National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research-Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program; Funding Priorities, 6318-6331 [06-1075]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6318-6331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1075]



[[Page 6317]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Education





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



National Institute on Disability Research Projects and Centers Program; 
Funding Priorities; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2006 / 
Notices

[[Page 6318]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research--
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program; 
Funding Priorities

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 
Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services proposes certain funding priorities for the 
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program 
administered by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation 
Research (NIDRR). Specifically, this notice proposes priorities for 
Disability Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs), including 
Disability Business and Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs); 
Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTCs); and 
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs). The Assistant 
Secretary may use these priorities for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 
2006 and later years. We take this action to focus research attention 
on areas of national need. We intend these priorities to improve 
rehabilitation services and outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 9, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed priorities to 
Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 
room 6030, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20204-2700. If you 
prefer to send your comments through the Internet, use one of the 
following addresses: donna.nangle@ed.gov.
    You must include the term ``Proposed Priorities for DRRPs, RRTCs, 
and RERCs'' in the subject line of your electronic message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle or Lynn Medley. 
Telephone: (202) 245-7462 (Donna Nangle) or (202) 245-7338 (Lynn 
Medley).
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may 
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of proposed priorities is in 
concert with President George W. Bush's New Freedom Initiative (NFI) 
and NIDRR's Proposed Long-Range Plan for FY 2005-2009 (Plan). The NFI 
can be accessed on the Internet at the following site: https://
www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom. The Plan, which was published in 
the Federal Register on July 27, 2005 (70 FR 43522), can be accessed on 
the Internet at the following site: https://www.ed.gov/legislation/
FedRegister/other/2005-3/072705d.html.
    Through the implementation of the NFI and the Plan, NIDRR seeks to: 
(1) Improve the quality and utility of disability and rehabilitation 
research; (2) foster an exchange of expertise, information, and 
training to facilitate the advancement of knowledge and understanding 
of the unique needs of traditionally underserved populations; (3) 
determine best strategies and programs to improve rehabilitation 
outcomes for underserved populations; (4) identify research gaps; (5) 
identify mechanisms of integrating research and practice; and (6) 
disseminate findings.
    One of the specific goals established in the Plan is for NIDRR to 
publish all of its proposed priorities, and following public comment, 
final priorities, annually, on a combined basis. Under this approach, 
NIDRR's constituents can submit comments at one time rather than at 
different times throughout the year, and NIDRR can move toward a fixed 
schedule for competitions and more efficient grant-making operations. 
This notice, which proposes priorities NIDRR intends to use for DRRP, 
RRTC, and RERC competitions in FY 2006 and possibly later years, 
represents NIDRR's first step toward a notice of priorities that will 
include its entire portfolio of research and related activities for the 
year. However, nothing precludes NIDRR from publishing additional 
priorities, if needed.
    In addition to this notice, on December 13, 2005, NIDRR published a 
separate notice of proposed priorities for Spinal Cord Injury Model 
Systems (SCIMS) Centers and for SCIMS multi-site research projects (70 
FR 73738). NIDRR also intends to publish a separate notice of proposed 
priorities for an additional DRRP with the focus on Individuals Who are 
Blind and Visually Impaired this year. Moreover, for FY 2006 
competitions using priorities that already have been established and 
for which publication of a notice of proposed priority is unnecessary 
(e.g., competitions for Field-Initiated Projects, Advanced 
Rehabilitation Research Training Projects, Fellowships, and Small 
Business Innovation Research Projects), NIDRR has published or will 
publish notices inviting applications. More information on these other 
projects and programs that NIDRR intends to fund in FY 2006 can be 
found on the Internet at the following site: https://ed.gov/fund/grant/
apply/nidrr/priority-matrix.html.

Invitation to Comment

    We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed 
priorities. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the notice of final priorities, we urge you to identify 
clearly the specific proposed priority or topic that each comment 
addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of 
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed 
priorities. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should 
take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while 
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about these proposed priorities in room 6030, 550 12th Street, 
SW., Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 
a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week 
except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking 
Record

    On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or 
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs 
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public 
rulemaking record for these proposed priorities. If you want to 
schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    We will announce the final priorities in one or more notices in the 
Federal Register. We will determine the final priorities after 
considering responses to this notice and other information available to 
the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing or 
using additional priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking 
requirements.


    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use these proposed priorities, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting 
applications we

[[Page 6319]]

designate the priorities as absolute, competitive preference, or 
invitational. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by either 
(1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent 
to which the application meets the competitive preference priority 
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets 
the competitive preference priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational 
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the 
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over 
other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Priorities

    In this notice, we are proposing 11 priorities for DRRPs (including 
2 priorities for DBTACs), 1 priority for an RRTC, and 3 priorities for 
RERCs.
    For DRRPs, the proposed priorities are:
     Priority 1--General DRRP Requirements.
     Priority 2--National Data and Statistical Center for the 
Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Model Systems.
     Priority 3--National Data and Statistical Center for the 
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Model Systems.
     Priority 4--Rehabilitation of Children with Traumatic 
Brain Injury (TBI).
     Priority 5--Reducing Obesity and Obesity-Related Secondary 
Conditions in Adolescents and Adults with Disabilities.
     Priority 6--Model Systems Knowledge Translation Center 
(MSKTC).
     Priority 7--Assistive Technology (AT) Outcomes Research 
Project.
     Priority 8--Mobility Aids and Wayfinding Technologies for 
Individuals With Blindness and Low Vision.
     Priority 9--Improving Employment Outcomes for the Low 
Functioning Deaf (LFD) Population.
     Priority 10--Disability Business Technical Assistance 
Centers (DBTACs).
     Priority 11--Disability Business Technical Assistance 
Centers (DBTAC) Coordination, Outreach, and Research Center.
    For the RRTC, the proposed priority is:
     Priority 12--Rehabilitation Research and Training Center 
on Effective Independent and Community Living Solutions and Measures.
    For RERCs, the proposed priorities are:
     Priority 13--RERC for Technologies for Successful Aging.
     Priority 14--RERC for Wheelchair Transportation Safety.
     Priority 15--RERC for Wireless Technologies.

Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP) Program

    The purpose of the DRRP program is to plan and conduct research, 
demonstration projects, training, and related activities to develop 
methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technology that maximize the 
full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent 
living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of 
individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most 
severe disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services 
authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. DRRPs 
carry out one or more of the following types of activities, as 
specified and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: research, 
development, demonstration, training, dissemination, utilization, and 
technical assistance.
    An applicant for assistance under this program must demonstrate in 
its application how it will address, in whole or in part, the needs of 
individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds (34 CFR 
350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant may take to meet this 
requirement are found in 34 CFR 350.40(b).
    Additional information on the DRRP program can be found at: https://
www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/res-program.html#DRRP.

Proposed Priorities

Priority 1--General Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects 
(DRRP) Requirements

Background
    NIDRR proposes the following General DRRP Requirements priority 
because it believes that the effectiveness of any DRRP (including any 
DBTAC) depends on, among other things, how well the DRRP coordinates 
its research efforts with the research of other NIDRR-funded projects, 
involves individuals with disabilities in its activities, and 
identifies specific anticipated outcomes that are linked to its 
objectives in applying for DRRP funding. Accordingly, NIDRR intends to 
use proposed Priority 1--General DRRP Requirements in conjunction with 
each of the other DRRP priorities proposed in this notice (i.e., 
priorities 2 through 11).

Proposed Priority

    To meet this priority, the Disability and Rehabilitation Research 
Projects (DRRP) must:
    (a) Coordinate on research projects of mutual interest with 
relevant NIDRR-funded projects, as identified through consultation with 
the NIDRR project officer;
    (b) Involve individuals with disabilities in planning and 
implementing the DRRP's research, training, and dissemination 
activities, and in evaluating its work; and
    (c) Identify anticipated outcomes (i.e., advances in knowledge or 
changes and improvements in policy, practice, behavior, and system 
capacity) that are linked to the applicant's stated grant objectives.

Priority 2--National Data and Statistical Center for the Spinal Cord 
Injury (SCI) Model Systems

Background
    It is estimated that the number of Americans living with traumatic 
spinal cord injury (SCI) ranges from 222,000 to 285,000, with an 
incidence of approximately 11,000 new cases each year (Spinal Cord 
Injury: Facts and Figures at a Glance, 2004).
    NIDRR supports a variety of research projects that focus on the 
wide range of needs of individuals with SCI. These projects include the 
SCI Model Systems Centers funded through NIDRR's Model Systems Program. 
The SCI Model Systems Centers establish and carry out innovative 
projects for the delivery, demonstration, and evaluation of 
comprehensive medical, vocational, and other rehabilitation services to 
meet the wide range of needs of individuals with SCI.
    The SCI Model Systems Centers have developed a national, 
longitudinal database that contains information on approximately 23,000 
people injured since 1973 (SCI Model Systems Database). The SCI Model 
Systems Database is the most extensive source of information available 
about the characteristics and life course of individuals with SCI. The 
SCI Model Systems Database contains a sample that is demographically 
representative of all cases that occur throughout the United States, 
though the sample is not population-based (DeVivo, Go, & Jackson, 
2002). The SCI Model Systems Database also can be used to examine 
specific outcomes of SCI. NIDRR seeks to continue and build upon this 
important source of data by funding a National Data and Statistical 
Center for the SCI Model Systems (National SCI Model Systems Data 
Center) that will

[[Page 6320]]

maintain the SCI Model Systems Database and improve the quality of 
information that is entered into it.
    The SCI Model Systems Database is a collaborative project in which 
all of the SCI Model Systems Centers participate. The data for the SCI 
Model Systems Database are collected by the SCI Model Systems Centers. 
The Directors of the SCI Model System Centers, in consultation with 
NIDRR, determine the parameters of the SCI Model Systems Database, 
including the number and type of variables to be examined, and the 
criteria for including Model Systems patients in the database.
    To maximize the external validity of findings from the SCI Model 
Systems Database, the SCI Model Systems Centers must achieve and 
maintain high rates of retention and successful follow-up with database 
participants. Accordingly, the central role of the National SCI Model 
Systems Data Center will be to work with SCI Model Systems Centers to 
increase follow-up rates and to ensure data quality.
    Since the creation of the SCI Model Systems Database more than 30 
years ago, the proportion of database participants from racial and 
ethnic minority populations has grown steadily (Jackson, Dijkers, 
DeVivo & Poczatek, 2004). This growth reflects the urban location of 
many of the SCI Model Systems Centers, as well as the growing 
proportion of racial/ethnic minorities in the general population. This 
growth in the racial/ethnic diversity of the SCI Model Systems 
population creates a vital technical assistance role for the National 
SCI Model Systems Data Center. The National SCI Model Systems Data 
Center will work with the SCI Model Systems Centers to ensure that the 
data collected from these populations are of high quality and that the 
data collection procedures used reflect sufficient knowledge about the 
cultural backgrounds of patient populations and research participants.
    The specifications of the SCI Model Systems Database as it is 
currently implemented can be obtained from the National SCI Statistical 
Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The National SCI 
Statistical Center may be contacted on the World Wide Web at https://
www.spinalcord.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=21446.
References
    DeVivo, M., Go, B., & Jackson, A. (2002). Overview of the 
National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center Database. The Journal 
of Spinal Cord Medicine. 25(4): 335-338.
    Jackson, A., Dijkers, M, DeVivo, M., & Poczatek, R. (2004). A 
Demographic Profile of New Traumatic Spinal Cord Injuries: Change 
and Stability Over 30 Years. Archives of Physical Medicine and 
Rehabilitation. 85(11): 1740-1748.
    Spinal Cord Injury: Facts and Figures at a Glance. (2004). 
Retrieved July 6, 2005 from the National Spinal Cord Injury 
Statistical Center Web site: https://www.spinalcord.uab.edu.

Proposed Priority

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes a priority for the establishment of a National SCI 
Model Systems Data Center that advances medical rehabilitation by 
increasing the rigor and efficiency of scientific efforts to 
longitudinally assess the experience of individuals with SCI. To meet 
this priority, the National SCI Model Systems Data Center's research 
and technical assistance must be designed to contribute to the 
following outcomes:
    (a) Maintenance of a national longitudinal database for data 
submitted by each of the SCI Model Systems Centers (SCI Model Systems 
Database). This database must provide for confidentiality, quality 
control, and data-retrieval capabilities, using cost-effective and 
user-friendly technology.
    (b) High-quality, reliable data in the SCI Model Systems Database. 
The National SCI Model Systems Data Center must contribute to this 
outcome by providing training and technical assistance to SCI Model 
Systems Centers on subject retention and data collection procedures, 
data entry methods, and appropriate use of study instruments, and by 
monitoring the quality of the data submitted by the SCI Model Systems 
Centers.
    (c) High-quality data collected from database participants of all 
racial/ethnic backgrounds. The National SCI Model Systems Data Center 
must contribute to this outcome by providing knowledge, training, and 
technical assistance to the SCI Model Systems Centers on culturally 
appropriate methods of longitudinal data collection and participant 
retention.
    (d) Rigorous research conducted by SCI Model Systems Centers and 
all investigators who are analyzing data from the SCI Model Systems 
Database. The National SCI Model Systems Data Center must contribute to 
this outcome by making statistical and other methodological 
consultation available for research projects that use the SCI Model 
Systems Database, as well as center-specific and collaborative projects 
of the SCI Model Systems Program.
    (e) Enhanced continuity of the SCI Model Systems Database. The 
National SCI Model Systems Data Center must contribute to this outcome 
by establishing and implementing a mechanism for continued collection 
of follow-up data from individuals who were enrolled by SCI Model 
Systems Centers that no longer receive Model Systems Program funding. 
This mechanism must focus on continued collection of data from up to 
four SCI Model Systems Centers that were funded during the most recent 
five-year grant cycle, but that do not receive subsequent funding under 
the Model Systems Program.
    (f) Improved quality and efficiency of the SCI Model Systems 
Database operations through collaboration with the National Traumatic 
Brain Injury Model Systems Data Center and the National Burn Model 
Systems Data Center.

Priority 3--National Data and Statistical Center for the Traumatic 
Brain Injury (TBI) Model Systems

Background
    It is estimated that at least 5.3 million Americans are living with 
disability as a result of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Approximately 
1.4 million Americans sustain a TBI each year, and 230,000 of these 
injuries lead to hospitalization (Traumatic Brain Injury: Facts and 
Figures, 2005).
    NIDRR supports a variety of research projects that focus on the 
wide range of needs of individuals with TBI. These projects include the 
TBI Model Systems Centers funded through NIDRR's Model Systems Program. 
The TBI Model Systems Centers establish and carry out innovative 
projects for the delivery, demonstration, and evaluation of 
comprehensive medical, vocational, and other rehabilitation services to 
meet the wide range of needs of individuals with TBI.
    The TBI Model Systems Centers have developed a national, 
longitudinal database of information about the characteristics and life 
course of individuals with TBI (TBI Model Systems Database). The TBI 
Model Systems Database also can be used to examine specific outcomes of 
TBI. NIDRR seeks to continue and build upon this important source of 
data by funding a National Data and Statistical Center for the TBI 
Model Systems (National TBI Model Systems Data Center) that will 
maintain the TBI Model Systems Database and improve the quality of 
information that is entered into it.
    The TBI Model Systems Database is a collaborative project in which 
all of the TBI Model Systems Centers participate. The data for the TBI 
Model Systems Database are collected by the TBI Model

[[Page 6321]]

Systems Centers. The Directors of the TBI Model Systems Centers, in 
consultation with NIDRR, determine the parameters of the TBI Model 
Systems Database, including the number and type of variables to be 
examined, and the criteria for including TBI Model Systems patients in 
the database.
    To maximize the external validity of findings from the TBI Model 
Systems Database, the TBI Model Systems Centers must achieve and 
maintain high rates of retention and successful follow-up with database 
participants. Accordingly, the central role of the National TBI Model 
Systems Data Center will be to work with TBI Model Systems Centers to 
increase follow-up rates and ensure data quality.
    The TBI Model Systems Database contains a disproportional number of 
participants from minority backgrounds, relative to the general 
population (Burnett et al. 2003). The disproportional representation of 
racial/ethnic minorities reflects the urban location of many of the TBI 
Model Systems Centers. The racial/ethnic diversity of the TBI Model 
Systems population creates a vital technical assistance role for the 
National TBI Model Systems Data Center. The National TBI Model Systems 
Data Center will work with the TBI Model Systems Centers to ensure that 
the data collected from these populations are of high quality and that 
the data collection procedures used reflect sufficient knowledge about 
the cultural backgrounds of patient populations and research 
participants.
    The specifications of the TBI Model Systems Database as it is 
currently implemented can be obtained from the TBI National Data Center 
at the Kessler Medical Rehabilitation Research and Education 
Corporation (see https://www.tbindc.org).
References
    Burnett, D., Kolakowsky-Hayner, S., Slater, D., Stringer, A., 
Bushnik, T., Zafonte, R., and Cifu, D. (2003). Ethnographic Analysis 
of Traumatic Brain Injury Patients in the National Model Systems 
Database. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 84(2): 
263-267.
    Traumatic Brain Injury: Facts and Figures (2005). Retrieved July 
6, 2005 from the Traumatic Brain Injury National Data Center Web 
site: https://www.tbindc.org/registry/pdf/ff_winter2005.pdf.

Proposed Priority

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes a priority for the establishment of a National TBI 
Model Systems Data Center that advances medical rehabilitation by 
increasing the rigor and efficiency of scientific efforts to 
longitudinally assess the experience of individuals with TBI. To meet 
this priority, the National TBI Model Systems Data Center's research 
and technical assistance must be designed to contribute to the 
following outcomes:
    (a) Maintenance of a national longitudinal database for data 
submitted by each of the TBI Model Systems Centers (TBI Model Systems 
Database). This database must provide for confidentiality, quality 
control, and data-retrieval capabilities, using cost-effective and 
user-friendly technology.
    (b) High-quality, reliable data in the TBI Model Systems Database. 
The National TBI Model Systems Data Center must contribute to this 
outcome by providing training and technical assistance to TBI Model 
Systems Centers on subject retention and data collection procedures, 
data entry methods, and appropriate use of study instruments, and by 
monitoring the quality of the data submitted by the TBI Model Systems 
Centers.
    (c) High-quality data collected from database participants of all 
racial/ethnic backgrounds. The National TBI Model Systems Data Center 
must contribute to this outcome by providing knowledge, training, and 
technical assistance to the TBI Model Systems Centers on culturally 
appropriate methods of longitudinal data collection and participant 
retention.
    (d) Rigorous research conducted by TBI Model Systems Centers and 
all investigators who are analyzing data from the TBI Model Systems 
Database. The National TBI Model Systems Data Center must contribute to 
this outcome by making statistical and other methodological 
consultation available for research projects that use the TBI Model 
Systems Database, as well as center-specific and collaborative projects 
of the TBI Model Systems program.
    (e) Enhanced continuity of the TBI Model Systems Database. The 
National TBI Model Systems Data Center must contribute to this outcome 
by establishing and implementing a mechanism for continued collection 
of follow-up data from individuals who were enrolled by TBI Model 
Systems Centers that no longer receive Model Systems Program funding. 
This mechanism must focus on continued collection of data from up to 
four TBI Model Systems Centers that were funded during the most recent 
five-year grant cycle, but that do not receive subsequent funding under 
the Model Systems Program.
    (f) Improved quality and efficiency of the TBI Model Systems 
Database operations through collaboration with the National Spinal Cord 
Injury Model Systems Data Center and the National Burn Model Systems 
Data Center.

Priority 4--Rehabilitation of Children with Traumatic Brain Injury 
(TBI)

Background
    The Department's regulations implementing the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) define traumatic brain injury as ``* 
* * an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical 
force, resulting in total or partial functional disability or 
psychosocial impairment, or both, that adversely affects a child's 
educational performance'' (34 CFR 300.7(c)(12)). The Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention report that among children up to 14 
years of age, TBI results annually in an estimated 2,685 deaths, 37,000 
hospitalizations, and 435,000 emergency department visits (Langlois, 
Rutland-Brown, & Thomas, 2004). These estimates do not include children 
who sustained a TBI and did not seek medical care or were seen only in 
private doctors' offices. Because most survivors of moderate to severe 
TBI experience chronic, life-long disabilities with varying degrees of 
dependence, the costs of these disabilities in terms of individual 
suffering, family burden, and financial burden to society are quite 
significant (Carney, Maynard, Davis-O'Reilly, Zimmer-Gembeck, Krages, & 
Helfand, 1999).
    The effects of TBI can be pervasive, but researchers who have begun 
to document the functional outcomes in children with TBI have 
encountered several obstacles. For example, assessments of injury 
characteristics have rarely included measures of the location, depth, 
or severity of brain insult; environmental, family, and child 
characteristics (including pre-injury functioning) have received 
insufficient attention; and follow-up assessments have largely included 
outcomes of TBI at only a single point in time several years after 
injury (Taylor, 2004). These and other limitations must be addressed in 
order to better understand and improve outcomes for children with TBI.
    There also is little high quality evidence regarding the 
effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for children with TBI 
(Carney, Maynard, Davis-O'Reilly, Zimmer-Gembeck, Krages, & Helfand, 
1999; Chen, Heinemann, Bode, Granger, & Mallinson, 2004). When children 
who have sustained a TBI are discharged from emergency and acute care 
facilities, they may continue to receive treatment, including medical

[[Page 6322]]

services; physical, occupational, and speech therapy; cognitive 
rehabilitation; social and behavioral interventions; and educational 
and family interventions. These interventions, however, have largely 
not been validated through experimental design or in carefully 
controlled observational studies. Further, there is a well-documented 
and unmet need for intensive, ongoing services and supports for 
families and school staff as children with TBI transition from medical 
and rehabilitation systems to community and school systems (Ylvisaker 
et al, 2005).
    In addition to the lack of interventions research and limited 
availability of family and school support services, there is 
insufficient information available to ensure the appropriate 
identification of children with TBI who are in need of special 
education and related services. Many children who have sustained a TBI 
and reenter the school system fail to receive the services that they 
need and that are mandated by IDEA, in part, because they fail to be 
identified or their needs are not associated with the injury. In fact, 
the number of children reported by States to be receiving special 
education and related services under the TBI label is much lower than 
would be expected based on the numbers of children who sustain a TBI 
each year (Langlois & Rutland-Brown, 2005). All of these problems faced 
by children with TBI, their families, and service providers demonstrate 
the need for further studies and research.
References
    Carney, N., Maynard, H., Davis-O'Reilly, C., Zimmer-Gembeck, M, 
Krages, K. P., & Helfand, M. (February, 1999). Supplement to the 
evidence report on rehabilitation of traumatic brain injury: 
Children and adolescents (Contract 290-97-0018 to Oregon Health 
Sciences University). Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy 
and Research.
    Chen, C.C., Heinemann, A.W., Bode, R.K., Granger, C.V., & 
Mallinson, T. (2004). Impact of pediatric rehabilitation services on 
children's functional outcomes. American Journal of Occupational 
Therapy, 58(1), 44-53.
    Langlois, J.A., & Rutland-Brown, W. (2005). Traumatic brain 
injury in the United States: The future of registries and data 
systems. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
    Langlois, J.A., Rutland-Brown W., & Thomas K.E. (2004). 
Traumatic brain injury in the United States: Emergency department 
visits, hospitalizations, and deaths. Atlanta, GA: Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury 
Prevention and Control.
    Taylor, G.H. (2004). Research on outcomes of pediatric traumatic 
brain injury: Current advances and future directions. Developmental 
Neuropsychology, 25(1-2), 199-225.
    Ylvisaker, M., Adelson, P.D., Braga, L.W., Burnett, S.M., Glang, 
A., Feeney, T., Moore, W., Rumney, P., & Todis, B. (2005). 
Rehabilitation and ongoing support after pediatric TBI: Twenty years 
of progress. Journal of Health Trauma Rehabilitation, 20(1), 95-109.

Proposed Priority

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research 
Project (DRRP) on the Rehabilitation of Children with Traumatic Brain 
Injury (TBI). Under this priority, the DRRP must be designed to 
contribute to the following outcomes:
    (a) Improved physical, cognitive, social/behavioral, family, 
educational, or employment outcomes for children with TBI by 
development or testing of rehabilitation interventions.
    (b) Improved transition of children from health care facilities to 
school and community by development or testing of effective transition 
strategies.
    (c) Improved TBI screening and special education services for 
children by development or testing of methods and procedures for use in 
school settings.

Priority 5--Reducing Obesity and Obesity-Related Secondary Conditions 
in Adolescents and Adults With Disabilities

