Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323153003
label
Americans with Disabilities Act Signing 7/26/90 [OA 8326] [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323153003
contentType
document
title
Americans with Disabilities Act Signing 7/26/90 [OA 8326] [1]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13725-008
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Backup Chronological Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323153003
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
8e3a0c807780cdd1
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S; 2006-0257-F
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Backup Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13725
Folder ID Number:
13725-008
Folder Title:
Americans with Disabilities Act Signing 7/26/90 [OA 8326] [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
20
6
6
(Hinchliffe/Garmey)
July 25, 1990 10:00 p.m.
ADABILL
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: SIGNING OF THE ADA BILL
JULY 26, 1990
Thank you. And welcome to every one of you out there in
this splendid scene of hope spread across the South Lawn. III
This is an incredible day -- especially for the thousands of
people across the nation who have given so much of their time,
their vision and their courage to see this Act become a reality.
11 You know, I started putting together a list of all the people
who should be mentioned today -- but when that list started
looking longer than the Senate testimony for the bill, I decided
I'd better give up or we'd never get out of here before sunset. 11
So I will single out only two friends who have guided me to
this day: Evan Kemp and Justin Dart. 11 And I hope you'll forgive
me for also saying a special word of thanks to Boyden Gray and
Bill Roper who labored long and hard to make this bill a reality.
To them and all the rest I say: thank you, from a grateful heart.
This is an immensely important day -- a day that belongs to
all of you. And everywhere I look, I see people who have
dedicated themselves to making sure this day would come to pass.
11 My friends from Congress, who worked so diligently, with the
best interests of all of our people at heart. 11 Members of my
Administration, who brought their caring and expertise to this
fight. 11 So many dedicated organizations for people with
disabilities, who gave their time and their strength. And,
perhaps most of all, everyone out there and others across the
breadth of this nation -- our 43 million Americans with
2
disabilities. You have made this happen. III
To all of you, I just want to say: your triumph is that
your bill will now be law. And that this day belongs to you. On
behalf of our nation, thank you. III
Three weeks ago, we celebrated our nation's Independence
Day. Today, we're here to rejoice in and celebrate another
Independence Day. One that is long overdue. III
With today's signing of the landmark Americans with
Disabilities Act, every man, woman and child with a disability
can now pass through once closed doors into a bright new era of
equality, independence, and freedom. 111
As I look around at all these joyous faces, I remember
clearly how many years of dedicated commitment have gone into
making this historic new civil rights act a reality. It has been
the work of a true coalition. A strong, inspiring coalition of
people who have shared both a dream and the passionate
determination to make that dream come true.
And it has been a coalition in the finest American spirit:
a joining of Democrats and Republicans; 11 of the legislative and
executive branches; 11 of federal and state agencies; 11 of
public officials and private citizens; 11 of people with
disabilities
and without.
This historic Act is the world's first comprehensive
declaration of equality for people with disabilities. Its
passage has made the U.S. the international leader on this human
rights issue. Already, leaders of several other countries --
3
including Sweden, Japan, the Soviet Union, and all 12 members of
the EEC -- have announced that they hope to enact similar laws. 11
Our success with this Act proves that we are keeping faith
with the spirit of our courageous forefathers who wrote in the
Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-
evident, that all Men are created equal, 11 that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
These words have been our guide for more than two centuries
as we have labored to form our more perfect union. But,
tragically, for too many Americans, the blessings of liberty have
been limited or denied. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
courageously took a bold step toward righting that wrong.
But the stark fact remained that people with disabilities
were still victims of segregation and discrimination. This was
intolerable. Today's legislation brings us closer to that day
when no Americans will ever again be deprived of their basic
guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 111
This Act is powerful in its simplicity. It will ensure that
people with disabilities are given the basic guarantees for which
they have worked so long and so hard: independence; 11 freedom of
choice; 11 control of their lives; 11 the opportunity to blend
fully and equally into the rich mosaic of the American mainstream
Legally, it will provide our disabled community with a
powerful expansion of protections and basic civil rights. It
will guarantee fair and just access to the fruits of American
life which we all must be able to enjoy. And specifically:
4
First, the ADA ensures that employers covered by the act
cannot discriminate against qualified individuals with
disabilities. III
Second, the ADA ensures access to public accommodations
such as restaurants, hotels, shopping centers, and offices. 111
Third, the ADA ensures expanded access to transportation
services. 111
And, fourth, the ADA ensures equivalent telephone services
for people with speech or hearing impairments. 111
These provisions mean so much to so many. To one brave girl
in particular, they will mean the world. Lisa Carl, a young
Washington state woman with Cerebral Palsy -- who, I'm told, is
with us today -- now will always be admitted to her hometown
theater which she had not been allowed to enter before. III
Lisa, you might not have been welcome at your theater, but I
tell you now: welcome to the White House. III
The ADA is a dramatic renewal not only for those with
disabilities, but for all of us. Because, along with the
precious privilege of being an American, comes a sacred duty --
to ensure that every other American's rights are also guaranteed.
Together, we must remove the physical barriers we have
created, and the social barriers we have accepted. For ours will
never be a truly prosperous nation until all within it prosper.
And for inspiration, we need look no further than our own
neighbors. With us this afternoon -- in that wonderful crowd out
there -- are people representing 18 of the Daily Points of Light
5
I have named for their extraordinary involvement with the
disabled community. We applaud you and your shining example. III
But I want to tell you a wonderful story right now, a story
about children already working in the spirit of the ADA -- a
story that really touched me. Across the nation, some 10,000
youngsters with disabilities are part of Little League's
Challenger Division. Their teams play just like others, but --
and this is the most remarkable part -- as they play, at their
sides are volunteer buddies from conventional Little League
teams. All of these players work together -- they team up to
wheel around the bases; to field grounders together; and, most of
all, just to play and become friends. 11
We must let these children be our guides and inspiration.)
I also want to say a special word to our friends in the
business community. You have in your hands the key to the
success of this Act: for you can unlock a splendid resource of
untapped human potential that, when freed, will enrich us all.
I know there have been concerns that the ADA may be vague,
or costly, or may lead to litigation. But I want to reassure you
right now that my Administration and Congress have carefully
crafted this Act. We have all been determined to ensure that it
gives businesses flexibility -- particularly in terms of the
timetable of implementation. And we have been committed to
containing the costs that may be incurred.
And this Act does something important for American business.
You've called for new sources of workers. Well, many of our
6
fellow citizens with disabilities are unemployed. They want to
work -- and they can work. This is a tremendous pool of people
who will bring to jobs: diversity; loyalty; proven low turnover
rate; and only one request -- the chance to prove themselves. 11
When you add together federal, state and other funds, it
costs almost $200 billion annually to support Americans with
disabilities -- in effect, to keep them dependent. When given
the opportunity to be independent, they will move proudly into
the economic mainstream of American life.
My friends, our problems are large, but our unified heart is
larger. Our challenges are great, but our will is greater. III
In our America, the most generous, optimistic nation on the
face of the earth, we must not - and will not -- rest until every
man and every woman with a dream has the means to achieve it.\\\
Today, America welcomes into the mainstream of life all of
our fellow citizens with disabilities. We embrace you for your
abilities AND for your disabilities; for our similarities AND for
our differences; for your past courage and your future dreams.
Last year, we celebrated the victory of international
freedom. Even the strongest person could not scale the Berlin
Wall to gain the elusive promise of independence that lay just
beyond. And so together we rejoiced when that barrier fell.
Now I sign legislation which takes a sledgehammer to another
Wall: one which has, for too many generations, separated
Americans with disabilities from the freedom they could glimpse
but could not grasp.
7
And once again we rejoice as this barrier falls, proclaiming
together: We will not accept, 11 we will not excuse, 11 we
will not tolerate discrimination in America. III
On behalf of this great country, I now lift my pen to sign
this bill and say: let the shameful wall of exclusion finally
come tumbling down. God bless you all.
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Coordination and Review Section
The Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities that
are like those provided to individuals on the basis of race, sex, national origin, and religion. It guarantees equal
opportunity for individuals with disabilities in employment, public accommodations, transportation, State and
local government services, and telecommunications.
I. Employment
Employers with 15 or more employees may not discriminate against qualified individuals with
disabilities. For the first two years after July 26, 1992, the date when the employment provisions of the ADA go
into effect, only employers with 25 or more employees are covered.
Employers must reasonably accommodate the disabilities of qualified applicants or employees,
unless an undue hardship would result.
Employers may reject applicants or fire employees who pose a direct threat to the health or safety
of other individuals in the workplace.
Applicants and employees are not protected from personnel actions based on their current illegal
use of drugs. Drug testing is not affected.
Employers may not discriminate against a qualified applicant or employee because of the known
disability of an individual with whom the applicant or employee is known to have a relationship or association.
Religious organizations may give preference in employment to their own members and may re-
quire applicants and employees to conform to their religious tenets.
Complaints may be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Available reme-
dies include back pay and court orders to stop discrimination.
1
II. Public Accommodations
Public accommodations such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail
stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers, may not discriminate on the basis of dis-
ability, effective January 26, 1992. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt.
Reasonable changes in policies, practices, and procedures must be made to avoid discrimination.
Auxiliary aids and services must be provided to individuals with vision or hearing impairments or
other individuals with disabilities so that they can have an equal opportunity to participate or benefit, unless an
undue burden would result.
Physical barriers in existing facilities must be removed if removal is readily achievable (i.e.,
easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense). If not, alternative methods
of providing the services must be offered, if those methods are readily achievable.
All new construction in public accommodations, as well as in "commercial facilities" such as
office buildings, must be accessible. Elevators are generally not required in buildings under three stories or with
fewer than 3,000 square feet per floor, unless the building is a shopping center, mall, or a professional office of a
health care provider.
Alterations must be accessible. When alterations to primary function areas are made, an accessible
path of travel to the altered area (and the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving that area) must
be provided to the extent that the added accessibility costs are not disproportionate to the overall cost of the al-10
terations. Elevators are required as described above.
Entities such as hotels that also offer transportation generally must provide equivalent transporta-
tion service to individuals with disabilities. New fixed-route vehicles ordered on or after August 26, 1990, and
capable of carrying more than 16 passengers, must be accessible.
Public accommodations may not discriminate against an individual or entity because of the known
disability of an individual with whom the individual or entity is known to have a relationship or association.
Individuals may bring private lawsuits to obtain court orders to stop discrimination, but money
damages cannot be awarded.
Individuals can also file complaints with the Attorney General who may file lawsuits to stop dis-
crimination and obtain money damages and penalties.
2
III. Transportation
Public bus systems
New buses ordered on or after August 26, 1990, must be accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Transit authorities must provide comparable paratransit or other special transportation services to
individuals with disabilities who cannot use fixed route bus services, unless an undue burden would result.
New bus stations must be accessible. Alterations to existing stations must be accessible. When
alterations to primary function areas are made, an accessible path of travel to the altered area (and the bathrooms,
telephones, and drinking fountains serving that area) must be provided to the extent that the added accessibility
costs are not disproportionate to the overall cost of the alterations.
Individuals may file complaints with the Department of Transportation or bring private lawsuits.
Public rail systems
New rail vehicles ordered on or after August 26, 1990, must be accessible.
Existing rail systems must have one accessible car per train by July 26, 1995.
New rail stations must be accessible. As with new bus stations, alterations to existing rail stations
must be made in an accessible manner.
Existing "key stations" in rapid rail, commuter rail, and light rail systems must be made accessible
by July 26, 1993, unless an extension of up to 20 years is granted (30 years, in some cases, for rapid and light rail).
Existing intercity rail stations (Amtrak) must be made accessible by July 26, 2010.
Individuals may file complaints with the Department of Transportation or bring private lawsuits.
Privately operated bus and van companies
New over-the-road buses ordered on or after July 26, 1996 (July 26, 1997, for small companies),
must be accessible. After completion of a study, the President may extend the deadline by one year, if appropriate.
3
Other new vehicles, such as vans, must be accessible, unless the transportation company provides
service to individuals with disabilities that is equivalent to that operated for the general public.
Other private transportation operations, including station facilities, must meet the requirements
for public accommodations.
Individuals may file complaints with the Attorney General or bring private lawsuits under the
public accommodations procedures.
IV. State and local government operations
State or local governments may not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities.
All government facilities, services, and communications must be accessible consistent with the requirements of 0
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Individuals may file complaints with Federal agencies to be designated by the Attorney General or
bring private lawsuits.
V. Telecommunications Relay Services
Companies offering telephone service to the general public must offer telephone relay services to
individuals who use telecommunications devices for the deaf (TDD's) or similar devices.
Individuals may file complaints with the Federal Communications Commission.
This document is available in the following accessible formats:
- Braille
- Large Print
- Audiotape
- Electronic file on computer disk and electronic bulletin board
(202) 514-6193
For additional information contact:
6
Coordination and Review Section
(202) 514-0301 (Voice)
Civil Rights Division
(202) 514-0381 (TDD)
U.S. Department of Justice
(202) 514-0383 (TDD)
P.O. Box 66118
Washington, D.C. 20035-6118
4
JUL-19-90 THU 16:12 IMMED. OFFICE ASHDS
P.02
Names
SERVICES
NUMAN
USAR
-Cavada
Office of
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Human Development Services
of
Administration on
DEPARTMENT Juane & D. Harkin's 6265 office.
Developmental Disabilities
Washington DC 20201
Can. Hayer
harpun
77
FOUR EXAMPLES
m
COMMUNICATIONS
A deaf woman will finally be able to order her favorite Chinese
food using her TDD (Telephone Device for the Deaf) Relay System.
TRANSPORTATION
A young boy in a wheelchair will now be able to isit Mis wherlchere. relatives
anougmous
using public transportation. Harperry
L.A
Viednam
Roby Stagle
225 9989
PUBLIC ACCESS
A young girl with Cerebral Palsy will no longer be denied going to
see her favorite cartoons in the movie theaters. (LiDa Carl - Tacome)
The boy with Downs Syndrome will not be denied access by the 21.
Brounzon.
zookeeper (Chilchen) to see his favorite animals.
Vich Fronke
cauls.
New Jersey Newspaper
Chimps
wash Past- 3188
EMPLOYMENT
The young adult woman with epilepsy will no longer be denied a job
20.
because of fear of her having a seizure.
Mexandert
Sarah Bloor
Dethodden
Ed
Tate.
30526-7532
Rebbre
Anco
Baston
Epi lapsy founds
Baokchepter 617 542-2292
459-3700
Deborah L. McFadden
Commissioner
Bill simple
Herriet Hartman -deaf - woman
Juolifer E heelcheur chemi
is A Man / Reheles California
lady Heumann cent breake heie in
in
and
On the
Threshold
of Independence
National Council
on the Handicapped
A Report to the President
and to the Congress
of the United States
January 1988
On the
Threshold
of Independence
Progress on Legislative
Recommendations from
Toward Independence
National Council
on the Handicapped
A Report to the President
and to the Congress
of the United States
January 1988
On the Threshold Of Independence:
Progress on Legislative Recommendations From Toward Independence
Library of Congress Catalog Number 87-619903
ISBN 0-936825-01-4
National Council on the Handicapped
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Suite 814
Washington, DC 20591
202-267-3846 (Voice)
202-267-3232 (TDD)
Publication date: January, 1988
Printed in the United States of America
The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the Admini-
stration, as this document has not been subject to the A-19 Executive Branch review
process.
Contents
Letter of Transmittal
V
Description of the National Council on the Handicapped
vii
Council and Staff Members
ix
Acknowledgments
xi
Executive Summary
xiii
Foreword
xvii
I. Introduction
1
II. Recent Data and Trends
9
III. Analysis of Progress Made In Specific Topic Areas
Since the Publication of Toward Independence
A. Equal Opportunity Laws
19
B. Employment
45
C. Disincentives to Work Under Social Security Laws
55
D. Prevention of Disabilities
59
E. Transportation
63
F. Housing
71
G. Community-Based Services For Independent Living
77
H. Educating Children With Disabilities
81
I. Personal Assistance
85
J. Coordination
89
Biographies of Members
of the National Council on the Handicapped
93
References
101
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE
National Council on the Handicapped
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Suite 814
Washington, D.C. 20591
202-267-3846 voice
202-267-3232 TDD
An Independent
Federal Agency
Letter of Transmittal
(Text of identical letters sent to the President of the United States, the Presi-
dent of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives)
January 29, 1988
The National Council on the Handicapped is pleased to issue On the
Threshold of Independence, a report describing progress made toward in-
creasing the independence and quality of life for persons with disabilities
since the Council's 1986 report, Toward Independence. On the Threshold of
Independence was developed in response to a statutory mandate that the
Council:
Not later than January 30, 1988, and annually thereafter, the National
Council on the Handicapped shall issue a report to the President and
Congress on the progress that has been made in implementing the recom-
mendations contained in the Council's January 30, 1986, report Toward
Independence. The reports issued shall present, as appropriate, available
data on health, housing, employment, insurance, transportation, recrea-
tion, and education, and shall include appropriate information on the
current status and trends in the status of individuals with disabilities.
(Public Law 99-506, Section 502(b))
Toward Independence assessed the status of persons with disabilities in
America and the Federal laws and programs that affect them. It presented
forty-five legislative remedies to identified problems, all geared toward in-
creasing the dignity and independence of Americans with disabilities. Since
the publication of Toward Independence, many doors, previously closed to
persons with disabilities, have been opened. On the Threshold of Independ-
ence describes accomplishments that have been achieved in response to the
recommendations in Toward Independence, and the degree to which the
recommendations have been implemented.
In some instances, the Toward Independence recommendations have
been the driving force behind particular legislative proposals, and the Coun-
cil played a major role in the process of developing concrete statutory ap-
proaches. In other cases, the Council was but one of many voices in favor of
a particular proposal that led to legislative action. In either event, the Coun-
cil gratefully acknowledges that the progress has been the result of the ideas,
comments, and diligent work of numerous persons with disabilities, their
families, public officials, other professionals and experts, consumer and
service organizations, and other interested individuals from all over the
country.
Some progress has been made in each of the ten topics of Toward Inde-
pendence. There have been major statutory advances in many of the topic
areas, bills are pending in others, and at least some positive administrative
efforts or related activities have occurred in the remainder. In all, approxi-
mately eighty percent of the recommendations have been either partially or
fully accomplished.
The Council is pleased at the many ways in which the Legislative and
Executive Branches of Government have responded positively to its recom-
mendations. Yet, the significant progress that has been made does not ob-
scure the fact that many of the major recommendations have not yet been
addressed or addressed only partially- many of the doors of opportunity
remain firmly shut to persons with disabilities. The Council seeks to rededi-
cate its own efforts, and to join with the President, the Congress, and per-
sons with disabilities and their families, to achieve the objectives of Toward
Independence. Only then will Americans with disabilities escape from situ-
ations of dependence and dehumanization and cross the threshold of inde-
pendence.
The Council appreciates the opportunity to continue to shape disability
policy and to work toward an America in which persons with disabilities are
afforded all the opportunities that our society has to offer.
Sincerely,
Sandra Swift Barrino
Sandra Swift Parrino
Chairperson
Description
of the National Council
on the Handicapped
The National Council on the Handicapped is an independent Federal
agency comprised of 15 members appointed by the President and con-
firmed by the Senate. The Council was initially established in 1978 as
an advisory board within the Department of Education (Public Law 95-
602). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-221)
transformed the Council into an independent agency.
The current statutory mandate of the Council assigns it the follow-
ing duties:
establishing general policies for and reviewing the operation of
the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDRR);
providing advice to the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration (RSA) on policies and conduct;
providing ongoing advice to the President, the Congress, the
RSA Commissioner, the Assistant Secretary of the Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), and the
Director of NIDRR on programs authorized in the Rehabilitation
Act;
reviewing and evaluating on a continuous basis the effective-
ness of all policies, programs, and activities concerning handi-
capped individuals conducted or assisted by Federal depart-
ments or agencies, and all statutes pertaining to Federal pro-
grams, and assessing the extent to which they provide incen-
tives to community-based services, promote full integration,
and contribute to the independence and dignity of individuals
with disabilities;
making recommendations of ways to improve research, service,
administration, and the collection, dissemination, and implem-
entation of research findings affecting handicapped persons;
reviewing and approving standards for Independent Living pro-
grams;
submitting an annual report with appropriate recommendations
to the Congress and the President regarding the status of re-
vii
search affecting persons with disabilities and the activities of
RSA and NIDRR;
reviewing and approving standards for Projects with Industry
programs;
providing to the Congress, on a continuing basis advice, recom-
mendations, and any additional information which the Council
or the Congress considers appropriate; and
issuing an annual report to the President and the Congress on
the progress that has been made in implementing the recom-
mendations contained in the Council's January 30, 1986,
report, Toward Independence.
While many government agencies deal with issues and programs affect-
ing people with disabilities, the National Council is the only Federal
agency charged with addressing, analyzing, and making recommenda-
tions on issues of public policy which affect people with disabilities
regardless of age, disability type, perceived employment potential,
economic need, specific functional ability, status as a veteran, or other
individual circumstance. The Council recognizes its unique opportunity
to facilitate independent living, community integration, and employ-
ment opportunities for people with disabilities by assuring an informed
and coordinated approach to addressing the concerns of persons with
disabilities and eliminating barriers to their active participation in
community and family life.
viii
The National Council on the Handicapped
Members
Sandra Swift Parrino, Chairperson
John S. Erthein
Theresa L. Gardner
Marian N. Koonce
Leslie Lenkowsky, Ph.D.
Nanette Fabray MacDougall
Robert Muller
Brenda Premo
*Harry J. Sutcliffe, D.D.
Joni Eareckson Tada
Roxanne Vierra
A. Kent Waldrep, Jr.
Phyllis Zlotnick
Staff
Lex Frieden, Executive Director
Brenda Bratton, Secretary
Stacey Brown, Clerk Typist
Ethel Briggs, Adult Services Specialist
Robert Burgdorf Jr., Attorney/Research Specialist
Frances Curtis, Administrative Officer
Andrea Farbman, Public Affairs Specialist
Kathleen Roy, Children's Specialist
Deborah Shuck, Staff Assistant
LaVerne Chase, Fellow
D. Ray Fuller, Jr., Fellow
*Deceased 12/87
ix
Acknowledgments
The Council is indebted to Andrea Farbman for coordinating, managing, and editing
this report. The contributions of staff members Ethel Briggs, Robert Burgdorf Jr.,
Kathy Roy, and fellows LaVerne Chase and D. Ray Fuller, Jr. are greatly appreciated.
Gratitude is also extended to Richard Moss for graphic design and production, Karen
Primack for editorial guidance, and Unicor print plant for printing the report.
xi
Executive Summary
In the 1986 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Congress
required the Council to:
issue a report to the President and Congress on the progress that
has been made in implementing the recommendations contained in
the Council's January 30, 1986, report Toward Independence.
The reports issued shall present, as appropriate, available data on
health, housing, employment, insurance, transportation, recreation,
and education, and shall include appropriate information on the
current status and trends in the status of individuals with disabili-
ties. (Public Law 99-506, Section 502(b))
On the Threshold of Independence chronicles progress made on the
forty-five legislative recommendations which were proposed in the
Council's previous report, Toward Independence. Several recent studies
on disability, including one from the Census Bureau and two Harris
polls are also discussed.
Some significant progress has occurred in the two years since
Toward Independence was published. The Council has identified some
twenty-one statutory provisions consistent with its recommendations
in Toward Independence that have been enacted into law. In addition,
the Council is aware of eight bills that have been introduced in Con-
gress, but not yet enacted, that would further proposals included in
Toward Independence.
Of the forty-five legislative recommendations, eighty percent have
been either partially or fully accomplished. Many doors to independ-
ence have been opened, others remain closed or only partially opened.
This report assesses progress made in each of the ten topic areas
in Toward Independence and examines the extent to which each of the
forty-five legislative recommendations have been implemented. The
following is an overview of progress that has occurred.
Equal Opportunity Laws
A major achievement in this area was the development by the Council
of a comprehensive legislative proposal, "The Americans with Disabili-
ties Act of 1988," which translates the primary equal opportunity rec-
ommendations into proposed statutory language. Three other stat-
utes- the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986, the Handicapped
Children's Protection Act of 1986, and the Protection and Advocacy for
the Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986- incorporated other significant,
xiii
but narrower, equal opportunity recommendations. In spite of legisla-
tive progress made, the Council remains committed to passage of its
comprehensive equal opportunity proposal as an essential prerequisite
to equality and independence for persons with disabilities.
Employment
In the area of employment of persons with disabilities accomplish-
ments included passage of legislation incorporating several of the
Council's major recommendations in the areas of supported employ-
ment, transition, and tax incentives for employers. The Council be-
lieves that these legislative changes represent unprecedented gains in
terms of expanded employment opportunities for persons with disabili-
ties. Additional congressional action is still needed to implement the
full range of the Council's recommendations, including the establish-
ment of model centers on employment and return-to-work programs,
and elimination of the income eligibility requirement for persons with
disabilities under the Job Training Partnership Act.
Disincentives to Work under Social Security Laws
Legislation passed in the 99th Congress furthered several of the
Council's recommendations for the removal of barriers under the Social
Security Act that discouraged persons with disabilities from seeking
gainful employment. These included the Employment Opportunities for
Disabled Americans Act which made the temporary provisions of Sec-
tion 1619 (a) and (b) of the Social Security Act permanent and estab-
lished Section 303 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986
which required the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research to conduct a study of health insurance for persons with
disabilities. The Council continues to believe that the eligibility criteria
for Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insur-
ance merit attention.
Prevention of Disabilities
The Council devoted considerable effort regarding policies and pro-
grams to prevent both primary and secondary disabilities. The Office of
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, in conjunction with the
Council, convened a Federal ad hoc group on the prevention of disabili-
ties which included a number of Federal agencies. The focus of this ad
hoc group was the exchange of information between Federal agencies
and the development of a national plan for the prevention of disabili-
ties, as recommended by the Council. Funds have been sought for the
development of the national plan and a small community-based grants
xiv
program administered by the Centers for Disease Control. After these
projects have been completed, the Office of Technology Assessment will
be asked to conduct a study on the status of prevention of disabilities
in America.
Transportation
In Toward Independence the Council concluded that accessible trans-
portation is a critical component of a national policy that promotes the
self-reliance and self-sufficiency of people with disabilities. The area of
greatest progress has been that of air transportation with the passage
of the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986. Other developments included the
introduction of bills to amend the Urban Mass Transit Act and to cre-
ate a national uniform system for handicapped parking. The Council
affirms its commitment to improving access for persons with disabili-
ties.
Housing
The housing legislative recommendations presented direct and indirect
means for increasing the housing opportunities available to persons
with disabilities. Some significant legislative proposals and administra-
tive actions have furthered the Council's recommendations. At the
same time, many of the Council's key housing recommendations have
yet to receive congressional resolution and administrative implementa-
tion.
Community-Based Services for Independent Living
Centers providing independent living services have grown substantially
in number, scope, and resources. Consistent with the Council's recom-
mendation, Congress has continued to appropriate funds for independ-
ent living. The evaluation standards for independent living services
developed by the Council have been endorsed by the Rehabilitation
Services Administration. Tax deductions for expenses incurred by
persons with disabilities have increased under the Tax Reform Act of
1986. Other Council recommendations regarding core funding and
institutional bias within the Health Care Financing Administration
have not been implemented.
Educating Children with Disabilities
The Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 accom-
plished a primary recommendation of the Council by creating an early
intervention program to serve disabled infants from birth through age
two. In addition, the legislation included significant improvements in
XV
services for three- to five-year-old children with disabilities. To further
implementation of its recommendation regarding standards to clarify
the concept of least restrictive environment, the Council developed a
draft policy statement on this issue. One activity not mentioned in
Toward Independence was the Council's initiation of a third Harris poll
to examine the status of education for children with disabilities. The
results of the poll will be of immense value to the Council, the Con-
gress, and others in the development of educational policy to meet the
needs of children with disabilities.
Personal Assistance: Attendant Services,
Readers, and Interpreters
The Council established a task force for the development of a legislative
package for a comprehensive national personal assistance program
and consulted with leaders in the field and numerous organizations
around the country. A legislative workplan is currently being developed
which recommends amendments to legislation, and includes proposals
to fill service gaps in developing coordination of personal assistance
services.
Coordination
The Council participated in efforts that have fostered coordination of
services for people with disabilities on the Federal, State, and local
levels. Examples of these efforts include participation in an ad hoc
group on the prevention of disabilities, observation of the regulatory
negotiation process for the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, cosponsor-
ship of a conference on transition with the Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services, and recommendations in testimony for the
Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986. The Council
is also exploring the work of the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental
Relations to identify data being gathered regarding coordination efforts
at the State and local levels.
xvi
Foreword
In response to Toward Independence, President Ronald Reagan pro-
claimed:
I agree with the goals implicit in Toward Independence- equal opportunity
and full social participation for all Americans, and I am pleased to see that
your report sets forth a comprehensive agenda for progress toward these
goals [However] The road toward full independence will not be easy.
(Reagan letter, Jan., 1986)
Toward Independence assessed the status of persons with disabilities
in America and the Federal laws and programs that affect them The
report presented forty-five legislative remedies to identified problems,
all geared toward increasing the dignity and independence of Ameri-
cans with disabilities. Each recommendation can be viewed as a means
of achieving a greater degree of independence; viewed together, the
implementation of all forty-five recommendations can bring about an
America in which disabled citizens are given the opportunity to be fully
participating members.
Since the publication of Toward Independence in 1986, many
doors, previously closed to persons with disabilities, have been opened.
Some doors to opportunities have been fully opened, some have been
opened halfway, some have been only cracked slightly, and still others
remain tightly shut. This report describes accomplishments that have
been achieved in response to the recommendations in Toward
Independence, and the degree to which the recommendations have
been implemented.
When the accomplishments of the past two years are examined in
their entirety, the overall effect can be viewed as having placed persons
with disabilities on the threshold of independence. For the areas in
which the proposals in Toward Independence have been implemented
and the doors to opportunity have been opened, the task remaining is
to keep the doors open and for people with disabilities to accept the
challenge of going through the doorways. For those areas in which the
doors to independence are ajar, the Council hopes for further efforts to
keep opening up opportunities for independence, dignity, and self-
sufficiency. For areas in which no progress has been made and the
doors to opportunity remain shut, the Council plans to redouble its
efforts, and looks to the Congress, the Administration, people with
disabilities and their families, services providers, and others, to join
with the Council to continue to push and knock until the doors are
opened.
While President Reagan has aptly warned that "[t]he road to full
xvii
independence will not be easy," some significant progress has occurred
in the two years since Toward Independence was published. The Coun-
cil has identified some twenty-one statutory provisions consistent with
its legislative recommendations in Toward Independence that have
been enacted into law (see Table 1). In addition, it is aware of eight bills
that have been introduced in Congress, but not yet enacted, that would
further proposals included in Toward Independence. The Council does
not seek to claim for itself the credit for such laws and proposed legis-
lation. The development of bills and the process of getting them
through Congress and signed by the President is a highly collaborative
process involving the skills and commitment of many individuals and
organizations.
In some instances, the Toward Independence recommendations
have been the driving force behind particular legislative proposals, and
the Council has played a major role in the process of developing con-
crete statutory approaches. In other cases, the Council was but one of
many voices in favor of a particular proposal that led to legislative
action. In either event, the Council gratefully acknowledges that the
recommendations issued in Toward Independence were the result of
the ideas, comments, and advice of numerous persons with disabilities,
their families, public officials, other professionals and experts, con-
sumer and service organizations, and other interested individuals from
all over the country.
The legislative recommendations contained in Toward Independ-
ence focused on ten major topic areas. Within each of these ten areas,
some progress has been made since the publication of that report.
There have been major statutory advances in many of the topic areas,
bills are pending in others, and at least some positive administrative or
related activities have occurred in the remainder. Of the forty-five spe-
cific legislative recommendations in Toward Independence, 75 percent,
or thirty-four of the forty-five recommendations, have been partially
accomplished, and three have been fully accomplished (see Table 2).
The Council is pleased at the many ways in which the Legislative
and Executive Branches of Government have responded positively to
its recommendations. Yet, the significant progress that has been made
does not obscure the fact that many of the major recommendations
have not yet been addressed or addressed only partially- many of the
major doors of opportunity remain firmly shut to persons with disabili-
ties. This report represents a recognition and affirmation of the prog-
ress since Toward Independence, but it also provides an assessment of
how much has not been accomplished. The Council seeks to rededicate
its own efforts, and to join with the President, the Congress, and per-
sons with disabilities and their families, to achieve the objectives of
xviii
Table 1
Summary of Accomplishments
on the Recommendations from Toward Independence
Topic Area
Legislative Activity
Statutory
Bills*
Provisions
Equal Opportunity Laws
6
3
Employment
4
O
Disincentives to Work
3
O
Prevention
3
1
Transportation
2
3
Housing
O
2
Independent Living
2
O
Education
1
O
Personal Assistance
O
0
Coordination
O
O
Totals
21
9
*Includes the Council's proposed "Americans with Disabilities Act of 1988."
Table 2
Summary of Accomplishments
on the Recommendations from Toward Independence
Topic Area
Level of Achievement
Full
Partial
No Activity
Equal Opportunity Laws (6)*
0
6
O
Employment (8)
O
4
4
Disincentives to Work (3)
1
1
1
Prevention (3)
O
2
1
Transportation (6)
1
3
2
Housing (8)
O
7
1
Independent Living (4)
O
2
2
Education (4)
1
3
O
Personal Assistance (2)
O
2
O
Coordination (1)
O
1
O
All recommendations (45)
3
31
11
*denotes number of Toward Independence recommendations
XX
Toward Independence. Only then will persons with disabilities in the
United States escape from situations of dependency and dehumaniza-
tion and cross the threshold of independence.
xxi
Introduction
Background
On January 29, 1986, the National Council on the Handicapped re-
leased its comprehensive blueprint for disability policy in America.
Toward Independence was developed in response to a 1984 congres-
sional mandate for the Council to:
assess the extent to which Federal programs serving people with disabilities
provide incentives or disincentives to the establishment of community-
based services for handicapped individuals, promote the full integration of
such individuals in the community, in schools, and in the workplace, and
contribute to the independence and dignity of such individuals. (Section
401 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended)
In that report, the Council presented its findings, conclusions, and
legislative recommendations based upon its review and assessment of
Federal laws and programs, as well as input from hundreds of persons
with disabilities.
Relevant information and data were collected by:
examining current legislation and programs;
collecting and analyzing information about exemplary programs;
reviewing existing analyses of Federal programs and disability is-
sues;
consulting with experts;
conducting special seminars and hearings; and
conducting forums with persons with disabilities and their families
throughout the United States.
As a result, Toward Independence listed major Federal programs
serving individuals with disabilities and ranked them according to
expenditures, with an estimated number of persons with disabilities
served. From its analysis, the Council drew three primary conclusions:
1. Approximately two-thirds of working-age persons with disabili-
ties do not receive Social Security or other public assistance
income.
2. Federal disability programs reflect an overemphasis on income
support and an underemphasis on initiatives for equal opportu-
nity, independence, prevention, and self-sufficiency.
1
3. More emphasis should be given to Federal programs encourag-
ing and assisting private sector efforts to promote opportuni-
ties and independence for individuals with disabilities.
The Council also analyzed Federal spending on disability. "Our
nation's current annual Federal expenditure on disability benefits and
programs exceeds $60 billion" (p.2). Further examination of that esti-
mate revealed that the combined spending for Fiscal Year 1986 for
the education of handicapped children and vocational rehabilita-
tion totaled less than $3 billion, or less than five percent of the
total dollars spent on disability. This startling underemphasis of
spending on programs and services oriented toward the goals of inde-
pendence and self-reliance caused the Council to target its legislative
recommendations on more fiscally responsible approaches which em-
phasize productivity and self-determination.
The forty-five legislative recommendations in Toward Independence
focused on ten major topic areas of particular importance to persons
with disabilities. These ten topics were discussed extensively in a 600-
page Appendix to the report. In order to review the major recommenda-
tions from the topic areas, a brief synopsis follows.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
Based on testimony and comments from hundreds of people with dis-
abilities, parents, and others, the most pervasive and recurrent prob-
lem faced by disabled persons appeared to be unfair and unnecessary
discrimination.
[W]hatever the limitations associated with particular disabilities,
people with disabilities have been saying for years that their major
obstacles are not inherent in their disabilities, but arise from barri-
ers that have been imposed externally and unnecessarily. (p.1)
Equal Opportunity Law
The Council recommended the enactment of a comprehensive law
requiring equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities, with broad
coverage and setting clear, consistent, and enforceable standards pro-
hibiting discrimination on the basis of handicap.
Employment
To increase employment among people with disabilities- a drastically
unemployed and underemployed segment of the population- the Coun-
cil recommended several legislative changes, concerning the transition
from school to work, supported employment, private sector initiatives,
job training, job development, and placement.
2
Disincentives to Work Under Social Security Laws
The Council outlined several ways in which provisions of existing So-
cial Security laws- Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Secu-
rity Disability Insurance (SSDI), Medicaid, and Medicare- serve to
discourage and penalize people with disabilities if they seek to become
employed and self supporting. In response to these work disincentives,
the Council recommended corrective amendments to the problematic
provisions.
Prevention of Disabilities
To promote the prevention of disabilities and to assure that individuals
having disabilities do not experience unnecessary secondary disabili-
ties, the Council recommended that the Federal Government mount a
national program for the prevention of disabilities.
Transportation
The Council recommended amendments to transportation legislation to
achieve the Nation's established policy that "disabled people have the
same right to use public transportation as nondisabled persons." Pro-
posals related to urban mass transit, air transportation, intercity and
interstate buses, private vehicles, and research.
Housing
To permit people with disabilities an opportunity to obtain appropriate
housing, which is an important prerequisite to obtaining employment,
living independently, and avoiding costly institutionalization, the
Council made several recommendations designed to prohibit housing
discrimination and to promote increased appropriate and accessible
housing for persons with disabilities.
Community-Based Services
for Independent Living
To achieve productivity and independence, people with disabilities
require a range of support services according to the nature and degree
of their disabilities. The Council proposed a variety of measures, in-
cluding amendments and funding support under Parts A and B of Title
VII of the Rehabilitation Act, to promote the availability of community-
based services for independent living.
Educating Children with Disabilities
The Council made legislative recommendations regarding educational
opportunities for children with disabilities. These recommendations
responded to: the need for special education and related services dur-
ing infancy; the need to educate children with special needs in regular
3
education facilities; and the need to assess progress made since the
enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.
Personal Assistance:
Attendant Services, Readers, and Interpreters
Because of the critical importance of such services in fostering inde-
pendence and avoiding expensive institutionalization, the Council
recommended a national commitment to developing a quality system of
attendant services, readers, and interpreters.
Coordination
The Council recommended that all Federal and federally supported
disability-related programs be authorized and required to develop a
joint plan for the systematic coordination of services and benefits.
Dissemination and Response
to Toward Independence
Reactions to Toward Independence were overwhelmingly positive. Some
of the highest accolades were expressed in a letter from President
Reagan (a replica of the letter appears on page 5). In addition to send-
ing copies to the White House and to all members of the Senate and
House of Representatives, the Council released Toward Independence
at two Washington press conferences.
Media Coverage
One of the factors that increased the visibility of Toward Independence
was the simultaneous release of an unprecedented nationwide Harris
poll that examined the perceptions of persons with disabilities (for
details on the poll, see: "Recent Data and Trends"). Toward Independ-
ence and the Harris poll were covered on the front page of USA Today,
as well as in articles in many local papers across the country. Televi-
sion coverage included interviews with Chairperson Sandra Swift Par-
rino on "Today in New York City" and "Live at Five" on station WPLG in
Miami, Florida. And radio broadcasts were generated from as far away
as Seattle, Washington, St. Louis, Missouri, and Miami, Florida. Based
on a request from the Voice of America, the Council and Toward Inde-
pendence were featured on a radio program broadcast in the Peoples
Republic of China.
The disability community also openly embraced Toward Independ-
ence. Publications such as the Disability Rag and various newsletters
ran articles emphasizing the comprehensiveness and depth of the
report's recommendations.
4
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 29, 1986
Dear Mrs. Parrino:
Thank you for Toward Independence, the special report
of the National Council on the Handicapped.
I congratulate the members and staff of the Council on
the completion of this report, and I commend the many
individuals from all of the fifty states who donated their
time, their talents, and their economic resources to
produce this special testament to the spirit of independ-
ence. Their contributions demonstrate the vitality of
our democratic process and the commitment of the
American people to the principles of independence and
opportunity for all.
I agree with the goals implicit in Toward Independence --
equal opportunity and full social participation for all
Americans, and I am pleased to see that your report
sets forth a comprehensive agenda for progress toward
these goals. My Administration will study your report
and cooperate with the Council, with the Congress, and
with disabled Americans and their supporters to refine
and develop these proposals.
The road toward full independence will not be easy.
It will require the efforts of individuals, families, and
communities as well as partnership between the private
sector and all levels of government. You can be
assured of my complete cooperation as we work together
to make the American dream a reality for all our people.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reogan
The Honorable Sandra S. Parrino
Chairperson
National Council on the Handicapped
123 Marlborough Road
Briarcliff Manor, New York 10510
5
Visibility on Capitol Hill
Opportunity for close scrutiny came when the National Council on the
Handicapped appeared before the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations to review the Council's Fiscal Year 1987 Budget re-
quest. Both Committees queried Council Chairperson Sandra Swift
Parrino and Executive Director Lex Frieden about the report's recom-
mendations and plans for implementation.
Senator Lowell Weicker opened the Council's 1986 appropriation
hearing by congratulating the Council for its accomplishments and
remarking about the uniqueness of the Council: "I think really, so
many of these national councils are a lot of show and don't do any-
thing. I think you are terribly blessed You have a great outfit here."
Later in the hearing Senator Weicker added:
I want to thank you for everything that you are doing; for the report
Toward Independence. I think it is a magnificent piece of work, the Harris
poll, with the professionalism that you are bringing with the Council to
where the Council's voice is listened to by everybody, and for the courage in
cutting across all partisan and philosophical bounds in order to achieve the
result of those you serve, which is what it is all about. (p. 805)
Senator Weicker asked Chairperson Parrino to summarize Toward
Independence and describe how the Council planned to follow up and
monitor each of the forty-five recommendations. Mrs. Parrino detailed
the Council's workplan and implementation strategies.
On the House side, Congressmen William Natcher, Silvio Conte,
and Carl Pursell further explored the recommendations of Toward
Independence. In responding to a question from Congressman Pursell,
Executive Director Frieden commented on the major themes of the
report:
There are two principal themes that run through this report. One of those
deals with equal opportunity The second predominant theme relates to
independence for people with disabilities. We believe community-based
programs that facilitate independence for people with disabilities are the
most cost-effective means of providing disabled people the opportunity to
make choices about their own lives. (p. 443)
In addition to being a topic for discussion during the Council's appro-
priations hearings, a number of legislators integrated recommenda-
tions from Toward Independence into their own speeches and com-
ments on disability-related legislation. For example, in his remarks on
the Employment Opportunities for Disabled Americans Act, Congress-
man Steve Bartlett used Toward Independence to underscore the im-
portance of employment opportunities for persons with disabilities.
6
Toward Independence
Featured at Conferences
In the course of the two years since the publication of Toward
Independence, the report has been used repeatedly as the centerpiece
for conferences, meetings, and forums. Organizations such as the
Paralyzed Veterans of America, the National Easter Seal Society, and
the National Council for Independent Living have all employed the
report as a tool from which to generate discussion about disability
policy.
Follow-up Report Mandated by Congress
Subsequent to the report, Congress reauthorized the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986. In the Amend-
ments, Congress required the Council to report on progress that had
been made on the recommendations in Toward Independence.
Section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986 states:
(b)(1) Not later than January 30, 1988, and annually thereafter, the Na-
tional Council on the Handicapped shall issue a report to the President and
Congress on the progress that has been made in implementing the recom-
mendations contained in the Council's January 30, 1986, report Toward
Independence.
(2) The reports issued pursuant to paragraph (1) shall present, as appro-
priate, available data on health, housing, employment, insurance, transpor-
tation, recreation, and education, and shall include appropriate information
on the current status and trends in the status of individuals with disabili-
ties.
Thus, the intent of this followup report is to chronicle progress made
on each of the forty-five legislative recommendations proposed in To-
ward Independence. For the purpose of this report, progress includes
the convening of important meetings and conferences, the initiation of
correspondence, and the development of legislation and regulations.
Progress was realized not solely by the Council, but also by disability
organizations, service providers, government agencies, individuals, and
others. The period covered by this report is February 1, 1986, through
November 18, 1987.
7
Recent Data and Trends
Accurate statistical data in the area of disability are imperative for
policy-makers and others. As reported in Toward Independence, exist-
ing studies have been fraught with problems. Since the publication of
Toward Independence, however, a number of significant studies have
been conducted.
The Census Bureau issued an important study of functional limita-
tions in December 1986. Entitled "Disability, Functional Limitation,
and Health Insurance Coverage: 1984/85," the report presents data
drawn from the Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation,
conducted in May through August of 1984.
In the report, researchers found that one out of five non-institu-
tionalized residents aged 15 and over- some 37.3 million persons- has
difficulty performing one or more basic physical activities. The activi-
ties included seeing, hearing, speaking, walking, using stairs, lifting or
carrying, getting around outside, getting around inside, and getting
into or out of bed. Some 13.5 million persons said that they not only
had difficulty, but could not perform the activity specified or could not
do it without help.
Among the findings of the study:
Some 12.8 million people, or 7.1 percent of the population
studied, had trouble seeing words and letters in ordinary news-
print, even with glasses or contact lenses. Approximately 1.7
million could not see words and letters at all.
About 7.7 million people had trouble hearing a normal conver-
sation, and 500,000 were unable to hear such a conversation.
Some 2.5 million people had a problem having their speech
understood by others.
About 19.2 million people had difficulty walking a quarter of a
mile, including 8 million who reported that they were unable to
walk that far.
Some 18.1 million people had trouble walking up a flight of
stairs without resting, and 5.2 million could not do so on their
own.
About 18.2 million persons had trouble lifting or carrying
something as heavy as a full bag of groceries, and 17.8 million
of them could not do so.
Some 6 million individuals had trouble getting around outside
the home, and 3.6 million of them could not do so on their
own.
9
Approximately 2.5 million people had trouble getting around
inside the home, and 1.2 million were unable to do so without
help.
Some 2.1 million people had difficulty getting into or out of
bed, and 1.2 million of them could not do so on their own.
Of those who had trouble performing at least one function, 21.8
million were under age 65 and 15.5 million were 65 and over.
The totals for those completely unable to perform an activity or
who needed help were 6 million under age 65 and 7.5 million
65 and over.
One of the data sources employed in the development of Toward
Independence was the Digest of Data on Persons with Disabilities, pre-
pared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. under contract to the
Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. The infor-
mation in the Digest has been supplemented by two reports prepared
by the Human Services Research Institute and issued by the National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. The Summary of
Data on Handicapped Children and Youth (1985) compiles data from
various sources regarding the incidence and prevalence of disability in
children.
Among the statistical highlights contained in the report are esti-
mates that 4.2 percent of all children under age twenty-one have a
chronic activity limitation, and that about one-fourth of 1 percent of
children under age seventeen need help in activities such as walking,
going outside, dressing, eating and using the toilet. The Compilation of
Statistical Sources on Adult Disability (1986) provides a bibliography
containing profiles of major national data files. It is designed to serve
as a reference for researchers, administrators, and practitioners look-
ing for statistical information on adult impairments. The Compilation
describes thirty data files, some of which contain two or more related
surveys.
Several publications have made projections regarding the popula-
tion with disabilities. These include two publications of the Menninger
Foundation, A Population Model of Working Age Disabled Individuals
(1985) and The Relationship Between Age and Physical Disability
Among Workers: Implications for the Future (1986), and a book chapter
by H.R. Vachon, III, entitled "Inventing a Future for Individuals with
Work Disabilities (1986). All three sources provide estimates of the size
and characteristics of the population with disabilities through the year
2000 and beyond. Among a variety of other observations and findings,
these publications verify two major premises of Toward Independence-
that disabilities correlate with aging, and that the proportion of the
10
population with disabilities will increase significantly during the next
several decades.
Harris Polls
Clearly, the two Harris poll studies initiated by the Council also made
important and unique contributions to the disability community. The
idea for the first Harris poll evolved during the initial phases of Toward
Independence. Several Council members expressed frustration at the
lack of adequate data regarding the status, needs, and opinions of
Americans with disabilities. One Council member suggested a nation-
wide survey of persons with disabilities.
A short time later, working in conjunction with the Council, the
International Center for the Disabled commissioned such a study from
the well-known survey research firm of Louis Harris and Associates.
The survey, entitled "Bringing Disabled Americans into the Main-
stream," was the first major national survey to study the attitudes and
experiences of people with disabilities. As the Harris agency correctly
acknowledges:
Census Bureau and other government agencies have measured the inci-
dence and prevalence of disability in the general population, and the num-
ber of disabled people in and out of the labor force But no substantial
nationwide survey has sought to learn the impact of disability; what dis-
abled people think about being disabled; and what they think must be done
to enable them to participate fully in the life of the nation (p.i).
The Council decided that it needed to know the answers to such ques-
tions before it could address the needs of disabled persons and effec-
tively set disability policy in America.
Sample
One unique aspect of the Harris poll was its use of a nationwide ran-
dom sample. Harris researchers telephoned 12,500 households to
obtain 1,000 respondents who met at least one of the definitional crite-
ria (which will be discussed in the next section). The sample repre-
sented non-institutionalized disabled persons aged sixteen and over
who lived in households with telephones. When a disabled person was
unavailable for an interview, or unable to be interviewed, a proxy was
chosen as the respondent. About seventeen percent of the interviews
were conducted with proxies.
Issue of Definition
Toward Independence points out that the issue of defining disability is
11
not simple. "Most existing studies of the disabled population employ
one of two major approaches, each of which has its own shortcomings
and limitations" (p.3). The health conditions approach stresses condi-
tions or limitations which impair health or interfere with normal func-
tioning. This approach is best exemplified in surveys conducted by the
National Center for Health Statistics. On the other hand, the work
disability approach focuses on factors that prevent individuals from
working or limit their ability to work. Data collected by the Social Secu-
rity Administration exemplify this type of definitional approach.
Knowing the limitations of these approaches, Harris sought to
solve the problem by using a third approach. For purposes of the Har-
ris survey, a person was defined as being disabled if:
He or she had a disability or health problem that prevented them
from participating fully in work, school, or other activities.
He or she said that he or she had a physical disability, a seeing, a
hearing, or speech impairment, an emotional or mental disabil-
ity, or a learning disability.
He or she considered himself or herself disabled, or said that
other people would consider him or her disabled. (p. iii)
In a Council report on the Federal Government implications of the
Harris survey (to be published in 1988), strong support was given to
the application of this approach:
The Harris approach should be considered as a starting point or
conceptual model in the development by Federal agencies of more
adequate instruments and studies In particular, the Bureau of
Census should consider the definitional approach in the Harris
survey for reformulating questions on disability for the decennial
Census
"
Numbers and Types
of People with Disabilities
Another issue discussed in Toward Independence was the number of
people with disabilities in the U.S. Various estimates place the number
between twenty million and fifty million, with thirty-five or thirty-six
million being the most commonly used figures. Based on the Harris
data, it was estimated that the incidence of disability was 15 percent
and that the number of Americans aged sixteen and over was between
twenty-seven and twenty-eight million (p. 123). Although the Harris
survey did not use people under age sixteen in the survey, it found the
overall incidence for this group to be 1.5 percent or about three mil-
lion. This figure is drastically lower than other estimates of the number
12
of children with disabilities, and appears to reflect an undercount.
According to the Harris figures, the disabled population is between
thirty and thirty-one million. When the number of disabled persons in
institutions is considered, along with those in households without
telephones or in households in which Telecommunication Devices for
the Deaf are used exclusively, and when the undercount of children
with disabilities is considered, the figure of thirty-five or thirty-six
million is roughly validated.
Another complex question to answer, and one that is somewhat
dependent on which definitional approach is selected, relates to the
types of disabilities. Toward Independence provided data with a variety
of classifications and categories from such sources as the National
Center for Health Statistics, the National Institute of Mental Health,
and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
Harris data revealed that 44 percent of respondents stated that
they had a physical disability, 13 percent had sensory impairments
(visual, hearing, speech, and/or language), 6 percent had a mental
disability (mental retardation or mental illness), and 32 percent had
other serious health impairments (heart disease, respiratory disease,
etc.) Thirty-two percent of the Harris sample considered themselves
multiply disabled, while the remainder did not. Finally, with regard to
the severity of disability, 45 percent considered themselves to be
slightly or moderately disabled and 52 percent considered themselves
to be somewhat or very severely disabled.
Age
Based on Census data, Toward Independence confirmed what many
have observed: the incidence of disability increases dramatically with
age. Harris data showed that "58 percent of people with disabilities
were 55 years of age or older, and 71 percent were 45 or older. In con-
trast, only 16 percent of disabled people were between the ages of 16
and 34. Twelve percent were in the 35-44 age range" (p.15).
Income
Numerous studies have confirmed the correlation between disability
and poverty. Toward Independence drew from 1980 Census figures on
income levels of those with work disabilities. Some 20.1 percent of the
persons reporting a work disability had family incomes below the pov-
erty threshold. That figure was more than double the 1980 Census rate
of 9.1 percent for the general population.
The Harris survey confirmed the great disparity between the in-
comes of those with disabilities and those in the general population.
According to Harris, half of all disabled persons surveyed had incomes
13
of $15,000 or less. Among non-disabled Americans, just over a quarter
had incomes in that bracket.
Harris highlights the alarming rate of poverty among older disabled
persons. "Fully one in three (32%) of disabled persons aged 65 and
over report a household income of $7,500 or less. Six out of ten elderly
disabled persons report a household income of $15,000 or less" (p.23).
Poverty also correlates with severity of disability. Using the Harris
definition of disability, both those who are the most severely disabled
and those who stated that their activities are the most limited have the
lowest family incomes.
Education
The Harris poll examined the education levels of persons with disabili-
ties. "Forty percent of all disabled persons aged 16 and over did not
finish high school. This proportion is nearly three times higher than in
the non-disabled population, where only 15% of adults aged 18 and
over have less than a high school education" (p. 23).
Future studies are needed to determine of the impact of the Educa-
tion of All Handicapped Children Act, Public Law 94-142. As the Harris
report comments: "These data provide no measure of the impact of the
Education Act of 1975 [sic], since only a small minority of the sample
were educated since its passage" (p. 88). Thus, at the urging of the
Council, a third Harris poll surveying parents of children with disabili-
ties, disabled children themselves, and educators, is being conducted
and will be released in 1988 (see also "Educating Children with Dis-
abilities").
Statistics from the first poll on college education, although not
surprising, are also disconcerting. Only 29 percent of disabled persons
have had some college or at least a four-year degree, compared with 48
percent of the non-disabled population.
Employment
Census figures on individuals with work disabilities used in Toward
Independence revealed that only 32 percent of working age persons
with disabilities had jobs at the time of the 1980 Census (p.22). Data
from the first Harris poll confirmed those figures. The chapter describ-
ing the employment status of disabled persons was entitled "Working
or Not Working: The Great Divide." The Harris report remarks:
Not working is perhaps the truest definition of what it means to be disabled
in this country. Two-thirds of all disabled Americans between age 16 and
64 are not working. Only one in four work full-time, and another 10% work
14
part-time. No other demographic group under 65 of any size has such a
small proportion working. (p.47)
Even though the number of persons with disabilities not working is SO
large, one optimistic finding is that of the persons with disabilities who
are not working, two-thirds say that they would like to work. As the
Harris report declares, "This finding- that most non-working persons
want to work- is one of the most important and challenging findings in
the survey. The challenge is how society can effect policies and pro-
grams which will bring these people into the working mainstream"
(p.50).
Barriers preventing the employment of persons with disabilities are
significant. When asked by Harris to comment on barriers respondents
identified being limited by their own disabilities or their need for medi-
cal treatment and therapy. They also mentioned employers' attitudes,
lack of appropriate jobs, insufficient education and training, lack of
accessible transportation, and lack of necessary equipment or devices.
Based on data from the first Harris poll, and the conclusion that
the employment picture needed more in-depth study, a second Harris
poll was conducted which focused on employers' perceptions of dis-
abled employees. Although this second study is discussed more fully in
the Employment topic paper, a few relevant points are summarized
here to supplement the overall status of employment of persons with
disabilities.
Disabled employees received very high marks from employers.
"Overwhelming majorities of managers give disabled employees a good
or excellent rating on their overall job performance" (p.7). The myth
that the cost involved in hiring disabled people is high was dispelled by
a 75 percent majority of managers who said that the average cost of
hiring a disabled person is about the same as the cost of employing a
non-disabled person (p.9).
Managers appear to be aware of the discrimination faced by dis-
abled employees. "A three-fourths majority of managers feel that dis-
abled people often encounter discrimination from employers" (p.12).
Although the study portrays disabled persons as being a strong,
untapped resource, it also points out that the employment of disabled
persons is not likely to increase because:
Most managers think their company is already doing enough to
employ disabled people and should not make greater efforts to
do so.
Most employers believe that the shortage of disabled job appli-
15
cants with appropriate qualifications is a major barrier to their
employing of more disabled people.
Employers give the hiring of disabled people a lower priority
than the hiring of people from minority groups and the elderly.
And disabled people are the least likely to be viewed as an excel-
lent source of employees. (p.16)
Harris concludes that efforts to increase the employment of disabled
people will require an increase in the number of qualified job appli-
cants and employers giving the hiring of disabled persons a higher
priority (p. 16).
Social Life and Leisure
The Harris survey provided important new data regarding the limited
independence of people with disabilities in regard to social life and
leisure experiences. Harris researchers included questions on social life
and leisure patterns for which they had comparable data on the non-
disabled population. They discovered a group of people who are ex-
tremely isolated and simply do not get out and pursue as many activi-
ties as non-disabled persons.
Over half of those surveyed said that their disability prevents them
from getting around, attending cultural or sports events, or socializing
with friends outside their home as much as they would like. The more
severely disabled the individual, the more these statistics increase.
Almost 80 percent of very severely disabled persons do not get around
in the ways mentioned.
Harris researchers found significantly lower participation rates
among disabled persons for specific activities:
Nearly two-thirds of all disabled Americans never went to a
movie in the past year. In the full adult population, only 22%
said that they had not gone to a movie in the past year.
Three-fourths of all disabled persons did not see live theater or
a live music performance in the past year. Among all adults,
about 4 out of 10 had not done so.
Two-thirds of all disabled persons never went to a sports event
in the past year, compared to 50% of all adults.
Disabled people are three times more likely than are non-dis-
abled people to never eat in restaurants. Only 34 percent of
disabled people eat at a restaurant once a week or more, com-
pared to 58% majority of non-disabled people. (p.3)
Traditional leisure pursuits are not the only activities limited for
16
disabled persons. Those social activities associated with daily living
and community life are also affected. For example, 13 percent of dis-
abled persons never go to a grocery store, compared to 2 percent of the
general public (p.3). Only 36 percent of disabled persons participate
actively in community, religious, volunteer or recreational groups, as
compared to 60 percent of non-disabled persons.
Because of the isolated and non-participatory status of persons
with disabilities in leisure activities, it is clear that this area is one that
merits further investigation and policy development. The complex
interactions between leisure and schooling, leisure and work, and
leisure and health also need to be examined.
Emerging Political Constituency
Disabled voters have gained increasing attention from candidates. Most
recently, efforts are being made to make polling places accessible to
persons with disabilities. Of course, these efforts have even more im-
portance in 1988, a Presidential election year.
The Harris researchers explored the degree to which persons with
disabilities felt a common unity. An overwhelming majority, 75 percent,
of Americans with disabilities reported that they felt some sense of
common identity with other people with disabilities (p.110). Further-
more, the Harris report notes, "the strength of identification varies little
among disabled people of all ages, those who have been disabled all or
only part of their lives, and among those who are moderately or se-
verely disabled" (p.110).
In analyzing this phenomenon, the Harris report remarks:
These results show clear signs of an emerging group consciousness. Many
other findings in the survey indicate that most disabled person view their
disability as their own problem. But these attitudinal data suggest that the
common experience of not working and facing limitations in physical and
social activities, affects how disabled persons relate to, and perceive, other
disabled people. (p.110)
In a Council report on the Federal policy implications of the Harris poll,
further analysis is offered: .[P]ersons with disabilities are an emerg-
ing political constituency whose views and objectives will become an
increasingly important aspect of American politics and program ad-
ministration" (p.24).
Endorsement of Nondiscrimination Law
A central theme of Toward Independence was the enactment of a com-
prehensive law requiring equal opportunity for persons with disabili-
ties. As an emerging political constituency, the views of people with
17
disabilities regarding such a law are important. The Harris survey
found strong support for legal protection against discrimination on the
basis of disability:
When it comes to how disabled persons should be treated under the law, a
near consensus emerges. Three out of every four (75%) disabled persons
believe that civil rights laws that protect minorities against discrimination
should also protect them. (p.112)
It is also clear from the survey that disabled Americans strongly
endorse efforts by the Federal Government to enhance the lives of
persons with disabilities. "A two-thirds majority of disabled Americans
think that federal laws passed since the late 1960's to give better op-
portunities to disabled Americans have helped a great deal or some-
what" (p.1).
Disabled Americans are not alone in their belief that they should
be protected from discrimination by law. All four manager groups in
the second Harris poll on employment were asked if the civil rights
laws that cover minorities against discrimination should also cover
disabled persons. "Majorities of top managers, EEO managers, line
managers, and small business managers think they should" (p.25).
Both Harris polls have demonstrated support for equal opportunity
legislation that would protect people with disabilities from discrimina-
tion.
18
Equal Opportunity Laws
A major obstacle to achieving the societal goals of equal opportunity
and full participation of individuals with disabilities is the problem
of discrimination. Discrimination consists of the unnecessary and
unfair deprivation of an opportunity because of some characteristic
of a person. It is the antithesis of equal opportunity. The severity
and pervasiveness of discrimination against people with disabilities
is well-documented. (Appendix to Toward Independence, p. A-3)
Existing nondiscrimination laws, such as Section 504 of the Rehabili-
tation Act of 1973, are extremely important and have engendered much
progress. In an overall context, however, our Nation's laws provide
inadequate protection from discrimination for people with disabilities.
Current statutes are not comparable in their scope of protection
against discrimination to those afforded racial, ethnic, and religious
minorities and women under civil rights laws.
The National Council on the Handicapped believes that equality of
opportunity is a bedrock right in our society, and that discrimination
against people because of their disabilities is an unacceptable denial of
that right. Such discrimination is not only an affront to the dignity of
the individual involved, but it undermines Federal programs that at-
tempt to promote the independence and self-sufficiency of persons with
disabilities. Discrimination is a significant reason why many people
with disabilities are trapped in situations of dependency- dependency
which costs our Nation dearly, both in lost potential productivity and
in dollars spent for support programs.
President Reagan has declared:
Our Nation's commitment to equal protection of the laws will have little
meaning if we deny such protection to those who have not been blessed
with the same physical or mental gifts we too often take for granted. I
support Federal laws prohibiting discrimination against the handicapped,
and remain determined that such laws be vigorously enforced.
(President Reagan, 1982)
To address the problem of discrimination against persons with
disabilities, the Council has advocated comprehensive equal opportu-
nity protection for persons with disabilities. In the Toward Independ-
ence topic paper on "Equal Opportunity Laws," the Council examined
the current status of disability-related nondiscrimination laws and
identified large gaps in coverage, shortcomings and inconsistencies in
interpretation and application, and deficiencies in enforcement. To
correct these problems, the Council recommended a series of legislative
19
improvements. Chief among these is the enactment of a comprehensive
equal opportunity statute providing clear standards of nondiscrimina-
tion, with broad coverage paralleling laws prohibiting discrimination on
the basis of race, sex, religion, and national origin.
There have been some significant, albeit limited, legislative ad-
vances achieving some of the Council's equal opportunity proposals.
But the major efforts, especially regarding the enactment of a compre-
hensive equal opportunity statute, have only recently begun to gain
momentum.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
In Toward Independence, the Council made ten legislative recommen-
dations regarding equal opportunity laws for persons with disabilities.
Five of these recommendations were directly concerned with the enact-
ment of a comprehensive law prohibiting discrimination against per-
sons with disabilities. The Council has tentatively entitled this draft
legislative proposal "The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1988." The
other five recommendations called for additional legislative enactments
and amendments to increase legal guarantees of equal opportunity for
persons with disabilities.
Comprehensive Equal Opportunity Statute
1. Congress should enact a comprehensive law requiring equal op-
portunity for individuals with disabilities, with broad coverage
and setting clear, consistent, and enforceable standards pro-
hibiting discrimination on the basis of handicap.
Accomplishments
The foregoing is the first legislative recommendation in Toward Inde-
pendence. Its primacy in the proposals presented to Congress and the
President reflects the Council's view that protection from discrimina-
tion is a baseline necessity, and one that is not being adequately ad-
dressed in the existing statutes and legal precedents. In forums with
citizens with disabilities across the Nation, the Council has heard over
and over that discrimination is the number one problem faced by indi-
viduals with disabilities.
"Bringing Disabled Americans into the Mainstream," a nationwide
poll conducted in 1986 by Louis Harris and Associates, underscores
the conclusion that discrimination is a problem that people with dis-
abilities frequently experience. Respondents identified a variety of types
of discrimination they had experienced, including workplace discrimi-
nation, denials of life and health insurance, denials of educational
opportunities, lack of access to public buildings and public bathrooms,
20
the absence of accessible transportation, and various forms of social
rejection (others shying away or feeling sorry for them). One-fourth of
those interviewed said that they personally had encountered job dis-
crimination because of their disabilities. Forty-seven percent of those
individuals who were not employed or employed less than full-time
listed as an important reason why they were not working that employ-
ers would not recognize that they were capable of doing a full-time job.
In a subsequent Harris poll of employers (1987), three-fourths of man-
agers of businesses reported that people with disabilities "often en-
counter job discrimination from employers."
The first Harris poll found great support among individuals with
disabilities for legal protection against discrimination on the basis of
disability. Its survey report declared:
When it comes to how disabled persons should be treated under the
law, a near consensus emerges. Three out of every four (75%) dis-
abled persons believe that civil rights laws that protect minorities
against discrimination should also protect them. Only 17% disagree.
(p 112)
Such strong support for legal protection from discrimination corrobo-
rates the Council's priority for the enactment of a comprehensive equal
opportunity law.
While the first recommendation in Toward Independence is a call
for Congress to enact a comprehensive statute guaranteeing equal
opportunities for persons with disabilities, the second through the fifth
recommendations give more detail as to the content of such a law. The
second recommendation describes the broad scope of statutory cover-
age that the proposed law should encompass. The third recommenda-
tion proposes that the law should include a definition of discrimination
and standards for applying it. Recommendation number four discusses
enforcement mechanisms and regulations that should be issued under
the proposed law. The fifth recommendation deals with guidelines for
accessibility, and the role of the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board under the comprehensive statute. All of
these recommendations would be satisfied by the enactment of a single
piece of legislation- the comprehensive equal opportunity law with the
features proposed by the Council.
There have been some narrow, but significant, legislative advances
in the direction of the Council's equal opportunity initiative. In Toward
Independence, the Council noted that the Supreme Court's decision in
Atascadero State Hospital U. Scanlon (473 U.S. 234 (1985)) recognized
States' immunity from suits in the Federal courts to enforce nondis-
crimination requirements. This situation was corrected with the enact-
ment of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986 (Public Law 99-
506). Section 1003 of that Act provides that States may not invoke
21
immunity under the Eleventh Amendment if they are charged with
discrimination on the basis of handicap in violation of Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act.
The Council also recommended the correction of certain problems
with the provisions regarding terms of office of members of the Archi-
tectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board under section
502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Toward Independence, p.21, and
Appendix, p. A-31). The wording of the statute regarding the appoint-
ment of succeeding members to the Board and the commencement of
the successors' appointments had led to unfilled vacancies on the
Board. The Council proposed that the terms of office provisions of
Section 502 follow the approach taken in most other governmental
boards and stipulate that members are to serve until their successors
have been appointed and are ready to serve. This correction was made
with the enactment of Section 601(a)(3) of the Rehabilitation Act
Amendments of 1986 (Public Law 99-506), which amended Section 502
to change the language in accordance with the Council's recommenda-
tion. The application of nondiscrimination requirements to airlines has
been clarified by the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-
435), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap by all air
carriers. (The Air Carrier Access Act is discussed more extensively in
this report in the section dealing with Transportation.)
The Council has also noted the restrictions upon coverage of exist-
ing nondiscrimination statutes protecting people with disabilities re-
sulting from the "program or activity" limitation (See, Toward Inde-
pendence, Appendix, pp. A-8 and A-9). Pursuant to decisions of the
United States Supreme Court in Grove City College v. Bell (465 U.S.
555 (1984)) and Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone (465 U.S. 624
(1984)), the prohibition of discrimination under such statutes as Sec-
tion 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is limited to the specific
programs or activities that are funded by Federal grant money. Under
these decisions recipients of Federal financial assistance are permitted
to discriminate in their other, non-federally-funded programs and
activities.
A bill entitled "The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987" (S. 557)
was introduced in the 100th Congress to remove the limitations result-
ing from the Grove City and Darrone decisions. In April of 1987, the
Council was asked to testify before the Senate Committee on Labor and
Human Resources in hearings regarding S. 557. In its testimony, the
Council reaffirmed its belief in comprehensive equal opportunity pro-
tection for people with disabilities and stated its view that "an abso-
lutely necessary first step is to return the scope of coverage of Section
504 and the other civil rights laws to their status before the Supreme
Court's ruling in the Grove City case." The proposed Restoration Act
22
has been approved by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources
and is currently awaiting action on the Senate floor.
Although the statutes and pending legislation just discussed repre-
sent significant initiatives to expand or clarify nondiscrimination pro-
tection for persons with disabilities, they address only a few relatively
narrow issues. The Council's primary recommendation in this area-
enactment of a clear and comprehensive statute guaranteeing equal
opportunities for people with disabilities- is now beginning to be the
focus of legislative attention and support.
Just as the recommendations in Toward Independence were a
crystallization of views expressed to the Council by numerous individu-
als with disabilities at the grass roots level as well as by experts and
organizational representatives, the Council sought additional input and
feedback in regard to the actual drafting of a comprehensive equal
opportunity statute. Over the past eighteen months, the Council has
engaged in numerous meetings and discussions with members of Con-
gress, congressional staff members, officers of national organizations,
grassroots consumers, and other interested parties to explore the con-
tent and wording of the statutory proposal. Based on the approach
outlined in the equal opportunity recommendations in Toward Inde-
pendence, augmented by the comments and advice received, the Coun-
cil developed a draft of a comprehensive equal opportunity proposal
entitled "The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1988."
The drafting of legislation is a developmental process that reflects
negotiation, compromise, and continuous revision; the Council recog-
nizes that the draft proposal presented on the succeeding pages is not
the final version. The Council believes, however, that the draft pre-
sented herein represents a significant step toward the introduction and
eventual passage of such a statute. The Council is confident that the
"Americans with Disabilities Act" is representative of the need for ex-
panded nondiscrimination protection it has heard repeatedly voiced by
persons with disabilities, and is convinced that the enactment of such
a statute is one key to increased independence and quality of life for
persons with disabilities.
23
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1988
Section by Section Summary
Section 1 - Short Title
Provides that the law may be cited as the Americans with Disabili-
ties Act of 1988.
Section 2- Findings and Purpose
Subsection (a) presents Congressional findings about people with
disabilities, their disadvantaged status in our society, the seriousness
of discrimination against them, and the costliness of such discrimina-
tion to our country.
Subsection (b) provides a statement of the overall purposes of the
Act centering on the establishment of a clear and comprehensive Na-
tional mandate for the elimination of discrimination against persons
with disabilities.
Section 3- Definitions
Provides definitions of key terms used in the Act, including "on the
basis of handicap," "physical or mental impairment," and "reasonable
accommodation." The former are defined consistently with their defini-
tion in existing regulations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973. The definition of "reasonable accommodation" is drawn from
Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual Abilities, a report issued by
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Section 4- Scope of Discrimination Prohibited
Tells what persons and agencies are prohibited from discriminating
against persons with disabilities. Provides broad scope of coverage in
line with other types of civil rights laws. Includes, among others, the
Federal Government, Federal grant recipients, Federal contractors and
licensees, employers engaged in interstate commerce having fifteen or
more employees, housing providers covered by Federal Fair Housing
laws, public accommodations, interstate transportation companies,
and State and local governments.
Section 5- Forms of Discriminiation Prohibited
Subsection (a) tells what actions constitute discrimination prohib-
ited by the law. These include various types of intentional and uninten-
24
tional exclusion; segregation; inferior or less effective services, benefits,
or activities; architectural, transportation, and communication barri-
ers; failing to make reasonable accommodations; and discriminatory
qualifications and performance standards.
Subsection (b) specifies that certain actions do not constitute dis-
crimination. These include unequal treatment that is wholly unrelated
to a person's disability, or is the result of the legitimate application of
qualifications and performance standards that are necessary and re-
lated to the ability to perform or participate in the essential compo-
nents of the job or activity involved. Also explicitly defined as not dis-
criminatory are special programs designed for persons with particular
physical or mental impairments or classes of impairments.
Section 6- Discrimination in Housing
This section provides standards regarding the application of non-
discrimination requirements in housing. The standards are drawn from
the current version of the disability portions of the Federal Fair Hous-
ing Amendments bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Their primary
focus is upon accessibility in future design and construction of hous-
ing.
Section 7 - Limitations on the Duties of Accomodation and Barrier
Removal
Subsection (a) provides that barrier removal or reasonable accom-
modations are not required to be made if to do so would fundamentally
alter or threaten the existence of the program, business, activity, or
facility in question.
Subsection (b) permits a reasonable period of time, not to exceed
two years, for making substantial modifications to existing buildings
and facilities in order to remove barriers. This period may be extended
up to five years through regulations governing particular classes of
buildings and facilities.
Subsection (c) provides that regulations may permit a reasonable
period of time, not to exceed ten years, for making substantial modifi-
cations to existing platforms and stations of mass transportation sys-
tems.
Section 8 Regulations
Subsection (a) calls for the Architectural and Transportation Barri-
ers Compliance Board to issue minimum guidelines for accessibility of
25
buildings, facilities, vehicles, and rolling stock. Other parts of the Sec-
tion call for Federal agencies to issue regulations for implementing and
enforcing the requirements of the Act, including the following:
Employment
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Housing
Secretary of Housing & Urban Development
Transportation
Secretary of Transportation
Public accommodations
Secretary of Commerce
Federal contractors and subcontractors
Secretary of Labor
State and local governments, and coordination
Attorney General (Department of Justice)
Recipients of Federal financial assistance
The agency that provides the Federal assistance
Subsection (i) provides that regulations issued under Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 shall remain in effect unless and until
superseded by regulations under this Act.
Subsection (j) provides that regulations under this Act cannot
provide less protection to persons with physical or mental impair-
ments, perceived impairments, or records of impairment than under
existing Section 504 regulations.
Section 9- Enforcement
Establishes enforcement procedures for the requirements of the
Act. These include administrative remedies, a private right of action,
monetary damages, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and cutoffs of
Federal funding.
Section 10- Effective Date
Provides that the Act shall take effect on the date of its enactment.
26
THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
OF 1988
A DRAFT BILL
To establish a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the
basis of handicap.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. - SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Americans with Disabilities Act of 1988".
SEC. 2. - FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings. - Congress finds that -
(1) some thirty-six million Americans have one or more physical or
mental disabilities, and this number is increasing as the population as a
whole is growing older;
(2) historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate persons
with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, discrimination against
persons with disabilities continues to be a serious and pervasive social
problem;
(3) discrimination against persons with disabilities persists in such
critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodations, educa-
tion, transportation, recreation, institutionalization, health services,
voting, and access to public services;
(4) every day, people with disabilities encounter various forms of
discrimination, including outright, intentional exclusion, architectural,
transportation, and communication barriers, overprotective rules and
policies, refusal to make modifications to existing facilities and practices,
exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and relega-
tion to lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other oppor-
tunities;
(5) census data, national polls, and other studies have documented
that people with disabilities, as a group, occupy an inferior status in our
society, and are severely disadvantaged socially, vocationally, economi-
cally, and educationally;
(6) persons with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who
have been saddled with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history
of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political
powerlessness in our society, based upon characteristics that are beyond
the control of such persons and resulting from stereotypic assumptions
not truly indicative of the individual ability of such persons to participate
27
in, and contribute to, society;
(7) the Nation's proper goals regarding persons with disabilities are to
assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and,
wherever possible, economic self-sufficiency for such citizens; and
(8) the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary barriers,
discrimination, and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportu-
nity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for
which our free society is justifiably famous, and costs the United States
billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency
and nonproductivity.
