REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 (P. L. 93-112 Section 139) Comprehensive Needs Study WORK PLAN Introduction For the past 53 years, State-Federal vocational rehabilitation programs have been providing services to severely handicapped individuals. During these years, under existing legislation and regulations, the agencies' sole endeavor has been to provide programs for individuals who could feasibly be expected to benefit vocationally through services received. Eligibility requirements, although they have included many of the severely handicapped and have made possible their successful rehabilitation, have excluded some individuals where vocational outcomes were judged not feasible and many individuals for whom no vocational goal was deemed possible. In recent years, program components offering extended evaluation for periods of six to 18 months have increased the numbers of and opportunities for more severely handicapped individuals to enter the program. There are, however, still large numbers of individuals who either are being declared ineligible for vocational rehabilitation services or who have never been referred to, or availed themselves of, vocational rehabilitation services and who have become the concern of many intimately involved in serving handicapped people. For this reason, in mounting this Study, a thorough review of the legislative background is important at the outset. Legislative Background Interest in extending the vocational rehabilitation program to providing services to all disabled irrespective of vocational outcome is not new. A major effort was made in 1962 at which time focus was on "aid to independent Living" as a rehabilitation goal. Although the National Rehabilitation Association testified in favor of "aid to independent living," the Department was opposed, and the measure did not carry the Congress. 92nd Congress House bills H. R. 8395 and H. R. 9847 The most recent effort, which eventually led to the mandated study of Section 130, was begun on a limited basis, and seen, in part, in the major bills which were introduced in the 92nd Congress. The first bill introduced in the House of Representatives, known as the NRA bill, was H. R. 83951/ As originally introduced, it would have established two new formula grant programs, each with its own authorizations and State plan requirements, to provide services to the blind and deaf, respectively. The new programs were essentially gap-filling, and required the State agency to survey and utilize the services provided by all other public programs such as crippled children, maternal and child health, etc. However, services for which formula funds could be spent included outreach, referral, screening, eyeglasses, adjustment such as mobility training, ADL and other rehabilitation teaching services, etc., for the blind, and comparable services for the deaf. There clearly was no age restriction, or tie to vocational outcome. The other major bill introduced into the House during the 92nd Congress was HR 9847, which had as its focus emphasis on services to the severely handicapped. The list of "vocational rehabilitation services" was expanded to include "preventive, restorative, and other services which would preclude or diminish the present or prospective need of any handicapped individual" for any or all of the other vocational rehabilitation services. As the definition of "handicapped individual," which governs access to the program was not changed, it is unclear to what extent the preventive or other services could have been provided in the absence of an established vocational goal. (as e) H. R. 8395, as finally passed by the House had substituted a new formula grant program to provide "comprehensive rehabilitation services to severely handicapped individuals" in place of the two-part program originally directed to the blind and deaf only. A State plan was required and specified among other things, that the State study and consider "...a broad variety of means for providing comprehensive services to severely handicapped individuals, including but not limited to regional and community centers, half-way houses and patient release programs, where such programs are appropriate and beneficial." 1/ There were four versions of this bill that were recorded Severely handicapped individual was defined as one who is under a physical or mental disability so serious that it limits substantially his ability to function in his family and community as one without such serious disability may be expected to function, and who with assistance of comprehensive rehabilitation services can reasonably be expected to improve substantially his ability to live independently and function normally in his family and community. Comprehensive rehabilitation services were defined to include any appropriate vocational rehabilitation services and any other service that would make a substantial contribution in helping the severely handicapped individual improve his ability to live independently or function normally with his family or community. It also included preventive or restorative services which would diminish the present or prospective need of a severely handicapped individual for comprehensive rehabilitation services. Senate bill - S. 3987 The Senate bill of the 92nd Congress would have made comprehensive services for severely handicapped individuala part of the basic support program (rather than have a separate State plan), with funding from a 15 percent earmark for severely handicapped individuals on one allotment to the State, of which no more than 10 percent could go for "comprehensive rehabilitation services," defined generally as did the House bill but without reference to preventive or restorative services as did the House bill. The purpose of the Senate treatment of the issue of services not leading to a vocational goal was to assure funding for such, and to emphasize that such services were to be linked with and support the on-going services program to assure that more severely handicapped individuals were served and rehabilitated. H. R. 8395 - as passed and vetoed The final version of H. R. 8395 which was passed by the Congress and vetoed by the President retained comprehensive rehabilitation services in essentially the same form as had the bill passed by the House. A new formula program was authorized. Ten percent set-aside was allowed for research, demonstration, and training. One additional provision added by the Conference Committee, In lieu of a separate State plan requirement, was that the State agency named for the basic support program of vocational rehabilitation must file an amendment to their State plan so that comprehensive rehabilitation services would be provided. Ten percent of the amounts appropriated could be used for research, demonstration, and training projects. 93rd Congress Early in the 93rd Congress, bills identical to HR 8395, the one vetoed the previous fall were introduced in each House. The only modifications made to these bills, S 7 and H.R. 8070, were a scaling downward of the amounts authorized to be appropriated. The bill that passed the Congress, S. 7, was again vetoed. Attempts to override the veto failed. Provisions of H.R. 8395 for a programn of comprehensive rehabilitation services (services without a vocational objective) were retained hanged in S. 7. That is, a new formula grant program would have been established, to be administered by the same agency designated to administer the basic support program for vocational rehabilitation. S. 1875, H.R. 8070 Following the second veto, the Administration worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on the Handicapped to develop a compromise bill which would have the approval of the President. In this bill, the provisions establishing a new formula grant program were dropped; instead. the study mandated by Section 130 was substituted. A similar provision was inserted in the House bill, H.R. 8070, which was identical in substance to the Senate provision, differing only in that the House version said the study shall include research and demonstration projects, whereas the Senate version, which prevailed, said the study may include research and demonstration projects. Also, the House version set the date for submission as June 30, 1975; the Senate bill originally said January 1, 1975. The Conference agree to a date for submission of February 1 1975.☛ The language of Section 130 of P.L. 93-112 clearly states the Congressional objectives of the study: "Sec. 130. (a) The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive |