Proposed priority--National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research—Advanced Rehabilitation Research Training Program
2014-05-16 2014-06-13 2014-05-16 2014-06-13 2014-06-13
ED-2014-OSERS-0011-0003 ED-2014-OSERS-0011-0004 ED-2014-OSERS-0011-0002 ED-2014-OSERS-0011-0006 ED-2014-OSERS-0011-0005
04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00
https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/ED-2014-OSERS-0011-0003 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/ED-2014-OSERS-0011-0004 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/ED-2014-OSERS-0011-0002 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/ED-2014-OSERS-0011-0006 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/ED-2014-OSERS-0011-0005
Kurt Patricia Tiffany Janice Kathleen
Johnson Mccarthy Golden Chory Pike
Our group is pleased to see this priority.  We comment to express our concern that NIDRR is requiring a two year term for the policy fellows.  We agree that a two year fellowship is ideal, we also recognize that it is likely that fellows will come to the fellowship with significant variations in experience and training.  We recognize that for those fellows who complete the fellowship in DC, it is hard to imagine that they wouldnt require a full two years.  On the other hand, there may well be outstanding candidates who would only want one year.  We note that other policy fellowships are one year options.  We also note that in the past, our post-doctoral fellows have gotten outstanding academic job offers part way through their fellowships, or because the fellowship budget period is different than most academic schedules, may complete a year and a half in order to accept jobs that start in July. Docket ID ED---20140OSERS---0068Proposed PriorityRehabilitation Training:  Rehabilitation Long-Term Training ProgramRehabilitation Specialty AreasTO:  RoseAnn Ashby, U.S. Department of Education, RSA TrainingDear Ms. Ashby:I would like to express my appreciation to RSA for deciding to grant new awards in FY2014 to long-term training programs in select specialty areas.  I am particularly pleased that one specialty area is vocational evaluation, as I am a practicing certified and licensed vocational evaluator with the Virginia Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services.  The occupation of vocational evaluator is a specialty, as the education and training as well as the occupation responsibilities differ from those of rehabilitation counselors and other rehabilitation professionals.  Vocational evaluators conduct assessments that include real or simulated work.  What better way is there to gauge preparedness for the goal of employment than to conduct assessment that is functional?  Vocational evaluators determine the aptitude and skill strengths as well as the interests of the aspiring employee/tax payer.  Vocational evaluators make recommendations based on knowledge of the labor market and the skills required for success in the occupations.  We can identify occupations that match the individuals worker profile so that there is greater likelihood that the employment placement will be successful and in an area of interest, both of which will help foster the individuals longevity on the job and a career path.  Individual is a key word, as vocational evaluation services are individualized.If there is an issue on the job, the vocational evaluator can help assess and resolve the problems.  The evaluator can go to the job site to observe the employee and determine strategies, accommodations, and  low-tech assistive technology that could be effective, just as these are considered at other points in the vocational evaluation process.   The evaluator could determine whether more comprehensive assistive technology assessment is warranted.  The evaluator can coordinate with the employee, rehabilitation counselor, and employer to address the issues and, thus, promote saving the job.  Vocational evaluation services can save rehabilitation agency funds by providing focus for employment goals and by helping to save current jobs.  With effective assessment and planning, the number of persons who return for additional services can be reduced.  Other agency funds can be saved by the evaluator verifying that a potential student has the academic skills suggestive of success in a training or education program before the individual attempts such a program and risks experiencing disappointment.  I have supervised interns enrolled in the George Washington University (GWU) Collaborative Vocational Evaluation Training program.  I have been very impressed with the breadth of their knowledge, and I have learned from them.  I had been comforted knowing that there would be qualified persons available to fill my position when I retire in a few years.  Most of my vocational evaluator colleagues in this state agency are approaching retirement, as well.  I am distressed that RSA funding for the GWU vocational evaluation program is scheduled to end.  There are few other vocational evaluation graduate programs, and they all dont offer comprehensive career preparation.  I dont want my rehabilitation counselor colleagues and consumers to lose a service that I view as valuable, a significant aspect of my identity, and to which I have committed my entire career.  I also dont want persons hired who received their education from some of the other vocational evaluation graduate programs which do not seem comprehensive:  I have found by conversing with graduate students at vocational evaluation conferences who received financial support for vocational evaluation that their knowledge of vocational evaluation is limited.  Apparently, the focus of their coursework and internship was rehabilitation counseling or other priorities that were only marginally related to vocational evaluation.  Unlike rehabilitation counseling where there may be other counselors on site, training vocational evaluators on the job is challenging because there is often no other vocational evaluator at the same site. Now, with this RSA request for comments, my fear and dismay that the graduate education programs will end this fall is diminished.  