(b) PURPOSE. - It is the purpose of this Act-
(1) to provide a clear and comprehensive National mandate for the
elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities;
(2) to provide a prohibition of discrimination against persons with
disabilities parallel in scope of coverage with that afforded in statutes
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, and
religion;
(3) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards ad-
dressing discrimination against persons with disabilities; and
(4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including its power
to enforce the fourteenth amendment, to regulate commerce, and to
regulate interstate transportation, in order to address the major areas of
discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Act:
(1) ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP. - The term "on the basis of handicap"
means because of a physical or mental impairment, perceived impair-
ment, or record of impairment.
(2) PHYISCAL OR MENTAL IMPAIRMENT. - The term "physical or mental
impairment" means-
(A) any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or
anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems:
(i) the neurological system;
(ii) the musculoskeletal system;
(iii) the special sense organs, and respiratory organs, including
speech organs;
(iv) the cardiovascular system;
(v) the reproductive system;
(vi) the digestive and genitourinary systems;
(vii) the hemic and lymphatic systems;
(viii) the skin; and
(ix) the endocrine system; or
(B) any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation,
28
organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning
disabilities.
(3) PERCEIVED IMPAIRMENT. - The term "perceived impairment" means
not having a physical or mental impairment as defined in paragraph (2),
but being regarded as having or treated as having a physical or mental
impairment.
(4) RECORD OF IMPAIRMENT. - The term "record of impairment" means
having a history of, or having been misclassified as having, a mental or
physical impairment.
(5) REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. - The term "reasonable accommo-
dation" means providing or modifying devices, services, or facilities, or
changing standards, criteria, practices or procedures for the the purpose
of responding to the specific functional abilities of a particular person
with a physical or mental impairment in order to provide an equal oppor-
tunity to participate effectively in a particular program, activity, job, or
other opportunity.
SEC. 4. SCOPE OF DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED
(a) IN GENERAL. - No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the
basis of handicap in regard to-
(1) actions, practices, and policies of the Federal Government, any of
the agencies and departments of the Federal Government, or the United
States Postal Service;
(2) actions, practices, and policies of a recipient of Federal financial
assistance;
(3) actions, practices, and policies of a Federal contractor, subcon-
tractor, or licensee;
(4) employer practices, employment agency practices, labor organiza-
tion practices, and training programs covered by Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964;
(5) the sale or rental of housing covered by Title VIII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1968;
(6) any public accommodation covered by Title II of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964;
(7) transportation services rendered by a person, company, or agency
engaged in the principal business of interstate transportation of per-
sons, goods, documents, or data; and,
(8) actions, practices, and policies of a State, or agency or political
subdivision of a State.
(b) CONSTRUCTION. - Nothing in this Act shall be construed to invali-
date or limit any other Federal law or any law of a State or political subdi-
vision of a State, or jurisdiction that provides greater protection or rights
for persons with physical or mental impairments, perceived impairments,
or records of impairment than are afforded by this Act.
SECTION 5. FORMS OF DESCRIMINATION PROHIBITED
(a) IN GENERAL. - Subject to the standards and procedures established
29
in sections 6 through 9 of this Act, the actions or omissions described in
this subsection constitute discrimination on the basis of handicap:
(1) SERVICES, PROGRAMS, ACTIVITIES, BENEFITS, JOBS, OR
OTHER OPPORTUNITIES.- -
(A) IN GENERAL. - It shall be discriminatory to subject a person,
directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on
the basis of handicap, to any of the following:
(i) Denial of the opportunity to participate in or benefit from
a service, program, activity, benefit, job, or other opportunity.
(ii) Affording a person an opportunity to participate in or
benefit from a service, program, activity, benefit, job, or other
opportunity that is not equal to that afforded others.
(iii) Providing a person with a service, program, benefit, job, or
other opportunity that is less effective than that provided to
others.
(iv) Providing a person with a service, program, activity, bene-
fit, job, or other opportunity that is different or separate, unless
such action is necessary to provide the person with a service,
program, activity, benefit, job, or other opportunity that is as
effective as that provided to others.
(v) Aiding or perpetuating discrimination by providing signifi-
cant assistance to an agency, organization, or person that dis-
criminates.
(vi) Denying a person the opportunity to participate as a
member of planning or advisory boards.
(vii) Otherwise limiting a person in the enjoyment of any right,
privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others.
(B) LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENT. - For purposes of this section,
services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities
to be equally effective, are not required to produce the identical
result or level of achievement for persons with physical and mental
impairments, perceived impairments, or records of impairment, and
persons without such impairments, but such services, programs,
activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities shall afford persons
with such impairments an equal opportunity to obtain the same
result, to gain the same benefits, or to reach the same level of
achievement, in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs
of the person.
(C) OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE. - Notwithstanding the
existence of separate or different programs or activities provided in
accordance with this section, a person with a physical or mental
impairment, perceived impairment, or record of impairment shall
not be denied the opportunity to participate in such programs or
activities that are not separate or different.
30
(D) ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS. - A person, company, or
agency may not, directly or through contractual or other arrange-
ments, utilize criteria or methods of administration-
(i) that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of handi-
cap;
(ii) that have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially
impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the services,
programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities pro-
vided with respect to persons with physical or mental impair-
ments, or records of impairments; or
(iii) that perpetuate the discrimination of others who are sub-
ject to common administrative control or are agencies of the
same State.
(2) BARRIERS. - It shall be discriminatory-
(A) to establish or impose; or
(B) to fail or refuse to remove;
any architectural, transportation, or communication barriers
that prevent or limit the access or participation of persons on
the basis of handicap.
(3) ACCOMMODATION. - It shall be discriminatory to fail or refuse
to make a reasonable accommodation to permit an individual with a
physical or mental impairment, perceived impairment, or record of
impairment to apply, have access to, or participate in a service, pro-
gram, activity, benefit, job, or other opportunity.
(4) STANDARDS AND CRITERIA. - It shall be discriminatory to
impose or apply any qualification standards, selection criteria, or eligi-
bility criteria that-
(A) screen out or disadvantage an individual because of a physi-
cal or mental impairment, perceived impairment, or record of im-
pairment; or
(B) disproportionately screens out or disadvantages persons with
particular types of physical or mental impairments, perceived im-
pairments, or record of impairments;
unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary and substantially
related to ability to perform or participate in essential components of
the particular service, program, activity, benefit, job, or other opportu-
nity.
(5) Relationships or Associations. - It shall be discriminatory to
exclude or otherwise deny equal services, programs, activities, benefits,
jobs, or other opportunities to a person because of the relationship to,
or association of, that person with another person that has a physical
or mental impairment, perceived impairment, or record of impairment.
31
(b) ACTIONS NOT DISCRIMINATORY. - It shall not be considered to be
discrimination on the basis of handicap to exclude or otherwise deny
equal services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities
to a person-
(1) for reasons wholly unrelated to the existence of or consequences
of a physical or mental impairment, perceived impairment, or record of
impairment;
(2) based on a legitimate application of qualifications standards,
selection criteria, performance standards, or eligibility criteria that are
both necessary and substantially related to the ability to perform or
participate in the essential components of the particular job, program,
activity, or opportunity, and such performance or participation cannot
be accomplished by a reasonable accommodation.
SEC. 6. DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING.
(a) IN GENERAL. - Notwithstanding the requirements of section 5(a), it
shall be an act of discrimination in regard to housing-
(1) to discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make un-
available or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a physi-
cal or mental impairment, perceived impairment, or record of impair-
ment of -
(A) such buyer or renter;
(B) a person residing in or intending to reside in such dwelling
after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or
(C) any person associated with that buyer or renter.
(2) to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or
privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services
or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a physical or
mental impairment, perceived impairment, or record of impairment of-
(A) such person;
(B) a person residing in or intending to reside in such dwelling
after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or
(C) any person associated with such person.
(b) REMOVAL OF BARRIERS IN HOUSING. - For purposes of subsection
(a), discrimination includes-
(1) a refusal to permit, at the expense of a person with a physical or
mental impairment, perceived impairment, or record of impairment,
reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied, or to be occu-
pied, by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford
such person full enjoyment of the premises;
(2) a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies,
practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to
afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; or
32
(3) a failure to design and construct qualified multifamily dwellings
for first occupancy after the date that is 30 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, in such a manner that-
(A) the public and common use portions of such dwelling are
readily accessible to, and usable by, persons with physical and
mental impairments;
(B) all the doors into and within all premises within such dwell-
ings are sufficiently wide to allow passage by persons in wheel-
chairs; and,
(C) all premises within such dwellings contain basic universal
features of adaptive design.
(c) DEFINITION. - As used in this section the term "qualified multifamily
dwellings" means-
(1) buildings consisting of two or more units if such buildings have
one or more elevators; and
(2) those units in other buildings consisting of two or more units
that are on the ground floor.
SEC. 7. LIMITATIONS ON THE DUTIES OF ACCOMMODATION AND BAR-
RIER REMOVAL
(a) EXISTENCE THREATENING ALTERATIONS.-
(1) IN GENERAL. - The failure or refusal to remove architectural,
transportation, and communication barriers, and to make reasonable
accommodations required under subsection 5(a) shall not constitute an
unlawful act of discrimination on the basis of handicap if such barrier
removal would fundamentally alter the essential nature, or threaten the
existence of the program, activity, business, or facility in question.
(2) OTHER ACTION. - In the event that barrier removal is not re-
quired because it would result in a fundamental alteration or threaten
the existence of a program, activity, business, or facility, there shall
continue to be a duty to conform to other requirements of this Act and
to take such other actions as are necessary to make a program, activ-
ity, or service, when viewed in its entirety, readily accessible to and
usable by persons with physical and mental impairments, perceived
impairments, or records of impairments.
(b) TIME FOR ALTERATIONS.-
(1) IN GENERAL. - If substantial modifications to existing buildings
and facilities are necessary in order to remove architectural, transpor-
tation, and communication barriers, as required under subsection 5(a),
such modifications shall, unless required earlier by other law or regula-
tion, be made within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 2 years
from the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) EXCEPTION. - Regulations promulgated pursuant to section 8 of
this Act may allow up to 5 years from the effective date of this Act
33
where reasonably necessary for the completion of such modifications to
particular classes of buildings and facilities.
(c) MASS TRANSPORTATION.-
(1) IN GENERAL. - If substantial modifications to existing platforms
and stations of mass transportation systems are necessary in order to
remove architectural, transportation, and communication barriers, as
required under subsection 5(a)(2) of this Act, regulations promulgated
pursuant to section 8 of this Act may, unless required earlier by other
law or regulation, allow a reasonable period of time, in no event to
exceed ten years from the effective date of this Act, for such modifica-
tions to be made.
(2) EXCEPTION. - This subsection shall not affect the duty of pro-
viders of transportation services to conform to other requirements of
this Act, including the requirement of removing other types of architec-
tural, transportation, and communication barriers, and the application
of such requirements to vehicles and rolling stock.
SEC. 8. REGULATIONS.
(a) ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE
BOARD. - Within 6 months of the date of enactment of this Act, the
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board shall issue
minimum guidelines, to supplement the existing Minimum Guidelines
and Requirements for Accessible Design, to establish standards for the
architectural, transportation, and communication accessibility of build-
ings, facilities, vehicles, and rolling stock subject to the requirements of
this Act.
(b) ATTORNEY GENERAL.-
(1) IN GENERAL. - Within 1 year of the date of enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General shall promulgate regulations for the imple-
mentation and enforcement of the requirements of this Act as it applies
to States and agencies and political subdivisions of States.
(2) MINIMUM GUIDELINES. - The Attorney General of the United
States shall coordinate the timely development of regulations required
under this section and shall issue, within 6 months of the date of
enactment of this Act, minimum guidelines for the development of such
regulations.
(c) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.-
(1) EMPLOYER PRACTICES.-
(A) IN GENERAL. - Within 1 year of the effective date of this Act,
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall promulgate
regulations for the implementation and enforcement of the require-
ments of this Act as it applies to employer practices.
(B) PROHIBITIONS. - The regulations promulgated under sub-
34
paragraph (A) shall prohibit discrimination in regard to job applica-
tion procedures, the hiring and discharge of employees, employee
compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privi-
leges of employment.
(2) REQUIREMENTS. - The regulations promulgated under sub-
paragraph (A) shall include, for all covered employers having fifteen or
more employees, a requirement of outreach and recruitment efforts to
increase the workforce representation of individuals with physical or
mental impairments, or records of impairments, and shall establish a
process and timelines for the development, implementation, and peri-
odic revision of such outreach and recruitment efforts.
(3) PREEMPLOYMENT INQUIRIES.-
(A) IN GENERAL.- - The regulations promulgated under para-
graph (1)(A) shall include a requirement that employers may not
conduct a preemployment medical examination or may not make
preemployment inquiry of an applicant as to whether the person has
a physical or mental impairment, perceived impairment, or record of
impairment, or as to the nature or severity of such impairment.
(B) PERMITTED INQUIRIES. - AN EMPLOYER-
(i) may make a preemployment inquiry into the ability of an
applicant to satisfy legitimate qualifications standards, selection
criteria, performance standards, or eligibility criteria as permit-
ted under section 5(b)(2);
(ii) may condition an offer of employment on the results of a
medical examination conducted prior to the entrance to duty of
the applicant, if-
(I) all entering employees are subjected to such an ex-
amination regardless of physical or mental impairment,
perceived impairment, or record of impairment; and
(II) the results of such an examination are used only in
accordance with the requirements of this section;
(iii) taking remedial action to correct the effects of past dis-
crimination or engaged in outreach and recruitment efforts to
increase the participation of persons with physical or mental
impairments may invite applicants for employment to indicate
whether and to what extent they have a physical or mental
impairment, if-
(I) the employer states clearly on any written question-
naire used for employment purposes, or makes clear orally if
no written questionnaire is used, that the information re-
quested is intended for use solely in connection with its
remedial action or outreach and recruitment activities; and
(II) the employer states clearly that the information is
being requested on a voluntary basis, that such information
35
will be kept confidential as provided in subparagraph (C),
that refusal to provide such information will not subject the
applicant or employee to any adverse treatment, and that
such information will be used only in accordance with the
requirements of this section.
(C) CONFIDENTIALITY. - Information, as to the medical condition
or history of the applicant, obtained in accordance with this para-
graph shall be collected and maintained on separate forms that
shall be accorded the same confidentiality as medical records, ex-
cept that-
(i) supervisors and managers may be informed of restrictions
on the work or duties of persons with physical or mental impair-
ments and of necessary accommodations for such persons;
(ii) first aid and safety personnel may be informed, where
appropriate, if such a condition may require emergency treat-
ment; and
(iii) government officials investigating compliance with this Act
shall be provided relevant information on request.
(d) SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. - Within 1
year of the effective date of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall promulgate regulations for the implementation and
enforcement of the requirements of this Act as it applies to sellers, land-
lords, and other providers of housing.
(e) SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION.-
(1) IN GENERAL. - Within 1 year of the effective date of this Act, the
Secretary of Transportation shall promulgate regulations for the im-
plementation and enforcement of the requirements of this Act as it
applies to State and local transit systems and to those engaged in the
business of interstate transportation.
(2) STANDARDS. - The regulations promulgated under paragraph
(1) shall include standards regarding the accessibility of vehicles and
rolling stock consistent with the requirements of paragraph (3).
(3) REQUIREMENTS. - With respect to State and local transit sys-
tems, rail and light rail services, and bus companies, the standards
issued under paragraph (2) shall-
(A) ensure that all vehicles or rolling stock that are purchased,
leased, renovated, or otherwise placed into service after the date of
enactment of this Act shall be accessible to and usable by persons
with physical or mental impairments, including wheelchair users;
(B) permit a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 7 years, for
such transportation operators to purchase, acquire, or modify suffi-
cient vehicles and rolling stock so that the peak fleet has at least 50
percent of vehicles and rolling stock that are accessible to and
usable by persons with physical or mental impairments, including
36
wheelchair users; and
(C) ensure that the use of paratransit and other specialized
transportation services for persons with physical or mental impair-
ments shall be used as a supplement to other forms of transporta-
tion, but shall not affect the requirement that transportation sys-
tems and services available to members of the public shall be acces-
sible to and usable by persons with physical or mental impairments,
including wheelchair users.
(f) SECRETARY OF COMMERCE. - Within 1 year of the effective date of
this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall promulgate regulations for the
implementation and enforcement of the requirements of this Act as it
applies to places of public accommodation.
(g) SECRETARY OF LABOR. - Within 1 year of the effective date of this
Act, the U.S. Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations for the im-
plementation and enforcement of the requirements of this Act as it ap-
plies to recipients of Federal contracts and subcontracts.
(h) FEDERAL AGENCIES. - In addition to the regulations required pursu-
ant to paragraphs (a) through (g), Federal executive agencies shall issue,
within 1 year of the date of enactment of this Act, such additional regula-
tions as shall be necessary to implement and enforce the requirements of
this Act as such requirements apply to programs and activities to which
such agencies provide Federal financial assistance.
(i) REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973. - Regulations of Federal agencies
issued under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 shall remain in
effect unless and until they are superseded by regulations promulgated
under this Act.
(j) LEVEL OF PROTECTION. - In no event shall regulations promulgated
under this Act provide less protection against discrimination to persons
with a physical or mental impairment, perceived impairment, or record of
impairment than under existing regulations for the implementation of
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
SEC. 9. ENFORCEMENT
(a) ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.-
(1) IN GENERAL Any person who believes that he or she or any
specific class of individuals is being or is about to be subjected to dis-
crimination on the basis of handicap in violation of the Act, shall have
the right, by himself or herself, or by a representative, to pursue such
administrative enforcement procedures and remedies as are available in
connection with the regulations issued pursuant to Section 8 of this
Act.
(2) REMEDY. - Agencies enforcing such regulations shall have the
authority to order all appropriate remedial relief, including compliance
orders, cutoff of Federal funds, rescission of Federal licenses, monetary
37
damages, and back pay.
(b) CIVIL ACTIONS.- -
(1) RIGHT TO FILE. - Any person who believes that he or she or
any specific class of individuals is being or about to be subjected to
discrimination on the basis of handicap in violation of this Act, shall
have a right, by himself or herself, or by a representative, to file a civil
action for injunctive relief, monetary damages, or both in a district
court of the United States.
(2) ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT. - The exhaustion of admin-
istrative enforcement procedures and remedies as contemplated in
section 9(a) shall not be a prerequisite to the filing of a civil action
under this subsection, except in regard to employer practices, employ-
ment agency practices, labor organization practices, and training pro-
grams, covered by paragraph 4(a)(1) of this Act, for which such exhaus-
tion shall be required unless-
(A) administrative enforcement procedures and remedies as
contemplated in section 9(a) are not available; or
(B) such enforcement procedures are not concluded within 180
days after the filing of a complaint of discrimination prohibited
under this Act.
(c) ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. - In any action brought under this section,
the court shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall
hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision
on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court
deems appropriate.
(d) JURISDICTION. - The district courts of the United States shall have
jurisdiction of actions brought under this Act without regard to the
amount in controversy.
(e) IMMUNITY. - A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal
Court for a violation of this Act. In a suit against a State for a violation of
the requirements of this Act, remedies (including remedies both at law
and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as
such remedies are available for such a violation in a suit against any
public or private entity other than a State.
(f) ATTORNEY'S FEES. - In any action or administrative proceeding
commenced pursuant to this section, the court, or agency, in its discre-
tion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a
reasonable attorney's fee in addition to costs, and the United States shall
be liable for costs the same as a private person.
(g) BURDEN OF PROOF. - In any administrative proceeding or civil
action brought under this Act, the burden of proving the legitimacy of any
qualifications standard, selection criteria, or eligibility criteria at issue in
a case, and of proving the defense that a particular reasonable accommo-
38
dation or removal of an architectural, transportation, or communication
barrier would fundamentally alter or threaten the existence of the pro-
gram, activity, business, or facility in question, shall be on the person,
agency, or entity alleged to have committed an act of discrimination, and
shall not be on the complainant.
SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall become effective on the date of enactment.
39
Consumer Leverage of U.S. Government
2. The law should direct the Federal Government to use its lever-
age as a consumer of goods and services to set standards and
timelines for requiring that businesses and companies from
which it purchases or rents goods, services, or facilities shall
make such goods, services, and facilities accessible, available
to, and usable by people with disabilities on a nondiscrimina-
tory basis.
Accomplishments
The first five recommendations in Toward Independence concerned the
enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act and described the
elements that such a law should contain. The remaining five legislative
recommendations in regard to equal opportunity laws involve specific
concerns that can be addressed by separate pieces of legislation or
amendments.
The first of these, set out above, involves a legal mandate to require
U.S. Government agencies to use their "consumer clout" as purchasers
and lessors of numerous types of services, merchandise, and facilities
in order to persuade businesses they deal with to make their products
and services accessible to persons with disabilities. As proposed by the
Council in Toward Independence, this initiative pertains to a wide
array of goods and services obtained by the Government from private
companies, including conference and meeting room rentals, airline and
train tickets, rental cars, hotel rooms, and office equipment.
Congress has not yet enacted legislative directives requiring the
Federal Government to limit its purchases and rentals to equal access
companies on an across-the-board basis.
To date, the Federal Government's purchasing power has been
invoked to apply pressure for accessibility in a single but increasingly
important area- electronic equipment. In February of 1986, as Con-
gress was considering the amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 that would culminate in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of
1986 (Public Law 99-506), the Council recommended the addition of a
new section to the Act to require that all office automation equipment
obtained by the Federal Government be accessible to and usable by
persons with disabilities. In response to this proposal, Congress in-
cluded Section 603 in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986.
This provision adds a new Section 508, entitled "Electronic Equipment
Accessibility," to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It requires the National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research and the General
Services Administration in consultation with the electronics industry to
establish "guidelines for electronic equipment accessibility designed to
40
insure that handicapped individuals may use electronic office equip-
ment with or without special peripherals." After September 30, 1988,
such guidelines are to be adopted by the Administrator of General
Services, and complied with by Government agencies in their pur-
chases or leases of electronic office equipment. Section 508 represents
a narrow but quite significant implementation of the Council's recom-
mendation that Government procurements of services, goods, and
facilities make accessibility to persons with disabilities a condition
precedent.
Discrimination in Medical Services
3. The law should apply to discrimination in medical services.
Accomplishments
This recommendation was primarily in response to the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States
v. University Hosp., State U. of New York (729 F.2d 144 (2d Cir. 1984)),
in which the court ruled that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 does not apply to medical treatment. Subsequent to the publica-
tion of Toward Independence, the United States Supreme Court had
occasion to review the rationale of the University Hospital decision in a
separate case, Bowen U. American Hospital Association (106 S. Ct. 2101
(1986)). The regulations regarding treatment of handicapped infants, at
issue in both cases, were ultimately struck down by the Supreme
Court, but not because Section 504 does not apply to medical services.
On the contrary, the Court expressly ruled that "handicapped infants
are entitled to 'meaningful access' to medical services provided by hos-
pitals, and that a hospital rule or State policy denying or limiting such
access would be subject to challenge under Section 504" (106 S. Ct. at
p. 2111 (1986)). The Section 504 regulations regarding medical treat-
ment of handicapped infants were invalidated because the Secretary of
Health and Human Services was ruled to have overstepped the extent
of his authority to address discrimination under Section 504 by provid-
ing overly intrusive procedures and failing to provide adequate docu-
mentation of the problem being addressed and of the necessity for the
procedures initiated.
Currently, instances of alleged denials of medical treatment to
infants with disabilities are much more likely to be dealt with under
the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-457) than under
Section 504. These Amendments and the regulations issued to imple-
ment them (45 C.F.R. 1340.15) provide standards regarding the ren-
dering of medical treatment to handicapped infants and establishing
when the failure to provide treatment constitutes child abuse or ne-
glect.
41
Because of the subsequent developments in legislation, regula-
tions, and case law, the objectives underlying the Council's recommen-
dation in regard to coverage of medical services have largely been
achieved.
Bill of Rights for Persons with Disabilities
4. An enforceable Bill of Rights for Persons with Disabilities
should be enacted.
Accomplishments
The Council's proposal of a Bill of Rights for persons with disabilities
has been the subject of some legislative advancement, but the initia-
tives have not been as broad nor as forceful as the Council recom-
mended. The Council proposed that a Bill of Rights be created for per-
sons with all types of disabilities. The Council suggested that the rights
listed be patterned after the existing Developmental Disabilities Bill of
Rights and that proposed by the Task Panel on Legal and Ethical Is-
sues of the President's Commission on Mental Health. A key feature of
the Council's recommendation was that such a Bill of Rights "should
explicitly be made enforceable administratively and in the Federal
courts" (Toward Independence, Appendix, p. A-57).
No Bill of Rights for the overall class of persons with disabilities as
a whole has yet been enacted. A significant development was the pas-
sage of the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of
1986 (Public Law 99-319), which contains a "Restatement of Bill of
Rights for Mental Health Patients." Reaffirming statements of rights
contained in Title V of the Mental Health Systems Act, these provisions
direct each State to review its mental health laws and revise them if
necessary. In doing so, the States are to "take into account the recom-
mendations of the President's Commission on Mental Health" and a
lengthy list of rights regarding conditions of treatment and prerequi-
sites to confinement.
The list of rights contained in this Act is very useful and consistent
with the Council's concept of a Bill of Rights. Its primary shortcoming,
however, is that the list of rights appears to be unenforceable. The list
is simply one that States are to "take into account" as they review and
revise their laws. A subsequent provision provides that the Act "shall
not be construed as establishing any new rights for mentally ill indi-
viduals" (Section 301). The lack of enforceability (which is also a prob-
lem with the Developmental Disabilities Bill of Rights) makes this list of
rights somewhat less than a true Bill of Rights.
