 |
|
National Council on Independent Living |
|
Not Just Responding To Change, But Leading It! |
RSA Response to NCIL Demands December 1, 2008 Also included with the response:
Kelly Buckland Dear Mr. Buckland: This letter responds to the concerns raised by National Council on Independent Living (NCIL) members on July 23, 2008 during NCIL’s annual conference regarding the Rehabilitation Services Administration’s (RSA’s) administration of the independent living (IL) program. We have enclosed our responses to the specific concerns that NCIL members presented. As an initial matter, we would like to offer a point of clarification. As you may know, RSA representatives offered to address the NCIL conference attendees at the most recent conference in order to present and discuss many of the issues you raise here, but RSA’s offer was not accepted. In light of this, references to the failure of the Department to attend a session at the conference to which Department representatives were invited at the last minute do not provide a complete picture of our efforts to provide technical assistance. It is my hope that in the future we can continue to work together to build on our collaborative efforts to serve individuals with disabilities through these important programs, and we look forward to working with NCIL in the future on matters of mutual concern. In our discussions, you expressed concerns that RSA’s Statewide Independent Living Council (SILC)-related policies have changed recently. This is incorrect. RSA’s IL policies and its interpretation of IL program requirements, including SILC roles and responsibilities, are based on statutory and regulatory provisions governing the IL program, and these policies have not changed. What has changed, however, is RSA’s increased focus on monitoring States, SILCs, and centers for independent living (CILs) in order to ensure that federal funds are spent appropriately to provide IL program services to individuals with significant disabilities. Consistent with government-wide efforts to improve program performance, accountability, and outcomes for consumers, RSA conducted a thorough and comprehensive review of Statewide Plans for Independent Living (SPILs) and has increased significantly its monitoring and administrative oversight activities for the IL program (parts B and C) and the IL Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (OIB) program. RSA’s FY 2008-2010 SPIL approval process constituted a thorough analysis of each state’s SPIL. Beginning in 2006, RSA implemented a systematic monitoring process for the IL part B and OIB programs. RSA now includes the IL part B and OIB programs in its review process when it monitors a state. As a result of the analyses of SPILs and systematic monitoring of the Part B and OIB programs, RSA may be identifying more issues and areas for improvement than it did in the past. It may have been these enhanced activities that gave the impression that a policy change occurred because, as a result of these reviews, RSA issued more requests for SPIL revisions, compliance findings, and recommendations that involve the SPIL and part B and OIB programs. You also raised instances where RSA determined during the course of its monitoring reviews that there are problems related to the implementation of an existing, approved SPIL. In many instances, the information and assurances in the SPIL, including the particular strategies and funding the state is using to implement SPIL activities, cannot be verified until a monitoring review is conducted. If the verification and monitoring process identifies areas where the state’s implementation activities and processes are not consistent with the approved SPIL or federal law or regulation, then, even though RSA had approved the SPIL, it may be necessary for RSA to require that the state make revisions or take the necessary corrective actions to ensure that all activities are being implemented in a manner consistent with the law, regulations, and the SPIL. In these circumstances, when RSA requires revisions to the SPIL or corrective actions, it is always available to provide technical assistance as the state’s designated state unit (DSU) and the SILC work together to take the necessary actions. We appreciate that you shared your concerns with us, and we trust that we have addressed them. Please let me know if you have additional questions. We appreciate your efforts on these important matters. Edward Anthony, Ph.D. RSA Responses to the NCIL Concerns Presented During the NCIL Conference 2008
RSA’s interpretation of IL program requirements relating to DSUs, SILCs, and CILs are based on statutory and regulatory provisions governing the IL program, and these policies have not changed. RSA makes every effort to ensure that it is consistently interpreting the statute with regard to each state. RSA gives the DSUs and SILCs in each state as much flexibility as federal law and regulations allow. In reviewing SPILs and IL and OIB program activities, RSA takes into account the need for particular IL goals and objectives to vary from state to state because of the unique characteristics of individual states, but compliance with federal law is always required. To ensure consistency in its SPIL reviews and on-site monitoring, RSA developed review tools and provided in-house training for its staff. The monitoring and review tools were shared with the DSUs and SILCs (see attached).