Background
    Approximately two out of three adults in the United States are 
classified as overweight or obese, and obesity is now the second 
leading cause of mortality in this country (Flegal et al., 2002). As 
disturbing as the obesity prevalence is for the general U.S. 
population, rates of obesity among adolescents and adults with pre-
existing disabilities are even more alarming. A recent study based on 
pooled self-report data from the 1994-1995 National Health Interview 
Survey (NHIS), the 1994-1995 Disability Supplement (NHIS-D), and the 
1995 Healthy People 2000 Supplement reports a 66 percent higher rate of 
obesity among people with disabilities compared to the general 
population (Weil et al., 2002). Similarly, a recent regional study, 
based on actual measurements of height and weight, reported that 
extreme obesity (a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or larger) was 
approximately four times higher among persons with disabilities 
compared to the general population (Rimmer & Wang, 2005).
    Obesity has a profoundly negative effect on the overall health 
status and quality of life of individuals with disabilities. First, 
like the population at large, for whom obesity is typically a primary 
health condition, obesity among individuals with disabilities leads to 
higher-risks for cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, 
osteoarthritis, and certain cancers. Second, for people with pre-
existing disabilities, obesity constitutes a significant secondary 
condition leading to new physical impairments and increased mobility 
limitations, which in turn further undermine an individual's functional 
abilities and negatively impact opportunities for employment and 
participation in the community (Kinne, Patrick, & Doyle, 2004). There 
also is growing evidence that many of these chronic health problems and 
functional impairments occur earlier and with more severity among 
people with existing disabilities than in the general adult population 
(Campbell, Sheets, & Strong, 1999). Notwithstanding this information, 
there remains a lack of knowledge about both the antecedents to obesity 
in adults and adolescents with disabilities and the rehabilitation 
interventions that could be successful in treating or preventing this 
condition.
    Lack of routine and timely screening for obesity by medical 
providers also contributes to the magnitude of the obesity epidemic in 
this country, particularly among adults with disabilities who face 
well-documented barriers to accessing primary health care services 
(Iezzoni, McCarthy, Davis, & Siebens, 2001). To address this problem, 
the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently published 
guidelines recommending that clinicians screen all adult patients for 
obesity based on BMI and offer appropriate behavioral interventions and 
intensive counseling to promote sustained weight loss for those who are 
obese (``Screening for Obesity in Adults: Recommendations and 
Rationale,'' November 2003). Further information, however, is needed to 
assess the effectiveness of screening and diagnostic procedures and the 
interventions that medical providers are recommending.
References
    Campbell, M.L., Sheets, D., & Strong, P.S. (1999). Secondary 
health conditions among middle-aged individuals with chronic 
physical disabilities: implications for unmet needs for services. 
Assist Technology, 11(2), 105-122.
    Flegal, K.M., Carroll, M.D., Ogden, C.L., & Johnson, C.L. 
(2002). Prevalence and trends in obesity among U.S. adults, 1999-
2000. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2888,1723-1727.

[[Page 6323]]

    Iezzoni, L.I., McCarthy, E.P., Davis, R.B., & Siebens, H. 
(2001). Mobility impairments and use of screening and preventive 
services. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 955-961.
    Kinne, S., Patrick, D.L., & Doyle, D.L. (2004). Prevalence of 
Secondary Conditions Among People With Disabilities. American 
Journal of Public Health, 94(3), 443-445.
    Screening for Obesity in Adults: Recommendations and Rationale 
(November 2003). U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Agency for 
Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. https://www.ahrq.gov/
clinic/3rduspstf/obesity/obesrr.htm.
    Weil, E., Wachterman, M., McCarthy, E., Davis, R., Iezonni, L., 
& Wee, C. (2002). Obesity among adults with disabling conditions. 
Journal of the American Medical Association, 228,1265-1268.

Proposed Priority

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research 
Project (DRRP) on Disability and Obesity: Reducing Obesity and Obesity-
Related Secondary Conditions in Adolescents and Adults with 
Disabilities. Under this priority, the DRRP must be designed to 
contribute to the following outcomes:
    (a) Enhanced understanding of the antecedents and consequences of 
obesity as a secondary condition among adolescents and adults with 
different types of pre-existing physical, sensory, cognitive, and 
behavioral-health impairments.
    (b) Improved obesity screening and diagnosis among adolescents and 
adults with different types of disabilities by developing or testing 
effective screening and diagnostic methods and procedures.
    (c) Improved outcomes for adolescents and adults with disabilities 
with obesity by development or testing of prevention strategies and 
treatments.

Priority 6--Model Systems Knowledge Translation Center (MSKTC)