42
Private Right of Action Under Section 503
5. Equal opportunity obligations upon Federal contractors and
subcontractors should be made enforceable by a private right
of action.
Accomplishments
Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 places affirmative action
and nondiscrimination requirements upon Federal contractors having
contracts in excess of $2,500. The enforcement of such requirements is
assigned to the Department of Labor. The weight of judicial precedent
is that an aggrieved individual subjected to discrimination in violation
of Section 503 does not have a right to file a lawsuit to challenge such
illegal discrimination. In Toward Independence, the Council echoed
views expressed for many years by persons with disabilities and legal
commentators when it proposed that Section 503 be made enforceable
by a private right of action. To date, Congress has not yet followed up
on this proposal. A private right of action for individuals complaining of
discrimination on the basis of handicap would be provided under the
Council's proposed comprehensive equal opportunity law.
Advocacy System and Legal Fees
6. To assure the recognition and implementation of the rights es-
tablished in this equal opportunity law, Congress should au-
thorize an expanded Protection and Advocacy System in each
State to protect and advocate for the rights of individuals with
all types of disabilities, regardless of the age of onset; Con-
gress should authorize the awarding of reasonable attorneys
fees and litigation expenses to prevailing complainants.
Accomplishments
Significant legislative progress has occurred in regard to the Council's
recommendations of an expanded Protection and Advocacy System and
for the awarding of attorneys fees to successful litigants in lawsuits by
individuals with disabilities and their families. The Protection and
Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-319)
provides authority and funding for expanding the responsibilities of the
existing developmental disabilities Protection and Advocacy Systems in
each State to encompass protection and advocacy of the rights of men-
tally ill individuals. In addition, Section 112(a) of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 (as amended by Public Law 98-221) establishes a program of
grants to the States for the establishment and operation of "client
assistance programs" for vocational rehabilitation clients. Section
112(b) makes funding of State vocational rehabilitation programs con-
43
tingent upon the existence of a client assistance program that "has the
authority to pursue legal, administrative, and other appropriate reme-
dies to ensure the protection of rights of handicapped individuals who
are receiving treatments, services, or rehabilitation under this chap-
ter."
The addition of the protection and advocacy systems for mentally
ill individuals and the vocational rehabilitation client assistance pro-
grams to the previously existing protection and advocacy systems for
persons with developmental disabilities represents a very significant
expansion of advocacy services for individuals with disabilities. Such
expansion has not yet equaled the scope of the Council's recommenda-
tion of advocacy services for persons with all types of disabilities, but it
certainly reflects vigorous congressional action in that direction.
Attorneys fees and litigation expenses for people with disabilities
and their families who successfully prove that they have been denied
their rights would be a specific feature of the Council's proposed com-
prehensive equal opportunity law for persons with disabilities. To date
there has been one major legislative advance regarding these issues-
the enactment of the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986
(Public Law 99-372). This law provides that a court "may award rea-
sonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs to the parents or guardian
of a handicapped child or youth who is the prevailing party" in a law-
suit brought under the provisions of the Education of the Handicapped
Act. The enactment of this provision constitutes a critical milestone for
children with disabilities and their parents in providing them realistic
access to the expensive legal representation sometimes necessary for
contesting inappropriate special educational placements and pro-
grams.
44
Employment
Employment has consistently headed the list of major concerns of
persons with disabilities in this country. As is true for most other
Americans, a major prerequisite to economic self-sufficiency and qual-
ity of life is a job. Employment offers the possibility of dramatically
improving an individual's lifestyle, while at the same time resulting in
tremendous financial savings for the Government. Perhaps most im-
portant is the ability of gainful employment to facilitate the integration
of persons with disabilities into all facets of community life. In fact,
employment for persons with disabilities is critical in determining
independence. Recognizing the seriousness of barriers to employment
opportunities for persons with disabilities, employment was selected as
one of the ten areas in the Council's report, Toward Independence.
In order to explore and fully understand the problems of employ-
ment for persons with disabilities, the Council conducted a series of
forums throughout the United States to gather data from consumers,
parents, service providers, experts, and others. In addition to public
forums, the Council initiated two Harris polls.
The first Harris poll examined overall attitudes and life experiences
of persons with disabilities, including the area of employment. Findings
from the first Harris poll indicated that:
Not working is perhaps the truest definition of what it means to be
disabled. Two-thirds of all disabled Americans between the ages of
16 and 64 are not working. Only one in four work full-time, and an-
other 10% work part-time Furthermore, unemployment among
persons with disabilities as a group is a bigger problem than among
any other demographic group of working-age Americans. (p. 47)
Another significant finding from the first Harris poll was that 66
percent of working-age persons with disabilities, who are not working,
want to have a job. This overwhelming absence from the labor force of
people with a strong desire to work is a tragic failure of the American
dream.
Data from the first Harris poll coupled with the importance of
employment in the lives of persons with disabilities generated a second
Harris poll devoted solely to employment, "Employing Disabled Ameri-
cans."
Based on interviews with over 900 companies, the purposes of the
second survey were to determine what employers across the country
were doing to employ persons with disabilities and to return persons
with disabilities to work; what experiences employers had had with
persons with disabilities; what barriers prevented employers from
45
hiring persons with disabilities; and what steps the public and private
sectors could take to increase the employment of persons with disabili-
ties.
A great majority of employers rated the performance of disabled
workers as "good to excellent." Another significant finding dispelled a
common myth about the cost of hiring a disabled person: 75 percent of
managers said that the cost of employing persons with disabilities is no
greater than the cost of hiring non-disabled workers. Most employers
appeared to be willing to consider the employment of more disabled
people if they are qualified.
Unfortunately, data from the survey indicated that without some
new stimulus, the employment of disabled people is unlikely to in-
crease significantly. Most managers thought that their company was
already doing enough to employ disabled people and should not make
greater efforts to do so. Employers gave the hiring of disabled people a
lower priority than the hiring of people from minority groups and eld-
erly persons. Furthermore, disabled people are the least likely to be
viewed as an excellent source of employees.
Finally, several steps that leaders in government, business, and
voluntary organizations could take to increase the employment of per-
sons with disabilities were suggested: increase job training programs;
make available widespread information on qualified applicants; create
programs to make employers aware of agencies which have disabled
applicants; and encourage disabled people to apply for positions.
Data from both Harris polls regarding overcoming barriers to em-
ployment for persons with disabilities strongly reinforce the eight rec-
ommendations made by the Council in Toward Independence. These
recommendations addressed a variety of issues, including transition
from school to work, supported employment, private sector initiatives,
job training, and job development and placement.
During the 99th Congress, legislation was passed that included
several of the Council's major recommendations in the areas of sup-
ported employment, transition, and tax incentives for employers. The
Council believes that these legislative changes represent unprece-
dented gains in terms of expanded employment opportunities for per-
sons with disabilities. Additional congressional action is still needed to
implement the full range of the Council's recommendations, including
the establishment of model centers on employment and return-to-work
programs, and elimination of income eligibility requirement for persons
with disabilities under the Job Training Partnership Act.
In addition to legislative activity, the Council has played a major
role with the promulgation of regulations pursuant to the Rehabilita-
tion Act Amendments of 1986 by holding numerous meetings and
46
teleconferences of consumers and service providers to solicit input and
feedback.
A detailed summary of progress toward the eight recommendations
follows.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
Transition
1. Congress should direct the Department of Education to desig-
nate the State educational agency as the lead agency to start,
develop, and carry out the transition planning process.
2. Congress should direct the Department of Education to
strengthen regulations requiring the involvement of education
coordinators and vocational rehabilitation counselors in the
transition process.
Accomplishments
Transition is an outcome-oriented process encompassing a broad range
of experiences and services resulting in competitive employment. In
Toward Independence, the Council used the transitional model devel-
oped by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(OSERS) which represents a bridge between the security of school and
the risks and opportunities of adulthood. It is based on sound prepara-
tion in high school, adequate support mechanisms upon leaving
school, and secure opportunities and services, as needed, in adulthood
(Will, 1984). The Council believes that a coordinated, well-planned
collaborative transition process will lead to successful employment for
students with disabilities.
Although the precise Council recommendations regarding transi-
tion were not enacted by the 99th Congress, the intent of the recom-
mendations was included in the Education of the Handicapped Act
1986 Amendments (Public Law 99-457).
Title III- Discretionary Programs, Section 626, which provides for
transitional services to handicapped youths, was amended in two
ways. First, it clarifies the policy that transitional programs can serve
not only children and youth currently in school, but also youth who
have recently left school. Second, the legislation extends transitional
services to include "services provided to a handicapped child through-
out his or her years in school, not simply during the last two or three
years before he or she graduates out of the special education system."
Both of these provisions clearly reflect the Council's conviction that
transitional services need to be improved and expanded to increase
47
employment opportunities for youth with disabilities.
In addition to these legislative changes, the Council co-sponsored,
with the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and
the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped, a par-
ent-employer conference on best practices in transitional program-
ming. The conference brought together parents, employers, young
people with disabilities, service providers, educators, and representa-
tives of Federal, State and local governments to discuss employment
opportunities and to develop strategies and guidelines that parents can
use when assisting their daughters or sons with special needs in seek-
ing employment. Conference proceedings, published in November
1987, outlined strategies and guidelines developed by participants for
use by parents and employers in promoting job development, place-
ment, and retention.
Supported Work
3. Congress should amend the Rehabilitation Act to add a Title
expressly authorizing programs of supported work for persons
with severe disabilities who can be competitively employed
with the assistance of such a program.
Accomplishments
Defined simply, supported work refers to paid employment for some
individuals with severe disabilities who require ongoing support and
assistance in a work setting. Recognizing the increased importance of
the role of supported work in the lives of severely disabled individuals,
Congress incorporated the Council's recommendation regarding sup-
ported work into the 1986 Rehabilitation Act Amendments (Public Law
99-506). Furthermore, a new State Grant Program was added, Part C
of Title VI, entitled "Supported Employment Services for Individuals
with Severe Handicaps." This section establishes supported employ-
ment as a State formula-grant program, supplementing the Title I
allocation.
Another key provision in the Rehabilitation Amendments is the
definition of "supported employment" which is compatible with the
definition used in Toward Independence.
"Supported employment" means competitive work in integrated settings-
(A) for individuals with severe handicaps for whom competitive employ-
ment has not traditionally occurred, or
(B) for individuals for whom competitive employment has been inter-
rupted or intermittent as a result of severe disability, and, who because of
their handicaps, need ongoing support services to perform such work.
48
In addition to persons with developmental disabilities and mental
retardation, the definition includes transitional services for persons
with chronic mental illness and persons with physical disabilities.
Other key changes related to supported employment include the
addition of supported employment under Title III as an eligible funded
service and the addition of supported employment as an authorized
vocational rehabilitation service and outcome under Title I.
Establishment of supported work programs will substantially re-
duce the number of severely disabled persons residing in residential
facilities and allow these individuals to become employed in competi-
tive work settings within the community. Supported employment pro-
grams also will provide persons with severe disabilities an opportunity
to become independent, taxpaying citizens.
The regulations governing supported employment under the Reha-
bilitation Act Amendments of 1986 have been finalized and approved.
At the beginning of Fiscal Year 1988 rehabilitation agencies in each
State received funding to provide supported employment services and
programs.
Federal Support
for Private Sector Initiatives
4. Congress should extend and expand the Targeted Jobs Tax
Credit Program (Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Public Law 98-
364).
Accomplishments
The Targeted Jobs Tax Credit (TJTC) Program offers employers a credit
against their tax liability for hiring individuals from nine target groups
who traditionally have had difficulty in obtaining and holding jobs. The
Targeted Jobs Tax Credit Program has created work opportunities for
persons with disabilities and is continuing to create a favorable climate
throughout the business community for hiring persons with disabili-
ties.
The success of incentives for employers was corroborated in the
second Harris poll: 68 percent of the managers interviewed indicated
that a government policy subsidizing the salaries of handicapped em-
ployees for a trial period would be an effective incentive for employers
to increase the hiring of persons with disabilities.
Although the TJTC program was to expire on December 31, 1985,
the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514, reauthorized the pro-
49
gram for a three-year period, through December 31, 1988. The same
nine target groups were authorized, one of which was persons with
disabilities who are referred to employers from a State vocational reha-
bilitation office or Veterans' Administration program.
Major changes in the TJTC program under the new legislation
relate to the amount of credit and retention period:
a. Amount of Credit-The credit for first year's wages is limited to 40 percent of up
to $6,000 earned, with a maximum credit of $2,400. The tax credit for second
year wages is eliminated. Wages paid during the retention period (see b) apply if
the minimum retention requirement is met. Credit for economically disadvan-
taged summer youths remains at 85 percent of up to $3000 for a maximum credit
of $2,500 for each individual.
b. Retention Period- A minimum employment period of 90 days or 120 hours of paid
employment (14 days or 20 hours in the case of economically disadvantaged
summer youth employees) is required before the employer can claim the tax
credit.
The TJTC program gives employers a financial incentive while provid-
ing disabled job seekers an opportunity to demonstrate their capabili-
ties. According to a study based on FY 1985 TJTC usage, the Commit-
tee on Employment Opportunities found a nationwide savings in public
assistance payments of $418,000,000. Tax credits such as the Tar-
geted Jobs Tax Credit Program are cost-beneficial by contributing
directly to a reduction in government payment to people with disabili-
ties, including those on Social Security (SSDI and SSI), Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC), and the cost of institutionalization.
The amount of money paid in taxes by disabled employees assisted by
this program may offset the tax credits allowed to employers. In addi-
tion to the economic benefits which will accrue to the Nation as a re-
sult of the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit Program, it also promotes self-
respect and independence for persons with disabilities
Although the TJTC program was extended for three years and
made retroactive to January 1, 1986, this program was not expanded
in as broad a way as the Council recommended. Therefore, the Council
will continue to monitor this legislation and determine the best way to
effect the necessary changes.
5. Congress should make Section 190 of the Internal Revenue
Code permanent and expand it to a maximum amount of
$75,000 per year.
Accomplishments
Section 190 of the Internal Revenue Code allows an employer a tax
50
deduction for expenses incurred in connection with the elimination of
architectural and transportation barriers for persons with disabilities
and elderly persons at the place of business.
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-514) made Section 190
a permanent provision, as recommended by the Council. Section 190
was made retroactive to January 1, 1986. The amount that an em-
ployer can deduct in any taxable year remains $35,000. Qualified
expenses include only those specifically attributable to the removal of
existing barriers.
Once again, data from the Harris poll on employers confirmed the
wisdom of this legislative change. Approximately 74 percent of the
managers surveyed agreed that a policy by the Government to provide
additional tax deductions for or share in the cost of expensive accom-
modations would increase the employment of persons with disabilities.
6. Congress should develop innovative and effective incentives to
promote the establishment of return-to-work programs.
Accomplishments
Most managers surveyed by the Harris agency were supportive of and
committed to the rehabilitation of employees who become disabled.
Approximately three-quarters of each of the three types of managers
surveyed responded that employers have a responsibility to rehabilitate
disabled employees. The large majority felt that the rehabilitation of
disabled employees is cost-effective.
The provision of incentives to businesses that provide return-to-
work programs would increase the return-to-work of a significant num-
ber of persons who become disabled. However, the Council's recom-
mendation on return-to-work programs was not included in legislation
enacted by the 99th Congress. The Council will continue to attend to
this important recommendation.
Although these porgrams are relatively new, the Council believes
that return-to-work programs that involve employees in the early
stages of rehabilitation will enable a substantial number of employees
to maintain and return to employment. Incentives to companies will
encourage more employers to develop return-to-work programs, thus
reducing the number of persons with disabilities not working. This will
eventually reduce the amount of money spent on income support pro-
grams.
51
Job Development and Placement
7. Congress should support the development of area model cen-
ters on employment for persons with disabilities.
Accomplishments
Many persons with disabilities experience difficulty in finding suitable
employment. Job development and placement are fundamental reha-
bilitation services to assist persons who are vocationally handicapped
by a disability to secure employment consistent with their vocational
assets and limitations. Job development is the process of developing
the appropriate job site; placement is actually obtaining the job.
As stated previously, the findings from the first Harris poll indi-
cated that two-thirds of persons with disabilities in this country who
are of working age are not working. Even more important is the fact
that two-thirds of those individuals not working want to work. Al-
though no action has been taken on this recommendation, the Council
continues to believe that area model centers on employment could
assist in reducing the number of unemployed persons with disabilities.
Job Training
8. Congress should amend the Job Training Partnership Act
(JTPA) to eliminate the income eligibility requirement for per-
sons with disabilities and to increase the representation of
persons with disabilities on Private Industry Councils.
Accomplishments
The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) authorized job preparation
and job training for people who are economically disadvantaged and for
people who face serious barriers to employment. The JTPA also sym-
bolizes cooperation between the public and private sectors to achieve
the shared goal of providing employment opportunities for disabled
persons. The 1986 Amendments to the JTPA were primarily technical
in nature because of the many substantial changes to the Act in 1982,
and the Council's recommendation was not incorporated.
Some changes, however, did relate to disabled persons. A new
section entitled "Projects for Special Populations," Section 456, was
added. This section mandates the Secretary of Labor to expend a por-
tion of the discretionary funds for research, demonstration, and pilot
projects to assist groups of individuals who are not otherwise targeted
with Federal, State, or service delivery area set-asides. Special consid-
eration is to be given to displaced workers and persons with disabili-
ties. In addition, several sections of the Act emphasize the provision of
52
services to disabled veterans.
The Council believes that these provisions will improve and in-
crease the services provided to persons with disabilities under the Job
Training Partnership Act. However, the Council reaffirms its belief that
for persons with disabilities to be adequately served by the JTPA, the
income eligibility criteria must be eliminated. The Council will continue
to encourage Congress to amend this legislation to reflect that position.
53
deduction for expenses incurred in connection with the elimination of
architectural and transportation barriers for persons with disabilities
and elderly persons at the place of business.
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-514) made Section 190
a permanent provision, as recommended by the Council. Section 190
was made retroactive to January 1, 1986. The amount that an em-
ployer can deduct in any taxable year remains $35,000. Qualified
expenses include only those specifically attributable to the removal of
existing barriers.
Once again, data from the Harris poll on employers confirmed the
wisdom of this legislative change. Approximately 74 percent of the
managers surveyed agreed that a policy by the Government to provide
additional tax deductions for or share in the cost of expensive accom-
modations would increase the employment of persons with disabilities.
6. Congress should develop innovative and effective incentives to
promote the establishment of return-to-work programs.
Accomplishments
Most managers surveyed by the Harris agency were supportive of and
committed to the rehabilitation of employees who become disabled.
Approximately three-quarters of each of the three types of managers
surveyed responded that employers have a responsibility to rehabilitate
disabled employees. The large majority felt that the rehabilitation of
disabled employees is cost-effective.
The provision of incentives to businesses that provide return-to-
work programs would increase the return-to-work of a significant num-
ber of persons who become disabled. However, the Council's recom-
mendation on return-to-work programs was not included in legislation
enacted by the 99th Congress. The Council will continue to attend to
this important recommendation.
Although these porgrams are relatively new, the Council believes
that return-to-work programs that involve employees in the early
stages of rehabilitation will enable a substantial number of employees
to maintain and return to employment. Incentives to companies will
encourage more employers to develop return-to-work programs, thus
reducing the number of persons with disabilities not working. This will
eventually reduce the amount of money spent on income support pro-
grams.
51
Job Development and Placement
7. Congress should support the development of area model cen-
ters on employment for persons with disabilities.
Accomplishments
Many persons with disabilities experience difficulty in finding suitable
employment. Job development and placement are fundamental reha-
bilitation services to assist persons who are vocationally handicapped
by a disability to secure employment consistent with their vocational
assets and limitations. Job development is the process of developing
the appropriate job site; placement is actually obtaining the job.
As stated previously, the findings from the first Harris poll indi-
cated that two-thirds of persons with disabilities in this country who
are of working age are not working. Even more important is the fact
that two-thirds of those individuals not working want to work. Al-
though no action has been taken on this recommendation, the Council
continues to believe that area model centers on employment could
assist in reducing the number of unemployed persons with disabilities.
Job Training
8. Congress should amend the Job Training Partnership Act
(JTPA) to eliminate the income eligibility requirement for per-
sons with disabilities and to increase the representation of
persons with disabilities on Private Industry Councils.
Accomplishments
The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) authorized job preparation
and job training for people who are economically disadvantaged and for
people who face serious barriers to employment. The JTPA also sym-
bolizes cooperation between the public and private sectors to achieve
the shared goal of providing employment opportunities for disabled
persons. The 1986 Amendments to the JTPA were primarily technical
in nature because of the many substantial changes to the Act in 1982,
and the Council's recommendation was not incorporated.
Some changes, however, did relate to disabled persons. A new
section entitled "Projects for Special Populations," Section 456, was
added. This section mandates the Secretary of Labor to expend a por-
tion of the discretionary funds for research, demonstration, and pilot
projects to assist groups of individuals who are not otherwise targeted
with Federal, State, or service delivery area set-asides. Special consid-
eration is to be given to displaced workers and persons with disabili-
ties. In addition, several sections of the Act emphasize the provision of
52
services to disabled veterans.
The Council believes that these provisions will improve and in-
crease the services provided to persons with disabilities under the Job
Training Partnership Act. However, the Council reaffirms its belief that
for persons with disabilities to be adequately served by the JTPA, the
income eligibility criteria must be eliminated. The Council will continue
to encourage Congress to amend this legislation to reflect that position.
53
Disincentives to Work Under
Social Security Laws
An overwhelming consensus exists as to the importance of work in our
society; that consensus applies to disabled and non-disabled persons
alike. The previous section on employment dealt in general with the
world of work, including the transition from school to work, supported
work, private sector initiatives, and job development, placement and
training. Toward Independence also included a section that took a
closer look at Social Security legislation and its impact on securing a
job. This section details progress toward the elimination of disincen-
tives in the Social Security system.
In Toward Independence, the Council explored the extent to which
income and medical benefit programs authorized under the Social
Security Act encouraged persons with disabilities to become self-suffi-
cient and gainfully employed. Economic benefits provided by those
programs, e.g., Social Security Supplemental Income (SSI) and Social
Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), are intended to partially compen-
sate for the earning loss which typically accompanies disability.
In addition to income supplements, persons with disabilities and/
or their families may be eligible for assistance with food, health care
(Medicaid and Medicare), housing, education, training, and employ-
ment. The tenet that underlies this form of Government assistance is
that alleviating financial stress through the provision of disability bene-
fits will allow persons with disabilities to focus on recovery, rehabilita-
tion and the eventual return to work.
However, some of the Federal programs under the Social Security
Act not only fail to promote employment and independence for citizens
with disabilities, but actually penalize and discourage people with
disabilities if they seek employment. Even though these programs
provide many people with severe disabilities the basic life necessities,
the experiences of consumers and service providers demonstrate that
some programs actually encourage dependence and discourage gainful
employment.
In order to eliminate or reduce the disincentives to work under the
Social Security Act, the Council recommended several legislative
changes. The first change relates to the existing process for determin-
ing eligibility for Social Security benefits. The Council believes that the
eligibility determination process should be revised to include a func-
tional assessment of the individual's disabling condition. Other
changes include developing work incentives for recipients of Supple-
55
mental Security Income and conducting a study on cost-effective meth-
ods of providing health insurance to persons with disabilities.
Legislation passed in the 99th Congress contains several of the
Council's recommendations for the removal of barriers that discourage
persons with disabilities from seeking gainful employment under the
Social Security Act. The Council believes that this legislation will have
a positive impact on the number of persons receiving SSI and returning
to work. The Council continues to believe that Congress should revise
the eligibility criteria for SSI and SSDI.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
1. Congress should amend the Social Security Act to make eligibil-
ity for SSI and SSDI programs dependent upon the presence of
a severe medical disability and a functional assessment to de-
termine vocational potential whenever deemed appropriate.
Accomplishments
By definition, eligibility for SSI disability benefits or SSDI benefits is
based on the assumption that disabled beneficiaries are unable to
work. In principle, a person who is able to work should not be entitled
to disability benefits. However, disabilities obviously cannot be catego-
rized simply as those that prevent one from working and those that do
not.
Currently, individuals with certain medical diagnoses are auto-
matically considered eligible for SSI and SSDI disability income bene-
fits unless they have a substantial work history after the onset of dis-
ability. Because the ability to work is dependent upon a large number
of factors and varies tremendously from one individual to another, the
eligibility process should be judged by a thorough functional vocational
assessment.
Although agreement exists that the eligibility process needs to be
improved, Congress has not yet acted on the recommendation made by
the Council. Because of the Council's commitment to this issue, it will
continue to work with the Social Security Administration and Congress
to encourage the revision of the eligibility criteria for SSI and SSDI. The
Council believes that this revision will change the focus of disability
determinations from a purely medical standard to one that recognizes
the full range of factors affecting the ability to work.
2. Congress should amend the Social Security Act to assure that
SSI and SSDI recipients who become gainfully employed are
permitted to retain benefits and have access to medical insur-
56
ance in circumstances where the loss of such benefits would
substantially negate the income they might earn.
Accomplishments
The health insurance problems of disabled persons are widespread.
Some disabled workers are forced into income support programs pri-
marily because they cannot obtain private medical insurance coverage.
Persons with disabilities who are self-employed often have great diffi-
culty because they rarely have access to group insurance programs.
Furthermore, many small businesses that offer the low paying jobs
held by many people with disabilities have no medical coverage at all.
Congress attempted to alleviate problems in this area by the pas-
sage of the Employment Opportunities For Disabled Americans Act
(Public Law 99-643), which makes the temporary (demonstration)
provisions of Section 1619 (a) and (b) permanent. Passing this legisla-
tion implemented the aforementioned Council recommendation.