RSA integrated monitoring of part B and OIB into its state monitoring protocol and significantly enhanced its SPIL reviews. As a result, all DSUs are being reviewed to ensure that they fulfill their required SPIL-related responsibilities, administer the part B and OIB program in compliance with program requirements, and improve the performance of the part B and OIB programs. We urge you and other NCIL members to review our monitoring reports that are available on-line in order to gain a better understanding of RSA’s efforts to ensure that all parties involved in SPIL development and implementation, as well as the administration of the part B and OIB programs, are being held to the same standard of accountability.
There are no federal standards and indicators for SILCs. However, during FY 2009, RSA will review the “SILC Standards and Indicators,” adopted by the SILC Congress.
In FY 2005, RSA solicited input from stakeholders, including SILCs and CILs, regarding its re-designed protocol for the state VR and IL programs. RSA issued a set of SPIL and SILC review guidelines taking into account this input. The part B review process is described in RSA’s FY 2008 monitoring protocol and information guide that were transmitted to the DSUs and the SILCs in November 2007. RSA will incorporate insights and stakeholders’ input from the FY 2008 reviews in developing its FY 2009 monitoring protocol. The updated monitoring protocol and information guide will be distributed to VR and IL stakeholders in advance of the FY 2009 monitoring reviews.
RSA is the cognizant federal agency that provides administrative oversight of the IL programs funded under Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (the Act). This includes developing program guidance and providing interpretation of federal requirements. The RSA staff receive appropriate training and legal guidance from Department resources, but we are also available to receive input from outside organizations.
RSA staff that work on the IL program have extensive experience in managing or working in CILs and on SILCs. IL unit members are committed to the IL philosophy and to improvements in the IL program’s performance and public accountability. RSA, including the IL unit, has a diverse staff and strongly encourages individuals with disabilities to apply for all its job openings.
RSA’s policy with regard to SILC roles and responsibilities has not changed, though it was applied more thoroughly during the FY 2008-2010 SPIL approval process. No programmatic changes were made or rules were issued. Therefore, no public comment process was necessary or required. In May 2007, RSA conducted two national teleconferences and web cast trainings with the participation of over 60 DSU and SILC representatives from 38 states. RSA provided explicit guidance regarding the SILC’s statutory roles and responsibilities during these trainings. RSA continued to provide technical assistance on this subject during numerous discussions with DSU and SILC representatives during the SPIL review process. RSA’s written response to NCIL’s questions in January 2008 outlined the statutory and regulatory bases for RSA’s policy regarding the SILC’s statutory roles and responsibilities. RSA transmitted this document to DSUs, SILCs, and CILs nationwide through its Management Information System (MIS). RSA also posted the document on the websites of the U.S. Department of Education and the Independent Living Research Utilization (ILRU) program. RSA provided additional legal guidance at the SILC Congress and during RSA’s on-site review activities in FY 2008. At the SILC Congress and other occasions we offered to review any alternative legal analyses that NCIL may wish to submit for RSA’s consideration. This offer has been reiterated several times and remains open.
In any Administration, the Administration as whole decides whether to pursue a particular legislative initiative, including appropriations. The Department is always willing to receive and consider recommendations from constituents such as NCIL.
RSA is working to establish outcomes-based performance measures for the IL program, in collaboration with the IL community. RSA provided technical assistance to NCIL’s outcome measures workgroup and will continue to do so, as appropriate, upon request.
Detailed information about the IL program and its impact on individuals with significant disabilities is available to the public through RSA’s MIS. RSA constantly upgrades the system to enhance the usefulness and quality of IL information. RSA is open to ideas for collaboration with NCIL and other IL stakeholders, consistent with RSA’s purpose and statutory authority.
|
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 • National Council on Independent Living |
