
Other outcome data to be collected under the bill would include the number of
persons whose public assistance was terminated or reduced after VR participation;
and information necessary to determine the success of the state in meeting state
performance measures established under the Workforce Investment Partnership Act
of 1997 (established by the bill), as well as standards and indicators for evaluating
the VR program established by the Commissioner of RSA.
The House bill does not contain these provisions.
Coordination of the State VR Program with Other Federal Employment
Programs. The 105 Congress i
th
s considering legislation to reform federal education
and training programs. The House-passed version of H.R. 1385 contains
amendments to the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and other employment and
education programs. The Senate-passed bill would repeal JTPA and replace it with
a revised federal employment and training program, among other things.
15
14 Among other things, these included requirements that the rehabilitation counselor and the
consumer jointly develop, agree upon, and sign the IWRP, and that it be developed in
accordance with a consumer’s unique strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities and
capabilities.
1 5 For further information on S. 1186, see: CRS Report 97-536, Job Training Reform:
(continued...)

CRS-11
The House bill does not amend the VR program to link its revised employment
and training programs with the VR program. The Senate bill, on the other hand,
contains provisions to link the state’s VR program with the statewide workforce
investment system that would be established under the Workforce Investment
Partnership Act of 1998. Specifically, the Senate bill includes as one of the purposes
of the Rehabilitation Act, to empower individuals with disabilities to maximize
employment though statewide activities carried out under the Workforce Investment
Partnership Act of 1998. The workforce investment system would include as an
integral component, state-of-the art programs of vocational rehabilitation.
In addition, among other things, the Senate bill would require the state VR
agency to enter into cooperative agreements with other entities that are components
of the statewide workforce investment system. The cooperative agreements may
provide for use of customer service features, such as common intake and referral
procedures; customer data bases, resource information and human service hotlines;
intercomponent staff training aimed at promoting participation by persons with
disabilities in workforce investment activities; and use of information and financial
management systems that link all components of the statewide workforce investment
system.16
Other Selected Provisions. Other selected provisions of the Senate bill would
eliminate a number of state plan requirements and require the state VR agency and
the State Rehabilitation Council to jointly conduct and report on a comprehensive
needs assessment of the state VR program every 3 years. The bill also makes a
number of changes to the Act’s training, research, and demonstration programs,
including addition of a requirement that NIDRR publish in the Federal Register a 5-
year plan outline rehabilitation research, training, and demonstration priorities.
Both bills would eliminate and streamline requirements and priorities for
training and demonstration programs.
Funding
FY1998 Funding. The FY1998 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill
(H.R. 2264) appropriating funds for programs under the Rehabilitation Act was
signed into law (P.L. 105-78) on November 13, 1997. Total funding for programs
under the Act is $2.553 billion, representing an overall increase of 3% from the
FY1997 total. Funding levels for many of the programs are at or near FY1997 levels.
The federal-state VR program received an increase of nearly $71 million (3%) above
the FY1997 level, $5.6 million more than is required by law. This additional
increase was requested to help states respond to the increased demand for services
and to offset the costs of serving a more severely disabled population.
15 (...continued)
Legislation in the 105th Congress, by Ann Lordeman.
1 6 In the markup of S. 1579 by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources on
February 4, 1998, Senator DeWine indicated that while the VR program is to be linked to
the workforce investment system, funds appropriated for the VR program are not be
compromised or diverted to other workforce populations.

CRS-12
FY1998 funding includes $77 million for NIDRR, an increase over the FY1997
level. The additional funding is provided to establish 15 model systems and a
national data center for traumatic brain injury. It also includes funding ($850
thousand) for the establishment of a rehabilitation engineering research center to
focus on the needs of landmine survivors. Other program increases include a 3%
increase for client assistance programs, a 27% increase for the migratory worker
program, a 29% increase for protection and advocacy activities, and a 21% increase
for program improvement activities. A 5% increase is included for centers for
independent living, and a 10% increase is provided for independent living services
for the older blind. Special demonstration programs are decreased by 16% from their
FY1997 level so that funds can be redirected to the federal-state VR program. The
decrease is not expected to reduce funding to current projects or to preclude new
ones. Other programs are funded at or near FY1997 levels.
FY1999 Request. The Administration is requesting $2.613 billion for programs
under the Rehabilitation Act, representing an overall increase of 2% from the
FY1998 total. Requested levels for many programs are at or near FY1998 levels. An
increase of $57.5 million (3%) is requested for the federal-state VR program, $10.3
million more than required by law. The additional increase is requested to help
reduce the unemployment rate of persons with disabilities. The federal-state VR
request includes a $17.3 million set-aside for Grants to Indians, $1.9 million more
than was set aside in FY1998 and $5.8 million more than the statutory minimum.
The Administration also seeks 2% increases for each of the client assistance,
centers for independent living, and independent living services for the older blind
programs. The funding request for NIDRR is $81 million, an increase of 5% over
FY1998. Special demonstration programs would be funded at $18.9 million, a 2%
increase above the FY1998 level. The additional amount is requested to continue
funding for an initiative to raise the employment rate of individuals with disabilities
who receive public support.

CRS-13
Table 1. Vocational Rehabilitation and Related Programs for Persons
with Disabilities, FY1997-FY1998 Funding, and FY1999 Request
($ in millions)
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
Programs
approp.
approp.
request
Title I—Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services
Federal-State VR program a
$2,176.038
$2,246.888
$2,304.411
Client assistance program
10.392
10.714
10.928
Title II—NIDRR
National institute on disability and rehab. research
69.990
76.800
81.000
Title III—Training and Demonstration Projects
Personnel training
39.629
39.629
33.685
Special demonstration programs
18.942b
15.942b
18.942b
Supported employment demonstration projects
b
b
b
Migratory workers
1.850
2.350
2.350
Special recreation
2.596
2.596
2.596
Title IV—National Council on Disability
1.791
1.793
2.344
Title V—Rights and Advocacy
Arch. and transportation barriers compliance board
3.540
3.640
3.847
Protection and advocacy of rights
7.657
9.894
9.894
Title VI—Employment Opportunities
Projects with industry
22.071
22.071
22.071
State allotments for supported employment
38.152
38.152
38.152
Title VII—Independent Living Services and Centers for
Independent Living
State allotments for independent living services
21.859
21.859
22.296
Centers for independent living
42.876
45.205
46.109
Independent living services for the older blind
9.952
10.950
11.169
Title VIII—Special demonstration and
training projects
c
c
c
Evaluation
1.587
1.587
1.587
Program improvement activities
2.391
2.900
1.900
TOTAL: Programs under the Rehabilitation Act
$2,471.313
$2,552.970
$2,613.281
Related Programs
Helen Keller Center
7.337
7.549
8.176
Technology assistance
36.109
36.109
30.000
Footnotes on next page

CRS-14
a Includes set-aside for grants to Indian tribes (sec.130): $10.6 million for FY1996; $12.0 million
for FY1997; $12.4 million for FY1998; and $17.3 million for FY1999.
b Special demonstration programs and supported employment programs under the special
demonstration activity were merged in FY1996.
c Included under Title III special demonstrations and training.

In any year in which funding for Title
III special demonstration programs/training program exceeds the previous year’s appropriation by more
than inflation, the excess must be treated as if it were appropriated under Title VIII. However, Title III
special demonstration programs/training program funds may be used to support programs authorized under
Title VIII in any year.