Under this important program, eligibility for Supplemental Security
Income cash assistance and Medicaid is extended for persons with
disabilities who go to work and have earnings above the Substantial
Gainful Activity (SGA) indicator, currently $300 per month. Previous
barriers which consisted of the termination of the SSI cash assistance
after the trial work period and the loss of eligibility for Medicaid have
been eliminated in this new legislation.
Re-entitlement problems for persons who have fluctuating earnings
and other changes have also been addressed. Re-entry is improved and
waiting time and reexamination requirements are eliminated. The Act
also provides for persons who are reinstitutionalized for treatment,
thus bridging another gap in the SSI program for persons with severe
disabilities. As a direct result of this legislation, more persons with
disabilities, especially those with more severe disabilities, will have the
opportunity to become employed, some for the first time.
In addition to the Employment Opportunities for Disabled Ameri-
cans Act, Congress established an Advisory Council on Disability
within the Social Security Administration to study and make recom-
mendations on the medical and vocational aspects of the Social Secu-
rity disability programs [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1985 ( Public Law 99-272, Section 12102), enacted April 7,
1986]. In addition to studying the areas mandated by Congress, the
Advisory Council will address work incentives and disincentives in
disability programs. A report of the findings of the Advisory Council is
scheduled for December 31, 1987. The National Council on the Handi-
capped looks forward to the report's recommendations regarding the
removal of disincentives to employment for persons with disabilities.
57
3. Congress should direct the Health Care Financing Administra-
tion to study and recommend cost-effective methods for pro-
viding health insurance coverage to persons with preexisting
conditions who cannot obtain adequate health insurance cover-
age from private insurers at affordable rates. The study should
be conducted in consultation with the National Council on the
Handicapped, and findings and recommendations should be
reported in hearings before Congress within two years of the
date of the enactment of this provision.
Accomplishments
As was stated previously, the problems that disabled persons have with
health insurance are monumental. Access to health insurance is cer-
tainly one key toward independent functioning. The Council believes
that further investigation into this area is essential.
A study of the type recommended by the Council on health insur-
ance was incorporated by Congress in the 1986 Rehabilitation Act
Amendments (Public Law 99-506, Section 303). Congress requested
the Director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research to conduct a study on health insurance practices and policies
affecting persons with disabilities. A report on this study is to be pre-
sented to the appropriate congressional committees by February 1,
1990.
58
Disincentives to Work Under
Social Security Laws
An overwhelming consensus exists as to the importance of work in our
society; that consensus applies to disabled and non-disabled persons
alike. The previous section on employment dealt in general with the
world of work, including the transition from school to work, supported
work, private sector initiatives, and job development, placement and
training. Toward Independence also included a section that took a
closer look at Social Security legislation and its impact on securing a
job. This section details progress toward the elimination of disincen-
tives in the Social Security system.
In Toward Independence, the Council explored the extent to which
income and medical benefit programs authorized under the Social
Security Act encouraged persons with disabilities to become self-suffi-
cient and gainfully employed. Economic benefits provided by those
programs, e.g., Social Security Supplemental Income (SSI) and Social
Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), are intended to partially compen-
sate for the earning loss which typically accompanies disability.
In addition to income supplements, persons with disabilities and/
or their families may be eligible for assistance with food, health care
(Medicaid and Medicare), housing, education, training, and employ-
ment. The tenet that underlies this form of Government assistance is
that alleviating financial stress through the provision of disability bene-
fits will allow persons with disabilities to focus on recovery, rehabilita-
tion and the eventual return to work.
However, some of the Federal programs under the Social Security
Act not only fail to promote employment and independence for citizens
with disabilities, but actually penalize and discourage people with
disabilities if they seek employment. Even though these programs
provide many people with severe disabilities the basic life necessities,
the experiences of consumers and service providers demonstrate that
some programs actually encourage dependence and discourage gainful
employment.
In order to eliminate or reduce the disincentives to work under the
Social Security Act, the Council recommended several legislative
changes. The first change relates to the existing process for determin-
ing eligibility for Social Security benefits. The Council believes that the
eligibility determination process should be revised to include a func-
tional assessment of the individual's disabling condition. Other
changes include developing work incentives for recipients of Supple-
55
mental Security Income and conducting a study on cost-effective meth-
ods of providing health insurance to persons with disabilities.
Legislation passed in the 99th Congress contains several of the
Council's recommendations for the removal of barriers that discourage
persons with disabilities from seeking gainful employment under the
Social Security Act. The Council believes that this legislation will have
a positive impact on the number of persons receiving SSI and returning
to work. The Council continues to believe that Congress should revise
the eligibility criteria for SSI and SSDI.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
1. Congress should amend the Social Security Act to make eligibil-
ity for SSI and SSDI programs dependent upon the presence of
a severe medical disability and a functional assessment to de-
termine vocational potential whenever deemed appropriate.
Accomplishments
By definition, eligibility for SSI disability benefits or SSDI benefits is
based on the assumption that disabled beneficiaries are unable to
work. In principle, a person who is able to work should not be entitled
to disability benefits. However, disabilities obviously cannot be catego-
rized simply as those that prevent one from working and those that do
not.
Currently, individuals with certain medical diagnoses are auto-
matically considered eligible for SSI and SSDI disability income bene-
fits unless they have a substantial work history after the onset of dis-
ability. Because the ability to work is dependent upon a large number
of factors and varies tremendously from one individual to another, the
eligibility process should be judged by a thorough functional vocational
assessment.
Although agreement exists that the eligibility process needs to be
improved, Congress has not yet acted on the recommendation made by
the Council. Because of the Council's commitment to this issue, it will
continue to work with the Social Security Administration and Congress
to encourage the revision of the eligibility criteria for SSI and SSDI. The
Council believes that this revision will change the focus of disability
determinations from a purely medical standard to one that recognizes
the full range of factors affecting the ability to work.
2. Congress should amend the Social Security Act to assure that
SSI and SSDI recipients who become gainfully employed are
permitted to retain benefits and have access to medical insur-
56
ance in circumstances where the loss of such benefits would
substantially negate the income they might earn.
Accomplishments
The health insurance problems of disabled persons are widespread.
Some disabled workers are forced into income support programs pri-
marily because they cannot obtain private medical insurance coverage.
Persons with disabilities who are self-employed often have great diffi-
culty because they rarely have access to group insurance programs.
Furthermore, many small businesses that offer the low paying jobs
held by many people with disabilities have no medical coverage at all.
Congress attempted to alleviate problems in this area by the pas-
sage of the Employment Opportunities For Disabled Americans Act
(Public Law 99-643), which makes the temporary (demonstration)
provisions of Section 1619 (a) and (b) permanent. Passing this legisla-
tion implemented the aforementioned Council recommendation.
Under this important program, eligibility for Supplemental Security
Income cash assistance and Medicaid is extended for persons with
disabilities who go to work and have earnings above the Substantial
Gainful Activity (SGA) indicator, currently $300 per month. Previous
barriers which consisted of the termination of the SSI cash assistance
after the trial work period and the loss of eligibility for Medicaid have
been eliminated in this new legislation.
Re-entitlement problems for persons who have fluctuating earnings
and other changes have also been addressed. Re-entry is improved and
waiting time and reexamination requirements are eliminated. The Act
also provides for persons who are reinstitutionalized for treatment,
thus bridging another gap in the SSI program for persons with severe
disabilities. As a direct result of this legislation, more persons with
disabilities, especially those with more severe disabilities, will have the
opportunity to become employed, some for the first time.
In addition to the Employment Opportunities for Disabled Ameri-
cans Act, Congress established an Advisory Council on Disability
within the Social Security Administration to study and make recom-
mendations on the medical and vocational aspects of the Social Secu-
rity disability programs [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1985 ( Public Law 99-272, Section 12102), enacted April 7,
1986]. In addition to studying the areas mandated by Congress, the
Advisory Council will address work incentives and disincentives in
disability programs. A report of the findings of the Advisory Council is
scheduled for December 31, 1987. The National Council on the Handi-
capped looks forward to the report's recommendations regarding the
removal of disincentives to employment for persons with disabilities.
57
3. Congress should direct the Health Care Financing Administra-
tion to study and recommend cost-effective methods for pro-
viding health insurance coverage to persons with preexisting
conditions who cannot obtain adequate health insurance cover-
age from private insurers at affordable rates. The study should
be conducted in consultation with the National Council on the
Handicapped, and findings and recommendations should be
reported in hearings before Congress within two years of the
date of the enactment of this provision.
Accomplishments
As was stated previously, the problems that disabled persons have with
health insurance are monumental. Access to health insurance is cer-
tainly one key toward independent functioning. The Council believes
that further investigation into this area is essential.
A study of the type recommended by the Council on health insur-
ance was incorporated by Congress in the 1986 Rehabilitation Act
Amendments (Public Law 99-506, Section 303). Congress requested
the Director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research to conduct a study on health insurance practices and policies
affecting persons with disabilities. A report on this study is to be pre-
sented to the appropriate congressional committees by February 1,
1990.
58
Prevention of Disabilities
A Federal initiative to prevent primary and secondary disabilities could
substantially reduce the costs of disability and health care for Ameri-
cans, reduce Federal spending for disability in the near future, and
decrease the incidence of disability for future generations. Research
indicates that preventive measures would reduce the number of new
additions to the disabled population. For example:
One dollar spent on the Childhood Immunization Program saves
$10 in later medical costs (Monitoring the Health of America's
Children, 1984).
Seventy percent seat belt use would save an estimated 9,000
lives and prevent 34,000 severe injuries or disabilities per year
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1984).
Because it is clear that our Nation has the knowledge, technology,
and resources to mount an effective and successful national program
for the prevention of primary and secondary disabilities, the Council
has devoted concerted effort in this area, and considerable progress
has been achieved in the past two years.
The Council's recommendations regarding prevention have three
components: 1) a national plan on the prevention of disabilities; 2) a
small community-based grants program; and 3) further research on
incidence and prevalence of primary and secondary disabilities. The
first component consists of the Federal Government's development of a
national plan for the prevention of disabilities. Such a plan would
focus on the major causes of primary and secondary disabilities and
how they can be prevented. Recognizing the fiscal constraints being
placed on the Federal Government today, the Council believes that the
implementation of this recommendation must not create any new Gov-
ernment agency or department, but rather be built into an already
existing Federal agency.
The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion has issued
a report, Promoting Health/Preventing Disease, which outlines na-
tional objectives to be reached by 1990. The Council is impressed with
the report, but is concerned that the objectives outlined focus on the
prevention of mortality and not disability. If this Office were to receive
additional monies and staff, it could, with Council involvement and
oversight, develop a plan focusing on the prevention of disabilities. The
development of such a plan would help prevent disabilities and would
also gather important, sorely needed statistical information.
59
The second component of the Council's prevention plan is a small
community-based grants program, which should be administered by
the Centers for Disease Control. Such a program would allow local
communities to apply for small grants to eliminate or ameliorate one or
several disabling conditions. For example, a small community in New
York State recently developed a plan to reduce the number of persons
killed or injured in traffic accidents by educating a significant number
of high school youth, as well as others in the community. Data indicate
that this program has significantly reduced the number of traffic fatali-
ties and injuries. By allowing local communities to set their own priori-
ties, this program is likely to receive broader community involvement
and support.
The third component reflects an overall need within the disability
community for valid and reliable statistical data. Accordingly, the
Council has recommended that such data be gathered by the Office of
Technology Assessment.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
1. Congress should enact a law related to prevention entitled "The
Prevention of Disabilities Act."
Accomplishments
When Toward Independence was published, the Council believed that a
separate piece of legislation was needed on the prevention of disabili-
ties. Since that time, however, the Council has learned that existing
legislation could accomplish the same objectives, i.e., the development
of a national plan on the prevention of disabilities and a community-
based grants program to demonstrate effective prevention strategies.
The Public Health Service Act contains several sections which author-
ize the type of prevention activities which the Council believes must be
funded.
First, Title XVII, Health Information and Health Promotion, author-
izes the activities of the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promo-
tion. Senate Report 99-408, which accompanies the Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year
1987 (Public Law 99-591), contains language which directs the Office
of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion to begin to consider the
development of a National Plan for the Prevention of Disabilities. Re-
cently, the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion has
convened a series meetings of several Federal agencies involved in the
prevention of disabilities. Although these meetings have been produc-
tive, the Council believes that additional staff and funding for the Of-
fice of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion are necessary for the
60
goals of the Council's prevention initiative to reach fruition. Further-
more, the Council sees its role as maintaining oversight responsibility
for the development of such a national plan in order to assure that the
plan addresses major issues confronting the disability community.
Title III of the Public Health Act, General Powers and Duties of the
Public Health Service, contains a number of small grants programs
which may lend themselves to the implementation of the Council's
recommendation for community-based grants to prevent disabilities.
Specifically, Section 317, Project Grants for Preventive Health Services,
could be directed toward the prevention of disabilities.
In addition, Title XVII of the Act, entitled Health Information and
Health Promotion, also contains a vehicle for a small community-based
grants program, Section 1703, entitled Community Programs. This
section authorizes many activities which could promote the prevention
of disabilities within local communities. The Centers for Disease Con-
trol administers both of these community-based programs.
2. Congress should provide appropriate levels of funding for spe-
cial program priorities related to disability prevention.
Accomplishments
The Council has officially adopted two recommendations for appropri-
ate funding levels for disability prevention activities. First, adequate
funds should be appropriated to the Department of Health and Human
Services to allow the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
to develop a National Plan on the Prevention of Disabilities. Second, the
Centers for Disease Control should be appropriated sufficient funds
over the next five years to fund community-based programs which
would promote the prevention of both primary and secondary disabili-
ties.
The Council firmly believes that the implementation of these rec-
ommendations could make a tremendous impact, not only by prevent-
ing needless disabilities from occurring, but also by assuring that
persons with existing disabilities are able to live more independent and
productive lives. Over the past two years, the Council has worked
conscientiously to secure appropriations related to prevention.
3. Congress should direct its Office of Technology Assessment to
conduct a study of the status of primary and secondary preven-
tion of disability in the United States, and to submit a report of
its findings two years after the issuance of the National Plan on
the Prevention of Disabilities.
61
Accomplishments
Before such a study of the status of primary and secondary prevention
of disabilities by the Office of Technology Assessment can be of value, it
is imperative that the Council's first two recommendations on preven-
tion be fully operational. The Council continues to urge the Federal
Government to initiate a national program for prevention by coordinat-
ing Federal prevention-related programs, and believes that when these
programs become functional, an OTA study regarding the prevention of
disabilities will be of great assistance.
62
Transportation
In Toward Independence the Council concluded that accessible trans-
portation is a critical component of a national policy that promotes the
self-reliance and self-sufficiency of people with disabilities: "People who
cannot get to work or to the voting place cannot exercise their rights
and obligations as citizens" (p. 33). According to Government data
(DoT, 1978), the number of transportation-handicapped people is 7.4
million in urban areas; of that group 1.4 million are unable to use
transit at all. Transportation is not a problem in a vacuum- the magni-
tude of the problem is increased exponentially by complex interactions
between transportation and employment, housing, independent living,
education, and leisure activities.
The 1986 Harris poll, "Bringing Disabled Americans into the Main-
stream," underscores the fact that transportation is a major problem
for persons with disabilities. A clear majority of disabled persons state
that their disability prevents them from getting around, socializing, or
going to cultural events as much as they would like. Forty-nine percent
of the respondents believe that their mobility is limited because they
"are not able to use public transportation or because [they] can't get
special transportation or someone to give [them] a ride when [they]
need one" (p. 65).
Transportation barriers not only limit social and community life;
they also severely restrict employment options, and may explain a
portion of the 66 percent of disabled persons who are without jobs.
According to the Harris survey, approximately three out of ten people
say that a lack of accessible or affordable transportation is an impor-
tant reason why they are not working.
In the Council's 1986 report, recommendations were provided in
the following areas: urban mass transit, air transportation, intercity
and interstate buses, private transportation, and research. Without a
doubt, the area in which the greatest progress has been achieved is
that of air transportation, with the passage of the Air Carrier Access
Act of 1986.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
Urban Mass Transit
1. Congress should amend Section 16 of the Urban Mass Transit
Act to require full accessibility to mass transportation to be
achieved over a realistic period of time; such amendments
should:
63
a. Prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability by recipi-
ents of Federal funds under this Act.
b. Require recipients to provide a level of service to disabled
and elderly persons that is equivalent with that available to
nondisabled persons in terms of: 1) service range, 2) transfer
frequency, 3) fare, 4) travel purpose, 5) trip decision/travel
time, 6) capacity, and 7) availability.
c. Require that all new facilities and vehicles constructed or
purchased with funds under this Act be accessible.
d. Require recipients of funds under this Act to develop spe-
cific transition plans for achieving, within a reasonable pe-
riod of time, full access and comparable service levels. These
plans should be developed with the substantial and meaning-
ful involvement of disabled and elderly consumers.
e. Create a private right of action for persons who believe they
have been discriminated against by recipients of funds under
this Act.
Accomplishments
In today's highly mobile society, transportation barriers continue to
exclude many disabled persons from most forms of public transporta-
tion. Such discrimination prevents many people from realizing their
full potential for independence and productivity. Although the Urban
Mass Transit Act of 1964, as amended, espouses a national policy
establishing a right to equal use of public transportation for disabled
and elderly persons, the legislation lacks the underlying foundation
necessary to render it enforceable. It contains no clear mandate.
Section 16 of the law requires that "special efforts shall be made in
the planning and design of mass transportation facilities and services
SO that the availability to elderly and handicapped persons of mass
transportation which they can effectively utilize will be assured " This
language weakens the policy of equal use by not setting a physical
standard for compliance. Judicial interpretations have found that this
section creates no requirement for a fully accessible system. The legis-
lative history of the Act, on the other hand, tends to support the idea
that the intent of Section 16 is to create full accessibility.
The Council proposed amendments to Section 16 that would allevi-
ate its weaknesses in terms of disabled persons and attempt to fulfill
its philosophical promise of a fully accessible system of transportation.
Unfortunately no action has been taken on the proposed remedies.
Instead, Congress has taken the role of policeman by proposing legisla-
tion to reverse regulatory setbacks imposed by the Department of
Transportation.
64
The regulatory setbacks Congress is attempting to reverse relate to
the Department of Transportation's promulgation of its final rule on
May 23, 1986, for urban mass transportation pursuant to Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Section 317(c) of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. In a letter to the former Secre-
tary of Transportation Elizabeth H. Dole, the Consortium for Citizens
with Disabilities remarked: " [T]his rule fails to implement the prin-
ciples of Section 504 and jeopardizes the availability of desperately
needed transportation for people with disabilities."
The two most glaring problems of that final rule are: 1) a regulato-
rily imposed limit of 3 percent on the amount of funds required by a
recipient of Federal financial assistance in order to fulfill its obligations
to providing services to persons with disabilities; and 2) the unprece-
dented exclusion of one category of disabled persons, i.e. mentally
disabled persons, from coverage under the definition of disability under
the regulations (unprecedented in terms of Section 504 regulations).
The regulations cover only persons who are physically unable to use
the services. In his January 29, 1987, statement for the Record, Sena-
tor Cranston concluded:
[I]t has now been nearly 17 years since Congress proclaimed in section
16(a) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 that it is national
policy that elderly and handicapped person have the same right as others
persons to utilize mass transportation facilities and services' [I]t is still
too often the case that disabled persons lack the access to transportation
services that they need It is time we gave greater meaning to the Con-
gress' 1970 declaration of handicapped rights, and we can do so in this
legislation. (p. S 1412)
Identical bills are now pending in both the Senate and the House (S.
1077, H.R. 2887). These proposals, if enacted, will reverse the regula-
tions with regard to the exclusion of mentally disabled individuals and
the 3 percent cap. Also included is a provision which was one of the
Council's five recommendations made to amend Section 16, the crea-
tion of a private right of action for persons who believe they have been
aggrieved under the Act.
If Congress passes the proposed legislation, the two regulatory
setbacks will be negated and a private right of action will be estab-
lished for the first time. However, the Council strongly reaffirms its
commitment to the other four recommended amendments, especially
the requirement that all new facilities and vehicles constructed or
purchased be accessible.
A related issue to amending UMTA is monitoring the enforcement
of the UMTA Section 504 regulations that require the submission of
transition plans describing how local transit authorities intend to
achieve compliance. The Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Council,
65
and the National Easter Seal Society are currently analyzing transition
plans that have been submitted to assess the status and level of com-
pliance as reported.
2. Congress should amend the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
to establish the Department of Transportation as a standard-
setting agency for the development of access standards for
buildings, facilities, and public conveyances, including rolling
stock and aircraft, which are designed, altered, constructed, or
purchased with Federal funds to insure that they are readily
accessible and usable by disabled and elderly persons.
The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 establishes four Federal agen-
cies as standard setting- the General Services Administration, the
Department of Defense, the Department of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment, and the U.S. Postal Service. Although the Department of
Transportation sets transportation standards governing such matters
as configurations of vehicles, communication access, and appropriate
signage and safety, DoT is not allowed to establish standards for acces-
sible transportation. The Council continues to believe that this situ-
ation should be remedied.
Air Transportation
3. Congress should amend the Federal Aviation Act to:
a. Prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability by all air-
lines using federally assisted airports.
b. State that all airlines using federally assisted airports are
subject to the provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilita-
tion Act of 1973 and regulations promulgated thereunder.
Accomplishments
At the time of the publication of Toward Independence, only a few small
air carriers that were federally subsidized were required to be acces-
sible. However, since that time, Congress has responded to this ineq-
uity by enacting legislation to prohibit discrimination in air travel. The
Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, Public Law 99-435, echoed the nondis-
crimination language of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by pro-
hibiting air carriers from discriminating against qualified handicapped
individuals in the provision of air transportation.
This law, in effect, reversed the Supreme Court decision in the case
of the Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America.
Specifically, the Act amends Section 404 of the Federal Aviation Act to
prohibit discrimination on the basis of handicap by all air carriers.
66
Symbolically, the law has been a clear message from Congress that
discrimination against persons with disabilities will not be condoned.
In a statement made to the House of Representatives, Congress-
man Norman Mineta, chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, re-
marked:
The bill now before us will make it clear that airlines may not discriminate
against handicapped persons I strongly believe that handicapped passen-
gers are entitled to take full advantage of the mobility afforded by air trans-
portation and that handicapped passengers are entitled to be treated with
dignity when they travel. (p. H 7193)
The law also directed the Department of Transportation to promul-
gate regulations to implement its provisions by January 31, 1987.
Recognizing the potential adversarial positions which the regulations
might evoke, and in an attempt to get those parties together to negoti-
ate compromises, the Department of Transportation utilized a process
referred to as "regulatory negotiation." This process, which had been
employed by the Department on three previous occasions, was origi-
nally developed by the Administrative Conference (47 FR 30706).
On June 10, 1987, a team led by two facilitators from the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service convened to establish parameters
for the negotiation process. The team was composed of 15 individuals
representing the disability community, the air travel industry, the
Federal Government, and observers.
Disability interests were represented by the American Council of
the Blind, Paralyzed Veterans of America, National Federation of the
Blind, National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems, Na-
tional Association of the Deaf/National Center for Law and the Deaf,
National Council for Independent Living and the Society for the Ad-
vancement of Travel for the Handicapped. The Federal Government was
represented by the Department of Transportation and the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. The National Council
on the Handicapped, although not asked to be part of the official team,
was encouraged to participate and voice its views on issues of concern.
For purposes of discussion, potential problem areas were divided
into seven groups: 1) on-board accessibility, equipment, stowage of
aids, layovers, and enplaning and deplaning; 2) information briefing
and personnel training; 3) seating, dog guides, emergency evacuations,
and no segregation; 4) refusal of service, contagious diseases, advance
notice, mandatory special assistance, and limitations on the number of
handicapped persons on one flight; 5) reimbursement and special
charges; 6) contractors and security; and 7) unequal treatment of
people with disabilities not requiring accommodations compared with
treatment of non-handicapped persons.
67
The team decided on an ambitious schedule which included ap-
proximately twenty-five meeting dates from June through early Novem-
ber. It was agreed that small work groups would also be formed for in-
depth exploration of specific topics. In addition, the committee sched-
uled two days of open public hearings for September so that any indi-
viduals or groups that felt their needs were not being heard would have
an opportunity to testify and submit materials for the record.
At this juncture, the committee has completed the majority of its
meetings and will issue its final consensus document on November 6,
1987. Subsequently, the Department of Transportation will issue pro-
posed regulations in the Federal Register.
Intercity and Interstate Buses
4. Congress should extend coverage of handicap nondiscrimina-
tion requirements to interstate commerce, thus prohibiting
such discrimination by interstate bus companies.
Accomplishments
Bus transportation is often the sole form of public transportation con-
necting people in rural areas with major cities and towns. Because a
significant number of disabled people reside in rural areas and rely on
bus transportation, the Council recommended prohibiting discrimina-
tion by interstate bus companies.
The Council is aware of no activity with regard to extending non-
discrimination coverage to bus companies. However, there do appear to
be increasingly more examples of bus companies retrofitting and pur-
chasing vehicles which are accessible.
Private Transportation
5. Congress should establish a low-interest loan program based on
income to assist disabled persons and families with disabled
children or elderly persons to purchase vehicles or to make
necessary access modifications.
Accomplishments
Private transportation provides the only means by which many dis-
abled persons and elderly persons can participate fully in community
life, including employment, recreation, education, etc. Since the cost of
purchasing and modifying vehicles is prohibitive for many disabled
persons and their families, such a low-interest loan program is needed.
To date, no such program has been developed.
68
Much effort has gone into the development of legislation that would
create a national uniform system for handicapped parking SO that
persons with disabilities who require special parking arrangements can
travel freely between States. To date, the Senate has approved such a
system in S. 853, legislation authorizing the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. The House legislation, H.R. 1442, is still pend-
ing.