I am optimistic that my beloved profession will be well staffed by graduates of quality vocational evaluation programs.  Sincerely, Patricia A. McCarthy, M. Ed., CVE, PVE, PPSLLead Vocational EvaluatorDivision of Rehabilitative ServicesVirginia Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services5904 Old Richmond Highway, Suite 410 Alexandria, VA   22303  As a United States Air Force veteran, I believe that disability and rehabilitation research should be granted the highest priority. Funding for the Advanced Rehabilitation Research Training (ARRT) Program would provide essential training for researchers to begin advanced policy research in these areas. Though this program is not specifically targeted for the study of service related disability and rehabilitation, medical breakthroughs often lead to advancements in more than one area. Making this training program a priority may just be the start of those medical breakthroughs and lead to a better life for myself and my fellow disabled service members.  Dear Ms. Ashby, I am writing to comment on the Proposed Priority- regarding Rehabilitation Training: Rehabilitation Long Term Training ProgramsI am a 50-year-old employment support specialist for the VA Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services.  I come to my current position with 15 + years experience providing employment support to adults and students with disabilities.  I am also currently enrolled in the Certified Vocational Evaluation Training program at George Washington University.  Why at 50 would I have the desire to achieve a Masters degree in Vocational Evaluation?  Because I have come full circle in my belief in and the understanding of the critical role that vocational evaluation plays in the successful employment to persons with disabilities.  When I started in the world of placement for individuals with significant disabilities, I would just work with them at what they demonstrated they could perform or expressed what they thought they liked.  While I could get them jobs, those jobs did not necessarily equate to success in or happiness with their employment.  In the early 1990s while, I knew the common sense approach, I needed training that is more formal.  I began taking some Masters class in transition; during that time, I was introduced to the specialized training and education in order to more effectively deliver person centered supports.  My career paused for child rearing and upon my return after an 8-year hiatus, I returned to providing employment support to the unemployed.  I came to realize the value in being able to quantify a persons aptitude and ability.  Having that information is critical to increasing an individual with disabilities self-confidence and their successful entry and/or return to work.  I was disappointed to discover that the availability of vocational evaluation training programs is very limited.  This is concerning because vocational evaluation differs from other assessments, as it focuses on work, and includes real work labor market information.  This real work evaluation coupled with the intensive training that Masters level program provides, ensures that the individual being evaluated is informed and educated by a professional who has a full arsenal of knowledge regarding assistive technology, accommodations and labor market information to inform and educate the job seeker and guide them to a successful career path. I respectfully request that you consider expanding the number of graduate programs available for Vocational Evaluation, as it is a critically important piece in rehabilitation. Janice Chory  We are writing to express our enthusiasm and support for this priority.  We strongly believe that the development of a research policy fellowship has the potential to have significant impact on disability and rehabilitation and has broad application across NIDRRs three domains of individual well-being:  1) community living and participation; 2) employment and 3) health and function.  The proposal for a 2-year fellowship offers the opportunity for fellows to fully engage in the educational and training experience and develop competencies that will increase the fellows ability to effectively conduct policy research that has meaningful impact.  Many of the critical issues in the domains noted above are complex in ways that require extensive collaboration, networking, research and time. A two-year fellowship provides the necessary platform.  It could be of value to have flexibility as to whether the fellow needs to be in residence for both years.  One option could be a residential fellowship that is more didactic in the first year followed by an option for various placements in the second year.  In our experience of the Health and Aging Policy Fellows Program, we have found that in addition to the educational orientation and training component of the program, the mentorship and network are extraordinarily important, not only during the fellowship year but in an ongoing way.  The alumni network provides members with lifelong colleagues that can support each other, facilitate and catalyze initiatives in the field long after the completion of the fellowship year.  There are a number of complementary fellowship programs that may provide strong partnerships for this proposed priority, and may be able to jumpstart the development of an aligned network of colleagues who are committed to supporting initiatives aligned with this priority. This priority will contribute significantly to developing leaders in areas that are critical to the changing needs of the American population in terms of addressing the needs of individuals with complex and enduring health conditions, individuals with disabilities, and the aging population.  The focus across the span of health, employment and community living will have broad application and impact.  We will be very excited to see this program move forward.