Research
6. Congress should direct the Department of Transportation to
commission a study, based upon its existing authorities and
targeting currently available funds, to assess the impact of
increased access to transportation on employment, education,
and quality of life for disabled and elderly persons.
Accomplishments
Very few reliable studies have been conducted on the impact of acces-
sible transportation. Most existing studies have methodological weak-
nesses. Therefore, the Council believes that Congress should direct the
Department of Transportation to commission such a study.
The study proposed by the Council for the Department of Trans-
portation has not been requested by Congress. However, Congress has
requested that the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compli-
ance Board present a report on its activities, including transportation
barriers, by February 1988. It is anticipated that since the ATBCB
conducts research, a segment of that report will be devoted to the
status of available data and research needs in the area of transporta-
tion barriers.
69
Housing
In Toward Independence, the Council described housing as "a major
prerequisite to social integration and living independently for persons
with disabilities," and noted:
The lack of appropriate housing opportunities for individuals with
disabilities frequently results in the unnecessary and expensive
institutionalization of such persons. Available data suggest that the
costs of providing appropriate housing options for people with dis-
abilities are well worth the investment because of the significant
savings that may be engendered by enabling disabled people to live
in the community, get jobs, and pay taxes. Various reports of Fed-
eral agencies, disabled persons, and the few formal studies of the
subject have documented a serious shortage of housing options for
people with disabilities. (p. 37)
The legislative recommendations of the Council in regard to hous-
ing presented direct and indirect means for increasing the housing
opportunities available to persons with disabilities. If implemented,
these would greatly enhance the quality of life of Americans with dis-
abilities, with a secondary effect of reducing dependency-related costs.
Some significant legislative proposals and administrative actions have
furthered the proposals made by the Council in the area of housing. At
the same time, many of the Council's key housing recommendations
have yet to receive the congressional attention and implementation
they merit.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
1. Congress should prohibit housing discrimination against per-
sons with disabilities on as broad a basis as race, color, religion,
sex, and national origin discrimination are prohibited under
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Accomplishments
Responding to the anomalous situation in which one of the Nation's
largest minorities- persons with disabilities- is omitted from the cover-
age of Federal Fair Housing laws, the Council proposed the expansion
of housing nondiscrimination requirements to protect individuals with
disabilities. Several bills currently before the Congress would provide
to persons with disabilities protection from housing discrimination
comparable to that available to other minorities. The proposed Fair
Housing Amendments Act of 1987 (S.558 and H.R.1158) would amend
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 to add "handicap" to the list of
71
prohibited types of discrimination. Currently, Title VIII prohibits dis-
crimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and
national origin. As an alternative to amending Title VIII, the Council's
comprehensive equal opportunity proposal- "The Americans with Dis-
abilities Act" - would create a separate prohibition of discrimination on
the basis of handicap in housing. The housing subject to the compre-
hensive nondiscrimination requirement under this proposal would be
identical to the housing covered by Title VIII.
2. Congress should require that all housing units constructed or
substantially altered with Federal financial assistance, Federal
loans, federally subsidized or insured loans, or by agencies of
the Federal Government, should be required to meet accessibil-
ity standards.
Accomplishments
Based upon data indicating that it costs relatively little to incorporate
accessibility features into the construction of new housing, and that
accessible housing will be increasingly needed as the Nation's popula-
tion ages, the Council advocated the broad application of housing
accessibility requirements. Such requirements would call for univer-
sally accessible housing units that can be easily adapted to meet the
needs of individuals with particular disabilities.
Some progress has been made in expanding the application of
Federal housing accessibility requirements. In addition to the Uniform
Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) that had previously created
accessibility and adaptability requirements for housing constructed by
Federal agencies, similar requirements are now proposed for recipients
of Federal housing grants. Proposed regulations of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development under Section 504 of the Rehabilita-
tion Act of 1973 (to be discussed in connection with recommendation
number 6) require that federally assisted housing projects shall con-
tain no fewer than five percent of units that are accessible to persons
with mobility impairments and no fewer than two percent that are
accessible for persons with hearing or vision impairments.
Concepts of universal accessibility features have also been incorpo-
rated in the proposed Fair Housing Amendments Act and in the
Council's proposed comprehensive equal opportunity law. Based upon
the Council's concern that fair housing for persons with disabilities
include, at a minimum, an accessibility requirement for new housing
construction, the Senate version of the Fair Housing bill (S.558) was
modified in the Judiciary Committee in June 1987 by a Kennedy/
Specter substitute bill. In addition to other types of discrimination
prohibited under the proposed statute, the language of the substitute
72
bill as adopted by the Judiciary Committee makes it an unlawful act of
discrimination to design and construct multifamily dwellings 30
months after the date of enactment of the Act that fail to meet the
following standards:
(i) the public use and common use portions of such dwellings are
readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons;
(ii) all the doors into and within all premises within such dwellings
are sufficiently wide to allow passage by persons in wheelchairs;
and
(iii) all premises within such dwellings contain basic universal fea-
tures of adaptive design.
These standards apply to all the floors of buildings having elevators
and to the ground floor of buildings without elevators. The same stan-
dards are included in the proposed "Americans with Disabilities Act,"
the Council's comprehensive equal opportunity proposal.
3. Congress should direct the Department of Housing and Urban
Development that programs to provide rent subsidies for per-
sons with disabilities through both Section 8 certificates and
the housing voucher program should be made permanent and
given a high priority.
Accomplishments
The Council considers both the Section 8 certificates program and the
housing voucher program to be effective means for providing housing
opportunities for persons with disabilities who are unable to afford
appropriate housing without assistance. While Congress has not yet
expressly made the voucher program a permanent Federal program, it
has continued to provide funding for expansion of the voucher program
as a demonstration project within the Section 8 program.
4. Congress should direct the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to reorganize the Section 202 program to provide
a range of housing options for persons with disabilities, and to
include a program of demonstration grants to agencies such as
Independent Living Centers to develop model housing options,
including transitional living programs, group residences, and
other alternatives.
Accomplishments
The Section 202 program provides direct, long-term Federal loans to
eligible private nonprofit organizations to finance new construction or
73
substantial rehabilitation of rental or cooperative housing for elderly
persons or people with disabilities. At the time Toward Independence
was issued, funding for the Section 202 housing construction program
was in a moratorium, and there was some question as to whether the
Section 202 program would be continued. The Council felt that, with
some modifications, the Section 202 program was a useful means for
addressing the shortage of housing construction appropriate for per-
sons with disabilities. It recommended continuation of the program,
with changes in focus designed to increase social integration and age-
appropriateness for tenants with disabilities. The Section 202 program
has been continued. In Fiscal Year 1987, the Department of Housing
and Urban Development provided some $556.7 million in loans under
Section 202 to finance 12,689 rental units for low-income elderly and
disabled households. Loans were awarded to 384 nonprofit groups in
forty-three States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands. Approximately $122.6 million of these funds are earmarked to
finance 2,928 units for persons with disabilities.
5. Offices responsible for disability issues should be established
within HUD's Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Division and
within the Office of Policy Development and Research.
Accomplishments
Consistent with the Council's recommendation, a Section 504 Unit has
been established within the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Divi-
sion of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Its
mission statement is the following:
The Section 504 Unit is responsible for the implementation and
enforcement of Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, as
amended. The Section 504 Unit provides administrative oversight
and technical support in regard to Sections 501 and 502 of the
1973 Rehabilitation Act, the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and
other laws affecting disabled persons. The combined effect of these
activities will be to ensure that HUD's programs and activities are
carried out in a manner which neither discriminates against nor has
the effect of excluding participation by disabled persons.
Although administratively created and functioning, the Section 504
Unit has not yet been formally incorporated as a permanent part of the
HUD structure and organizational chart.
No action has been taken regarding the Council's other recommen-
dation for creating an office responsible for disability issues within
HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research.
74
6. Congress should direct HUD to issue appropriate regulations for
the implementation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973.
Accomplishments
As a result of a lawsuit, Wilson v. Pierce, (Civil No 82-288 TUC RMB
(Order of June 22, 1983)), the Department of Housing and Urban De-
velopment has been ordered to issue its Section 504 regulations on a
prompt basis, and the Court is monitoring its progress monthly. A
current version of the proposed regulations, incorporating many of the
changes recommended by the Council is, as this report goes to press,
the subject of negotiations between HUD and the Department of Jus-
tice.
7. Additional programs should be initiated to leverage existing
private sector funding and to provide incentives and financial
resources for the development of housing opportunities for
people with disabilities.
Accomplishments
The Federal tax deduction available to businesses for the removal of
architectural barriers has been made a permanent part of the Tax Code
and has been increased from $25,000 to $35,000. Apart from this and
the Section 202 program discussed previously, little has been made
available in the way of increased resources to provide for housing op-
portunities for persons with disabilities. The Department of Housing
and Urban Development has contracted with the United Cerebral Palsy
Associations, Inc. to develop reports in the area of housing for persons
with disabilities. One of these reports, issued in August 1987, focused
on the feasibility and usefulness of establishing a National Center on
Housing for Persons with Disabilities. Another, issued in April 1987,
presented six case studies representing a range of approaches to the
provision of housing for persons with disabilities; its conclusion was as
follows:
While these cases represent organizations along a continuum of
public/private partnership in the development of housing for dis-
abled persons, it is clear that the promise of the future is in private
financing, a heavier reliance on private providers, and an ongoing
search for incentives for investors and small community based living
situations. All of the programs considered envision expanded devel-
opment of housing in the future and there is no indication that the
need for housing for disabled persons is even close to being met.
Because of the shrinking public dollars and a future trend towards
private investment, the pressure is on to expand creative financing
schemes and turn any stone which may hide an investor incentive.
75
These findings underscore the importance of the Council's proposals of
additional programs to leverage existing private sector funding and
provide additional resources for housing opportunities for persons with
disabilities.
In the fall of 1987, HUD awarded a two-year grant to the National
Association of Homebuilders National Research Center (NAHBNRC) in
collaboration with the Association for Retarded Citizens of the United
States (ARC) to review financing mechanisms and accessibility design
issues in housing development for people with disabilities, and to pro-
vide technical assistance in regard to such financing and design is-
sues.
8. HUD and the private sector should be encouraged to develop
training grants, supplemental teaching positions, awards, and
other innovative programs for promoting architectural planning
that incorporates the concept of universal accessibility.
Accomplishments
The Council is not aware of any major Federal training grants focusing
specifically on accessibility in architectural design, although several
schools of architecture in various parts of the country have made
courses on accessibility a mandatory part of their curriculums.
One of the major undertakings of the HUD-funded grant project
(NAHBNRC/ARC) discussed previously is to provide technical assis-
tance in regard to accessible design.
76
Community-Based Services for
Independent Living
In 1983, the Council in its National Policy for Persons with Disabilities
defined independent living as "control over one's life based on the
choice of acceptable options that minimize reliance on others in mak-
ing decisions and in performing everyday activities." The independence
defined here implies an optimally responsible and productive exercise
of the power of choice. It implies that each disabled person, regardless
of his or her mental or physical ability, should be encouraged and
assisted to achieve maximum levels of quality of life, independence,
and productivity in the least restrictive environment and with due
respect for cultural or subcultural affiliation.
According to the Research and Training Center on Independent
Living (ILRU) in Houston, Texas: "Independent living centers are oper-
ated primarily by people with disabilities who have been successful in
establishing independent lives. Centers offer a wide variety of services,
including: information and referral; independent living skills training;
peer counseling; advocacy; and others." ILRU estimates that there are
approximately 150 independent living centers and over 320 independ-
ent living programs in this country. In 1984, according to the Rehabili-
tation Services Administration, 86 grants were awarded to 160 inde-
pendent living projects throughout the country. In 1987, 136 grants
were awarded to 170 independent living projects. The increase in inde-
pendent living centers and programs is indicative of their increasing
importance in the lives of persons with disabilities.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
1. Congress should require the agency in each State designated to
administer Title VII, Part A of the Rehabilitation Act to allocate
no less than 50% of available funds to purchase services from
independent living centers that meet the standards approved
by the National Council on the Handicapped. No more than 10%
of available funds should be used for administrative purposes.
The remaining funds should be used at the discretion of the
administering agency in any way that assists people with se-
vere disabilities to achieve independence and productivity in
their communities.
Accomplishments
According to Senate Conference Report (99-388), which accompanied
the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986, the Congress has been
77
impressed with the overall accomplishments of independent living
programs. Several additions were made to the Rehabilitation Act
Amendments of 1986 to strengthen the philosophical integrity of the
independent living program. The basic principles of consumer involve-
ment and consumer control, which are fundamental to the concept of
independent living, were stressed.
In Toward Independence, the Council recommended that funding
for Part A be continued as a means of ensuring that community-based
services are made available to persons with severe disabilities. The
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986 retained this provision. The
1986 Amendments also mandated the establishment of State Inde-
pendent Living Councils which would serve three purposes:
1) provide guidance for the development and expansion of independ-
ent living programs and concepts on a statewide basis;
2) provide guidance to State agencies and to local planning and
administrative entities assisted under the Rehabilitation Act; and
3) prepare and submit to a designated State agency a five-year plan
addressing the long-term goals and recommendations for the need
for independent living services and programs within the State.
The Council views the establishment of State Independent Living
Councils as a positive step in strengthening the independent living
movement and in enabling persons with disabilities to live and work
more productively in their communities.
2. Congress should provide core funding under Title VII, Part B of
the Rehabilitation Act for independent living centers that meet
the standards approved by the National Council on the Handi-
capped. Such centers should be allowed to apply and compete
for this funding on an equal basis with State vocational reha-
bilitation agencies.
Accomplishments
The Congress has reaffirmed the importance of the standards estab-
lished by the Council in 1985 for independent living centers. In Senate
Report 99-388, the Congress indicated that the appropriate Federal
role with respect to independent living centers is to ensure the provi-
sion of a foundation of support for these independent living centers
that will enable them to attract additional public and private support
at Federal, State and local levels. Continued funding for centers oper-
ating according to prescribed standards and principles of good busi-
ness assures that these centers will be able to attract the additional
78
support required to expand programs to meet the needs of all severely
disabled people in the communities which they serve.
The evaluation standards for independent living services developed
by the Council have been endorsed by the Rehabilitation Services Ad-
ministration. RSA is currently organizing an advisory group to develop
measurable criteria based on the Council standards. These criteria are
expected to be published in the Federal Register in July 1988.
3. Congress should require the Health Care Financing Administra-
tion to study the institutional bias within its programs for per-
sons with disabilities and to develop appropriate measures for
eliminating such biases. The criteria should be developed in
consultation with the National Council on the Handicapped and
be reported in hearings before Congress within one year from
the date of enactment of this requirement.
Accomplishments
An extraordinary amount of the Medicaid funds administered by the
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) is spent on nursing
homes and other long-term institutions that primarily provide custo-
dial maintenance for disabled individuals. The Council believes that
strictly maintenance-oriented institutional programming is indefensible
and unnecessary. Wherever possible, institutions should be transi-
tional and foster independence. The majority of available funding
should be directed toward assisting all individuals with severe disabili-
ties to achieve self-direction and independence to the maximum extent
possible, in the most dignified and least restrictive environment.
The Council continues to cooperate with HCFA to develop criteria
to determine to what extent Medicaid and other programs administered
by the HCFA promote community-based services and discourage place-
ments in institutions. Steady progress in this area is expected as inde-
pendent living concepts gain acceptance.
4. Congress should amend the Internal Revenue Code to establish
a tax credit for taxpayers with disabilities who incur unreim-
bursed expenses directly related to independent living, employ-
ment, and efforts to secure employment, including personal
assistant services, special transportation, assistive devices, and
other support services.
Accomplishments
The number of tax deductions allowable under the medical category
continues to grow. Recently enacted tax legislation, for example, per-
79
mits a disabled employee to deduct the full cost of attendant services
and other services necessary to enable the employee to work. Capital
expenditures to accommodate a personal residence now also constitute
medical expenses eligible for deductions. However, regulations govern-
ing many non-medical, disability-related services remain unclear and
impose unfair restrictions on disabled persons. The Council intends to
continue its efforts to clarify tax legislation and regulations and to
include services that enable individuals with disabilities to engage in
productive activity.
80
Educating Children
With Disabilities
Few would argue with the premise that education is a key to success in
our society. The same holds true for children with disabilities- educa-
tion helps disabled children develop the skills they need to live as
independently as possible when they reach adulthood.
In Toward Independence, the Council placed education of children
with disabilities among its ten priorities. The Council has heard about
needs and issues related to the education of children with disabilities
from hundreds of parents, disabled persons, and service providers
from around the country. Moreover, this issue is close to the hearts of
many Council members either because they are parents of children
with disabilities or because they, as disabled persons, vividly remem-
ber their own educational difficulties.
Although special educational services have progressed greatly in
the twelve years since the passage of Public Law 94-142, the full prom-
ise of the mandate has not yet been fulfilled. The Council made four
recommendations relating to the education of disabled children.
The first two recommendations are related directly to the Educa-
tion for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA). The Council believed that
the Act should be amended to extend the mandate to birth. The Educa-
tion of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 extend the mandate.
The recently enacted legislation creates an Early Intervention Program
to serve disabled infants from birth through age two. In addition, the
legislation included significant improvements in services which are
provided for three- to five-year-old children with disabilities.
The second recommendation relates to one of the central principles
of the EHA- the least restrictive environment (LRE). The Council iden-
tified LRE as an issue that requires standards for clarification. To help
in this process the Council developed a draft policy statement on least
restrictive environment.
The last two recommendations have national significance. One
suggests the development of a national technical assistance center to
help parents and State and local education agencies plan and develop
educational options for children with special needs. The other calls for
the establishment of a National Commission for the Study of Excel-
lence in Special Education.
One final activity not mentioned in Toward Independence is the
Council's initiation of a third Louis Harris poll that will survey parents,
educators, and children with disabilities to more closely examine the
81
status of education for children with disabilities in this country. The
results of the poll will be of immense value to the Council, the Con-
gress, and others in the development of the best educational policy to
meet the needs of disabled children and youth.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
1. Congress should amend the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act to encourage States to make available a free appro-
priate public education to every disabled child from birth through
age twenty-one.
Accomplishments
Young children with disabilities are particularly vulnerable. Research
indicates that early intervention services greatly enhance the develop-
mental and educational potential of these youngsters. Furthermore,
the provision of early intervention services which benefit children and
their parents result in significant tax savings in the long run because
of reduced special education expenditures in later years.
Public Law 99-457, the Education of the Handicapped Act Amend-
ments of 1986, enacted into law on October 10, 1986, extends services
to children from birth to age three, significantly expands services to
preschoolers ages three to five, and contains a number of important
provisions regarding the education of children with disabilities.
The new legislation, a result of the combined efforts of the Council
and many parents and advocacy groups, creates a program which will
provide enhanced services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and
their families. A State-wide system which will provide comprehensive
services to these young children and their parents is an essential in-
gredient of the new program. Through the development of an Individu-
alized Family Service Plan, each child will receive a multi-disciplinary
assessment which will identify his or her unique needs and assure that
appropriate services are delivered. Additionally, States may choose to
serve those children who are "at risk" in developing a disability.
Another provision of the new law addresses concerns raised in
Toward Independence regarding the lack of coordination of funds for
services rendered to young disabled children. The major thrust of this
"payor of last resort" provision is that monies provided for this program
may not be used to pay for services which would have been provided
through another public or private source.
The Amendments also made significant improvements in services
which are provided to three- to five-year-old children. This new man-
82
date effectively extends the mandate of Public Law 94-142, the Educa-
tion for All Handicapped Children Act, to serve all disabled children at
three years of age by 1991. The Amendments repeal the existing Pre-
school Incentive Grant program but increase the financial incentives
for serving disabled preschoolers. By school year 1990-1991, if appro-
priations are made at the authorized levels contained in the Amend-
ments, States will be required to serve all disabled children aged three
to five. EHA funds for preschoolers, including incentive grants and
discretionary funds, will be withheld from States not in compliance
with the service mandate.
Finally, the new law adds several other provisions designed to
assure that children and youth with disabilities receive appropriate
educational and related services.
2. Congress should direct the Department of Education to promul-
gate and enforce standards for the application of the least re-
strictive environment requirement; such standards should
clarify that the primary determinant of which educational set-
ting is least restrictive is the educational appropriateness of
the program.
Accomplishments
The least restrictive environment mandate is a major component of the
right to a free appropriate public education for children with disabili-
ties. The principle has not, however, always been appropriately applied
by State and local education agencies. In some instances, least restric-
tive environment has not been vigorously applied and children with
disabilities continue to be unnecessarily segregated. Additional guid-
ance and clarification should be provided so that this principle can be
realized.
In order to address the multiple issues which are involved in edu-
cating youngsters with disabilities in the LRE, the Council has adopted
a draft policy statement with a broad-based, comprehensive approach.
Issues discussed in the draft document include the need for monitoring
and data collection on LRE; the parental role in LRE; technical assis-
tance to State and local education agencies; and personnel develop-
ment and funding issues. The Council believes that these and other
issues must be thoughtfully considered if the vision of educating chil-
dren in the least restrictive environment is to be fully realized.
A Council task force will be convened within the next few months
to finalize the policy statement on LRE. After this has been completed
the full Council will consider this policy for adoption and dissemina-
tion.
83
3. Congress should direct the Office of Special Education Pro-
grams to fund a national technical assistance center to help
parents and State and local education agencies plan and de-
velop educational options for children with special needs.
Accomplishments
The Council has long recognized the need for greater emphasis on the
provision of services to parents of children with disabilities. Many gaps
exist in the provision of information and referral sources for parents.
The feasibility of a centralized information-based system with nation-
wide access is being considered.
In its special report on the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act, the Council provided testimony to Congress on the need for a
national technical assistance center. Senator Paul Simon further ex-
plored this concept with Chairperson Parrino during the hearing. The
Council will continue to advocate the establishment of a parental assis-
tance system.
4. Congress should direct the Secretary of Education and the
Chairperson of the National Council on the Handicapped to
establish a National Commission for the Study of Excellence in
Special Education.
Accomplishments
The Council has been impressed with the variety of new and innovative
approaches adopted in special education programs. Called "best prac-
tices," they include team and shared teaching, itinerant teachers and
resource persons working with the regular educator, and physical,
speech and occupational therapists working with classroom teachers to
"transfer" their professional knowledge from isolated settings into the
regular education environment. These practices reinforce the Council's
belief that a comprehensive approach to personnel development will
enhance the collaborative efforts among all professionals involved in
the education of children with disabilities.
While members of the Council are excited about new techniques
emerging in the education of children with disabilities, it is nonetheless
disturbing that so much remains to be done. In 1982, the Commission
on Excellence in Education issued a report titled A Nation at Risk,
which cited many problems faced by the American educational system.
The report, however, did not attempt to address the special needs of
students with disabilities and their families. Therefore, the Council
believes that this unmet need must be fulfilled. Moreover, twelve years
have passed since the enactment of Public Law 94-142, and the Coun-
cil sees value in assessing the progress of the implementation of the
law to date. Therefore, the Council recommends the establishment of a
National Commission on the Study of Excellence in Special Education.
Such a commission would evaluate the progress and recommend fu-
ture directions geared toward enhancing the education of children with
disabilities.
84
Personal Assistance: Attendant Services,
Readers, and Interpreters
Personal assistance is one key to independence for thousands of
Americans with disabilities. Without question, personal assistance by
readers, interpreters, and advocates is one of the single most important
unmet needs for disabled persons.
According to Toward Independence, personal assistance, as ren-
dered by attendants who assist with routine activities of daily living,
when provided in conjunction with other community-based services,
can be an effective and economical means for reducing the Nation's
reliance on institutions. Effective and efficient personal assistance
services can enable most persons with disabilities to live independently
in settings of their choice. The goal should be to establish personal
assistance services, self-directed when feasible, as one component of a
comprehensive array of community-based services that should be
available to people with disabilities. In order for an acceptable system
to be developed, many complex funding, policy, and legislative issues
must be addressed.
While some progress has been made at the Federal, State, and
local levels toward providing personal assistance services, the stark
reality is that for most disabled Americans, these services are, at best,
difficult to acquire. And for most these services are unavailable, leaving
countless disabled persons to live lives of dependency. This situation
often puts an untoward burden on families and friends, or means that
the disabled person must reside unnecessarily in an institution or
nursing home.
The World Institute on Disability (WID), an internationally known
organization comprised primarily of disabled consumers, has recently
released a study entitled, "Attending to America." That study further
underscores the critical need for attendant services in this country.
The Council has sought input regarding attendant services from
WID, the National Council on Independent Living, and many other
organizations and individuals. In addition, because the Council places
such a high priority on personal assistance, it has brought together
experts from the disability community to form a task force on this
issue to develop recommendations for a comprehensive legislative
agenda. A legislative workplan is currently being developed which
recommends amendments to legislation, and includes proposals to fill
service gaps in developing coordination of personal assistance services.
The Council reaffirms its commitment to the development of a
national policy on personal assistance for all persons with disabilities
85
and to the connection between such a policy and the goal of independ-
ence for persons with disabilities.
Recommendations from Toward Independence
1. Congress should establish a national policy that defines per-
sonal assistance and should require the development of na-
tional standards for the delivery of personal assistance serv-
ices.
Accomplishments
As the Council examined the development of a national policy on per-
sonal assistance services, one fact was clear: this is a complex policy
matter, one that requires careful thought and deliberation. First, while
there are some programs currently funded through the Federal Gov-
ernment, eligibility requirements often limit these services based on
age or income. Second, even when these services are funded, they are
often on a time-limited basis. For example, someone who has recently
been discharged from a hospital might only have attendant services
available during the recovery period, even though that individual might
need more extensive services. Finally, these services are generally
rendered through a "medical model" which does not usually promote
optimum independence or choice for individuals with disabilities.
These and many other factors enter into the development of a compre-
hensive public policy on personal assistance services for persons with
disabilities.
Some of the options discussed by the Council include: amend-
ments to Medicaid and/or Medicare to mandate personal assistance
services for persons with disabilities; amendments to Title II of the
Social Security Act (SSDI) to allow attendant services; and amend-
ments to Medicare to also increase the availability of these services.
Additionally, the Council has initiated tracking of major legislative
options. Although there is no broad Federal policy regarding personal
assistance services, scattered Federal attempts to provide these serv-
ices can be found under Medicaid; Title XX, Social Service Block
Grants; the Older Americans Act, Title III; and State initiatives. Be-
cause of the wide range of government agencies involved, as well as the
wide range of age groups and disability populations needing personal
assistance services, the process of developing personal assistance
program legislation is exceptionally complicated. Overcoming these
obstacles necessitates a proposal that fills in the gaps regarding popu-
lations or services not included in other legislation.
In addition to establishing a Council task force for the development
of a legislative package for a national personal assistance program, the
86
Council has consulted with leaders in the field and many organizations
throughout the country, including the World Rehabilitation Fund, the
National Council on Independent Living, and the World Institute on
Disability. A legislative workplan is currently being developed, and
future task force meetings are expected to provide results which will
reflect enhanced coordination of personal assistance services.
Although the number of qualified interpreters for people who are
deaf has expanded in recent years, the demand for competent inter-
preters far exceeds availability. Section 315 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended, authorizes the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration to award grants to States for the establish-
ment of interpreter service programs. This section includes a require-
ment that interpreters participating in such programs meet minimum
standards. Because Section 315 has not been funded by the Congress,
no interpreter standards have been established. However, the Arkansas
Research and Training Center on Deafness and Hearing Impairment is
currently conducting a national survey from which specific recommen-
dations can be developed regarding needed interpreter competencies.
The study, which has surveyed professional interpreter trainers, voca-
tional rehabilitation counselors, deaf consumers, providers of inter-
preter services, and others in the field of deafness, is expected to be
completed by September 1988.
2. Congress should require the Social Security Administration
(SSA), in consultation with the National Council on the Handi-
capped, to implement a series of projects, using SSA demon-
stration authority and targeting currently available funds, to
develop and demonstrate a cost-effective process and mecha-
nisms for the support of community-based personal assistance
services for persons with severe disabilities.
Accomplishments
As progress is achieved in the development of a workplan on personal
assistance policy, it is anticipated that cooperative negotiations be-
tween SSA and the Council will yield detailed steps for the effective
provision of personal assistance services. The Council believes that a
more centralized process of providing personal assistance services can
be developed with the assistance of SSA subsequent to the completion
of the task force workplan. The Council remains confident that the SSA
is sensitive to the need for increased community-based personal assis-
tance programs and that future funding priorities will reflect this com-
mitment.
87
Coordination
In addition to the recommended legislative changes in each of the nine
substantive areas, the need for coordination of services, programs, and
funding is also critical. "Coordinated services" describes the ideal re-
sults of a wide range of interactions among persons active in policy and
program development. Although these interactions take place every
day, their purpose, frequency, and effectiveness vary greatly from pro-
gram to program, community to community, and State to State. Many
instances of gaps in services, as well as duplicative services, are evi-
dent across the country. Coordinated efforts could resolve some of
these problems.
The Council advocates frequent interaction at the national level of
all parties involved in policy decisions that affect services to people
with disabilities. To that end, the Council has maintained its informa-
tion base with consumer organizations around the country while
strengthening interaction on coordination with national, State and
local policy makers, disability organizations, Congress, and the Ad-
ministration.
Several examples of coordinated efforts in disability policy stand
out, but activities in the area of prevention best exemplify the advan-
tages of a coordinated approach. In conjunction with the Office of Dis-
ease Prevention and Health Promotion, a series of meetings of various
Federal agencies were convened which focused on the prevention of
disability.
Another example entails coordination with the Department of
Transportation in the development of regulations pursuant to the Air
Carrier Access Act of 1986. Known as "regulatory negotiation," this
process involves a team of individuals representing different areas of
concern, ranging from a particular disability, such as blindness or
mobility impairments, to a sector of the air transportation industry,
such as airport operators or flight attendants.
The Council also has supported coordination efforts by cosponsor-
ing a conference with the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services and by submitting congressional testimony advocating coordi-
nation of services to very young children with disabilities.
Recommendation from Toward Independence
1. Congress should require State and local agencies that receive
Federal funds for services for people with disabilities to partici-
pate in the development of coordinated service delivery plans.
89
Accomplishments
During the past few years, the Council has actively engaged in efforts
that have fostered coordination at the Federal, State and local levels.
Examples of these efforts include the establishment of a Federal ad hoc
group on prevention, participation in the regulatory negotiation process
for the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, cosponsorship of a conference
with the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and
recommendations in testimony for the Education of the Handicapped
Act Amendments of 1986.
One of the most significant contributions at the Federal level is the
ad hoc group which the Council convened in conjunction with the
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Comprised of fif-
teen Federal agencies, the committee meets bimonthly to promote the
coordination of services for the prevention of disabilities. Representa-
tives on the committee include the Council, the Administration on
Developmental Disabilities, the Rehabilitation Services Administration,
the President's Committee on Mental Retardation, the Centers for
Disease Control, the Maternal and Child Health Program, and the
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. The com-
mittee has two functions: one, to exchange information and coordinate
efforts among these agencies on the prevention of disability; and two,
to develop a national plan on the prevention of both primary and sec-
ondary disabilities. The national plan will be the first of its kind and
will greatly enhance coordination efforts around the country. (see also
"Prevention of Disabilities")
Another example of coordination at the Federal level is one in
which the Council has been an observer and supporter in the Depart-
ment of Transportation's "regulatory negotiation" process to develop
regulations pursuant to the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986. This proc-
ess involves a team of fifteen individuals, each representing a different
area of concern, ranging from a particular disability, such as blindness
or mobility impairments, to a sector of the air transportation industry,
such as the airport operators or flight attendants. The intent of the
process is to create a forum in which divergent views can be aired and
a consensus can emerge. In November 1987, after a series of twenty-
five meetings, a report detailing areas of agreement and disagreement
will be submitted to the Department of Transportation so that a pro-
posed rule can be published in the Federal Register for public com-
ment. (see also "Transportation")
In March 1987, the Council cosponsored a conference with the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and the
President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped regarding
the transition of disabled youth from school to work settings. This
90
conference was unique in that it brought together disabled youth,
parents, employers, and rehabilitation professionals to discuss prob-
lems faced by disabled Americans leaving school and seeking their
rightful place in the work force. (see also "Employment")
Finally, the Council's commitment to the coordination of services
also has been demonstrated in its written testimony on August 12,
1986, to the House Subcommittee on Select Education regarding the
Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986. In that testi-
mony, the Council supported the creation of Early Intervention Coun-
cils to assure that services to very young children with disabilities are
adequately coordinated.
In testimony submitted to the Senate Subcommittee on the Handi-
capped in April 1987 regarding the Developmental Disabilities Act, the
Council reinforced the coordinated approach taken by the Development
Disabilities State Councils. Furthermore, the Council emphasized that
Federal programs must maintain a certain degree of flexibility SO that
they can be coordinated with other programs to meet the unique needs
of State and local communities.
The Council is also exploring the work of the Advisory Council on
Intergovernmental Relations to identify data being gathered regarding
coordination efforts at the State and local levels.
91
Biographies of Members
of
the National Council on the Handicapped
Sandra Swift Parrino
Sandra Swift Parrino, of Briarcliff Manor, New York, was appointed Chairperson of
the National Council on the Handicapped in 1983 by President Reagan. She has been
actively involved in issues concerning disabled people for many years. Her 22-year-
old son, Paul, has been severely disabled for most of his life. She is best known as a
spokesperson for parents of disabled children and as a panelist, lecturer, lobbyist,
and organization official.
Mrs. Parrino serves on numerous boards and councils. She has been director of
the Office of the Disabled in Ossining and Briarcliff Manor, New York; she has served
on the board of Westchester County Homes for the Retarded; and she is a member of
the New York State Assembly Task Force on the Disabled, which reviews pending
legislation in the State of New York. Through her efforts, many local advances have
been made to improve accessibility for disabled people, such as setting up transpor-
tation services and installing voting machines for disabled persons, fund-raising to
provide interpreter services for deaf people, and supervision of the school district's
compliance with Federal regulations. Mrs. Parrino has been instrumental in the
inception of the Council's comprehensive equal opportunity proposal which promotes
independence and equality for people with disabilities.
Mrs. Parrino is also a member of the board of Parent Chain, and has served as an
American Representative to the United Nations and UNICEF for the International
Year of Disabled Persons. She is currently the North American vice president of
Rehabilitation International, a worldwide service, information, and advisory organiza-
tion. She has also been asked by the Department of Health and Human Services to
co-chair an ad-hoc committee on the prevention of disabilities.
John S. Erthein
John S. Erthein lives in Los Angeles, California, where he is president of John S.
Erthein and Associates, Inc., a public relations firm with offices in Los Angeles and
Washington, D.C. The firm's clients include the AMDAHL Corporation; CBS, Inc.;
Arts and Entertainment Network; Forum Home Video; Insight Magazine; Dart Drug;
and the Chicago Board of Trade. Mr. Erthein has produced and marketed home video
cassettes including "How To Benefit From Tax Reform" and Charleton Heston's
"Television's Vietnam."
Mr. Erthein was the founding president of the American Paralysis Association, an
organization whose primary objective is to fund research to find a cure for spinal cord
injuries. He is a graduate in marketing from Columbia University, served as an officer
in the United States Coast Guard and was Security Officer and Public Information
Officer for his unit in New York.
93
He was assistant for finance for Citizens for the Republic when Ronald Reagan
chaired that organization. Subsequently, he assisted in setting up the fundraising
organization for the 1980 Reagan Presidential campaign.
Theresa Lennon Gardner
Theresa Lennon Gardner of Washington, D.C., was nominated by President Reagan to
the National Council on the Handicapped after more that two decades of professional
service as an educator and volunteer working with disabled youngsters.
Mrs. Gardner began her efforts with disabled children in the early 1960s, when
she worked at the D.C. Society for Crippled Children. At that time, Mrs. Gardner was
successfully completing her degree work at the Washington Montesorri Institute. Mrs.
Gardner's commitment to quality education for our younger student population was
evidenced in 1966, when she founded the Georgetown Montessori School in Washing-
ton. For twelve years, Mrs. Gardner administered the sixty-student Montessori pre-
school which educated children of diverse socio-economic backgrounds in the
Nation's Capital. She also founded and funded an inner-city Montessori facility near
the Capitol which later became a model for Washington's Head-Start program.
As a mother of two daughters, Mrs. Gardner has been active in a variety of
cultural and social enrichment programs for Washington area youngsters. As a
member of the Women's Heart Board of Washington, D.C., Mrs. Gardner chaired the
Children's Heart Party. She also has taught therapeutic riding to multi-disabled
youngsters from numerous Washington area residential facilities.
In addition to her civic responsibilities, Mrs. Gardner currently attends Trinity
College in Washington, where she is scheduled to receive a degree in education in the
spring of 1988. Mrs. Gardner is also a frequent visitor to educational and disabled-
person facilities throughout United States, Europe and Africa. In 1982, Mrs. Gardner
served as the official U.S. hostess to thousands of Kenyan school children who visited
the U.S. exhibit on telecommunications while her husband was serving as President
Reagan's ambassador to a United Nations' Conference in Nairobi.
Marian North Koonce
Marian North Koonce, of Santa Barbara, California, is the mother of six children. Two
are physically handicapped from birth and a third contracted multiple sclerosis as a
young adult. Along with the great amount of time and attention she gives to her
family, she has held many administrative and leadership positions in business, most
recently, as chairman of the board of a Santa Barbara independent bank.
She is involved in numerous local and national organizations. She was chairman
of the Santa Barbara County Reagan-Bush '84 Committee. She served as a delegate
to the Republican National Conventions of 1976, 1980, and 1984.
From 1980 to 1981, Mrs. Koonce was vice president of recording for the Blind
Auxiliary. She serves on the boards of the Santa Barbara Symphony Association, the
Las Positas Park, and the University of California, Santa Barbara. She is also chair-
man of the Channel Islands chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
94
Leslie Lenkowsky, Ph.D.
Dr. Leslie Lenkowsky is the president of the Institute for Educational Affairs, a
nonprofit organization in Washington, D.C., devoted to encouraging innovative think-
ing in higher education, philanthropy, and public affairs. He is also an adjunct
professor of public policy at Georgetown University and an adjunct scholar for public
policy research for the American Enterprise Institute where he specializes in social
policy issues. He is also a director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute and a
member of the board of advisors to the president of the Naval War College.
From 1976 to 1983, Dr. Lenkowsky was the director of research at the Smith
Richardson Foundation in New York. He has served as a consultant to Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan and was an assistant to the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Public Welfare. He has also been deputy director of the United States Infor-
mation Agency and a member of the National Voluntary Service Advisory Board.
Dr. Lenkowsky completed his undergraduate education at Franklin and Marshall
College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. His doctoral degree was awarded from Harvard
University. Dr. Lenkowsky is the author of many books and articles. He lectures
frequently on philanthropy, social policy, and other issues.
Nanette Fabray MacDougall
Nanette Fabray MacDougall, a resident of Pacific Palisades, California, is a renowned
actress who developed a progressive hearing disability. Following four operations, the
condition that had threatened her with total deafness was cured. She has continued
to be active in organizations benefiting hearing-impaired and other disabled persons.
Mrs. MacDougall was regional chairperson of the National Easter Seal Society
and the National Mental Health Association. She is past chairperson of the National
Advisory Committee for Education of the Deaf. She currently serves on the board of
the National Captioning Institute and the Better Hearing Institute in Washington,
D.C., as well as the House Ear Institute and the Museum of Science and Industry.
Among the many awards she has received are the President's Distinguished
Service Award (1971), the Eleanor Roosevelt Humanitarian Award (1964), and the
Screen Actors Guild's Humanitarian Award (1986) for outstanding service. Mrs.
MacDougall and Helen Keller are the only two women ever to have received the
annual Public Service Award of the American Academy of Opthalmology and Otolar-
yngology. She has three honorary doctoral degrees, from Gallaudet College, Western
Maryland College, and MacMurray College. She was one of the original members of
the National Council on the Handicapped, and was reappointed by President Reagan.
Robert S. Muller
Robert Muller of Grandville, Michigan, joined Steelcase Inc. in 1966 and is currently
in administration. He is an adjunct assistant professor in the Department of Psychol-
ogy at Aquinas College and in the Department of Education at Calvin College in
Grand Rapids, Michigan. He serves on the board of trustees for Hope Rehabilitation
95
Network in Grand Rapids, which serves 1,400 adults with disabilities. In April of
1981, he received an honorary degree in educational psychology from the Free Uni-
versity in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Mr. Muller holds a B.S. degree in business
administration from Aquinas College and in 1978 was voted Outstanding Alumnus of
the Year. Mr. Muller has lectured at several colleges and universities, both nationally
and internationally. He is a board member of a number of national, State and local
organizations.
In May 1987, he and his wife, Carol, hosted a first-time event at the White House
with the Vice President. The "Celebration of Disabled Americans at Work" was co-
sponsored by several major corporations throughout the United States. He presently
serves as chairman of the National Roundtable on Corporate Development for Ameri-
cans with Disabilities. In May 1985, Mr. Muller was awarded the Liberty Bell Award
by the Grand Rapids Bar Association for his work toward "Liberty and Justice for
All."
Brenda Premo
Brenda Premo is a native of Southern California and currently resides in Stanton,
California. Ms. Premo has a small fraction of the vision many people take for granted.
She is legally blind, one of the characteristics of albino persons, along with pale skin
and snow white hair.
Ms. Premo received her bachelor of arts degree in psychology from California
State University at Long Beach. While attending college, she became acquainted with
other disabled students and became part of an activist group that helped to found
the Disabled Students Services at the University. After college, while working for the
Orange County Department of Education, Ms. Premo became part of a task force
which surveyed disabled persons in Orange County and called for an independent
living center to provide information and services to people of all disabilities. The
Dayle McIntosh Center was launched in November 1977 with Ms. Premo, age 25, as
its first director.
She was asked to go to Washington, D.C., on a peer review team evaluating other
independent living centers, was active on the State Independent Living Advisory
Committee, served as vice president of the California Association of the Physically
Handicapped, and served two years as chairperson of the California Coalition of
Independent Living Centers. In 1981, she chaired the Orange County Task Force on
the International Year of Disabled Persons. Ms. Premo was recently elected president
of the California Foundation of Independent Living Centers.
Ms. Premo has been the recipient of many awards for her outstanding service to
the disabled community. She received the Handicapped Californian Award from the
California Association of the Physically Handicapped (1978); the regional Service to
Mankind Award from Sertoma International (1987); and the California Professional
Handicapped Woman of the Year Award from the Pilot Club (1987).
96
Father Harry J. Sutcliffe, D.D.
Father Harry J. Sutcliffe resides in Brooklyn, New York. He has been totally blind
since infancy and received his early education from the New York Institute for Educa-
tion of the Blind. He earned a bachelor of arts degree, Magna Cum Laude, from
Wittenberg University, a masters of divinity form the Mount Airy Theological Semi-
nary and a doctor of divinity from the Episcopal Theological Seminary, both with
honors.
Father Sutcliffe is the founder of the Episcopal Guild for the Blind and has
served as its director since 1959. He also is employed as a classical language and
sacred studies instructor with the Hadley School for the Blind, Winnetka, Illinois. The
Hadley School operates the only home study program in the world for blind individu-
als, having an enrollment of more than 6,000 students representing all of the conti-
nents. The school offers over 100 courses in academics, independent living, and
homemaker skills.
He is involved in many local and national organizations, including the American
Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired
Individuals, American School of Oriental Studies, Society of Biblical Literature,
Republican Presidential Task Force and State and national Republican Committees.
Father Sutcliffe has received numerous awards for his outstanding service,
including the B'nai B'rith Man of the Year Award (1959) in recognition of his inter-
faith activities, particularly the teaching of Hebrew and Hebrew Braille to blind
persons of the Jewish faith; the Private Sector Initiative Commendation, given by the
President of the United States in recognition of exemplary community service (1986);
and the Excellence Award from the Hadley School for the Blind (1986).
Father Sutcliffe serves as a strong advocate, not only for persons who are blind,
but for all persons with disabilities.
Joni Eareckson Tada
Joni Eareckson Tada is a resident of Woodland Hills, California. Mrs. Tada was
paralyzed from the shoulders down by a diving accident in 1967, at the age of 17.
She developed a latent artistic talent by painting with her mouth during two years of
rehabilitation. Her experiences were catalogued in an autobiography that has been
translated into 35 languages.
As founder and president of the Christian Fund for the Disabled, Mrs. Tada's goal
is to help churches reach out and meet the spiritual and practical needs of persons
with disabilities. This is accomplished through books, films, record albums, videos,
tapes, printed materials, seminars, and workshops. Also a five-minute radio program,
Joni and Friends, is aired every weekday over 400 religious stations in the United
States.
Among the many awards she has received are the Golden Plate (1979) from the
American Acadamy of Achievement; Penwoman of the Year (1980) from the National
97
League of American Penwomen; Layperson of the Year (1985) from the National
Association of Evangelicals; The Courage Award (1985) from the Courage Rehabilita-
tion Center; and the Excellence and Accomplishment Award (1985) from the Patricia
Neal Rehabilitation Center.
Roxanne S. Vierra
Roxanne S. Vierra, of Littleton, Colorado, has been actively involved in business as
well as in community and political affairs. Her son, Steven, had brain damage from
birth. His disability gave her insight into the needs of mentally retarded individuals.
This insight caused her to develop Retarded Unlimited, Inc., an organization designed
to establish business ventures owned and operated by mentally retarded persons.
Her objective is to make mentally retarded people more self-sufficient and less de-
pendent on government funds. Steven is an example of what a mentally retarded
individual can do: He lives in his own apartment, works as a courtesy clerk at a
grocery store, and is relatively independent.
Mrs. Vierra serves as an officer of the Children's Diabetes Foundation, which is
dedicated to finding a permanent cure for diabetes in children. She is on the board of
directors of the American Lung Association, and is past president of the board of
Childhelp USA, a national organization to prevent child abuse. She has campaigned
for and organized numerous activities in national elections, including fundraising in
President Reagan's campaign. In the business world, Mrs. Vierra has been a broker
associate for the Devonshire Company, selling residential property for the past eight
years.
Alvis Kent Waldrep, Jr.
Alvis Kent Waldrep, Jr. of Plano, Texas, is the president and chief executive officer of
the Kent Waldrep National Paralysis Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated
to finding a treatment and cure for paralysis caused by spinal cord injury. He is
responsible for all phases of daily operations including fundraising, budgeting, and
public awareness, through its national office in Dallas. From September 1982 to
June 1985, Mr. Waldrep was president of the American Paralysis Association.
From June 1979 to December 1981, Mr. Waldrep founded and served as chief
executive officer of the Kent Waldrep International Spinal Cord Research Foundation,
Inc., a nonprofit organization which became the American Paralysis Association. He
was responsible for planning and implementing all programs designed to meet the
objectives and goals of the Foundation.
Mr. Waldrep served as assistant sports information director for Texas Christian
University from April 1977 to June 1979. There, he assisted the sports information
director with all sports promotion programs, including media communication, bro-
chure preparation, and compilation of statistics and advertising sales. This followed
three years of intensive physical therapy for a cervical spinal cord injury from a
football injury in 1974, which resulted in quadriplegia with paralysis from the neck
down.
98
He is a member of several community and professional groups, including the
board of the Dallas Rehabilitation Institute and the National Society for Fundraising
Executives. He has been the recipient of many awards for his achievements in the
area of disability. Mr. Waldrep was selected by the United States Jaycees as one of
the ten outstanding young men in America for 1985. Mr. Waldrep was recently
named chairman of the Texas Governor's Committee on Disabled Persons.
Phyllis D. Zlotnick
Phyllis Zlotnick of West Hartford, Connecticut, has been employed by the Office of
Protection and Advocacy for Handicapped and Developmentally Disabled Persons in
Hartford, since 1983. Born with Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Ms. Zlotnick is widely
recognized as a successful advocate for the rights inherent with full citizenship for all
disabled people. As a highly respected lobbyist in Connecticut, she is responsible for
changes in the State Building Code; removal of architectural barriers; access to
public transportation, housing, education, voting, employment, and parking; and
handicapped driver training programs. She has lectured, published articles, received
numerous awards, and served on many boards and advisory councils.
Ms. Zlotnick formerly was the Director of External Affairs for the Easter Seal
Society of Connecticut and later, an aide to the former Speaker of the House in the
State and General Assembly. Presently, she is a legislative consultant to the Protec-
tion and Advocacy Office in Connecticut and the chairperson of the State Personal
Care Assistance Advisory Council.
99
References
Census Bureau. (1986). "Disability, Functional Limitation and Health Insurance
Coverage: 1984/85." Washington, DC.
Cranston, A. (January 29, 1987) "Statement for the Record regarding transportation
for people with disabilities," Congressional Record. Washington, DC.
Department of Transportation. (1978), in Grey Advertising Inc. Technical Report of the
National Survey of Transportation of Handicapped People. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Transportation.
Harris, Louis. (1987). The ICD Survey II: Employing Disabled Americans. New York,
New York.
Harris, Louis (1986). The ICD Survey of Disabled Americans: Bringing Disabled Ameri-
cans into the Mainstream. New York, New York.
House Hearings Before a Subcommittee on Appropriations for Fiscal 1987 Appropria-
tions. (1986). "National Council on the Handicapped," (pp. 431-489). Washington,
DC: GPO.
Human Services Research Institute. (1986). Compilation of Statistical Sources on Adult
Disability. Washington, DC: GPO.
Human Services Research Institute. (1985). Summary of Data on Handicapped Chil-
dren and Youth. Washington, DC: GPO.
Independent Living Research Utilization Project. (1987). Brochure on Independent
Living. ILRU: Houston, Texas.
Menninger Foundation. (1985). A Population Model of Working Age Disabled Individu-
als. Topeka, Kansas.
Menninger Foundation. (1986). The Relationship Between Age and Physical Disability
Among Workers: Implications for the Future. Topeka, Kansas.
Monitoring the Health of America's Children. (1984). Child Health Outcome Project,
University of North Carolina.
National Council on the Handicapped. (1986). Appendix to Toward Independence.
Washington, DC.
National Council on the Handicapped. (scheduled for publication in 1988). Implica-
tions for Federal Policy of the 1986 Harris Survey of Disabled Americans. Washing-
ton, DC.
National Council on the Handicapped. (1986). Toward Independence. Washington,
DC.
Reagan, R. (1986). "Letter upon receipt of Toward Independence." Washington, DC.
Reagan, R. (1982). Memorandum to the Attorney General, April 30, 1982. Washing-
ton, DC.
101
Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations for Fiscal 1987 Appropria-
tions (1986). "National Council on the Handicapped," (pp. 791-814). Washington,
DC: GPO.
United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc., (April 28, 1987). "The Development of Hous-
ing for Disabled Persons: Six Case Studies." Washington, DC.
United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc. (August 7, 1987). "A National Center on
Housing for Persons With Disabilities." Washington, DC.
Vachon, A. (1987). "Inventing A Future for Individuals with Work Disabilities," chap-
ter in The Changing Nature of Work, Society, and Disability: the Impact on Rehabili-
tation Policy. New York, New York: World Rehabilitation Fund.
Will, M. (1984). OSERS Programming for the Transition of Youth with Disabilities:
Bridges from School to Working Life. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-
tion.
102
This publication was printed at the UNICOR Print Plant,
Federal Correctional Institution, Sandstone, MN.
ON
NATIONAL THE COUNCIL
National Council on the Handicapped
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Suite 814
Washington, DC 20591