Background
    NIDRR's Model Systems Programs were originally developed to 
demonstrate the value of a comprehensive integrated continuum of care 
for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI), traumatic brain injury 
(TBI), and burn injury (Burn). Currently, NIDRR's Model Systems 
Programs include 36 centers that conduct or sponsor research activities 
designed to improve rehabilitative and pharmacological interventions 
that can help optimize levels of community participation, employment, 
and overall quality of life for individuals with SCI, TBI, and Burn. 
Research sponsored by the Model Systems Programs has led to a wealth of 
publicly available, retrievable information about SCI, TBI, and Burn. 
Additionally, research conducted by Model Systems Programs grantees has 
advanced knowledge regarding, and led to changes in, clinical practice 
and policy in the fields of SCI, TBI, and Burn.
    The usefulness of NIDRR-funded SCI, TBI, and Burn research and 
development findings and products depends on how well potential users 
can assess the strength and relevance of these findings and products, 
as applied to their particular needs. End-users with limited scientific 
training, in particular, may need assistance in order to understand 
competing research claims or determine the relevance of particular 
findings to their individual situations. In addition, given the nature 
of scientific study, practical information often is based on cumulative 
knowledge, not upon the results of any one study.
    The following proposed priority for an MSKTC is intended to ensure 
that information and products developed and identified through NIDRR-
funded SCI, TBI, and Burn research are of high quality, are based on 
scientifically rigorous research and development, and are disseminated 
effectively. To this end, the proposed priority embraces a newer 
concept, knowledge translation (KT), to shape the effective 
dissemination and utilization of disability and rehabilitation research 
results critical to achieving NIDRR's mission. KT encompasses the 
exchange, synthesis, and ethically sound application of knowledge 
within a complex system of relationships among researchers and users. 
See, for example, the Knowledge Translation Overview of Canadian 
Institutes of Health Research Web site at: https://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/
e/7518.html.
    Acting as a centralized resource center, the proposed MSKTC would 
establish coordinated, collaborative relationships among the three 
Model Systems Programs (i.e., SCI, TBI, and Burn Model Systems 
Programs) to identify effective dissemination strategies and to help 
other Federal agencies and national organizations use new information 
and discoveries emanating from NIDRR-funded SCI, TBI, and Burn 
research.
References
    Knowledge Translation Overview. Canadian Institutes of Health 
Research. 2005, from https://www/cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/7518.html.
    Campbell Collaboration. 2005, from https://
www.campbellcollaboration.org/.
    Cochrane Collaboration. 2005, from https://www.cochrane.org/.
    Department of Education What Works Clearinghouse from https://
www.whatworks.ed.gov/.
    National Rehabilitation Information Center. 2005, from https://
www.naric.com/.
    National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. 
2005, https://www.ncddr.org/.

Proposed Priority

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research 
Project to serve as the Model Systems Knowledge Translation Center 
(MSKTC). Under this priority, the MSKTC must be designed to contribute 
to the following outcomes:
    (a) Enhanced understanding of the quality and relevance of NIDRR's 
Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and Burn Injury 
(Burn) Model Systems Programs' findings. The MSKTC must contribute to 
this outcome by identifying and applying appropriate standards and 
methods for conducting research syntheses. This will allow the Model 
Systems Programs to bridge gaps in evidence-based practice and 
research.
    (b) Enhanced knowledge of advances in SCI, TBI, and Burn research 
among consumers, clinicians, and other end users of such information. 
The MSKTC must contribute to this outcome by (1) identifying effective 
strategies for, and guiding targeted dissemination of, SCI, TBI, and 
Burn Model Systems Programs' findings about available services and 
interventions for individuals with SCI, TBI, and Burn; and (2) 
developing partnerships and collaborating with key constituencies and 
groups conducting similar work.
    (c) Centralization of SCI, TBI, and Burn Model Systems resources 
for effective and uniform dissemination and technical assistance. The 
MSKTC must contribute to this outcome by serving as a centralized 
resource for the SCI, TBI, and Burn Model Systems Centers.

Priority 7--Assistive Technology (AT) Outcomes Research Project

Background
    The Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended (29 U.S.C. 3001 et 
seq.), defines an assistive technology (AT) device as ``any item, piece 
of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially, 
modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve 
functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities'' (29 U.S.C. 
3001(3)(4)). AT serves a broad and diverse range of functional needs 
among people with an expansive range of potentially disabling 
conditions. AT devices and AT services are provided in many contexts,

[[Page 6324]]

including rehabilitation programs, schools, employment programs, and 
residential and independent living programs.
    Current NIDRR-sponsored AT Outcomes Research Projects are creating 
and classifying new outcomes measures to help determine and describe 
the impact that various AT devices and services have on the lives of 
people with disabilities (Jutai, Fuhrer, Demers, Scherer, & DeRuyter, 
2005). While the ability to measure potential outcomes of AT use is 
maturing through this NIDRR-sponsored research, the ability to measure 
key characteristics of AT interventions is still in its infancy.
    To advance AT outcomes research beyond a collection of ad hoc 
evaluations of specific products, it is necessary to develop a commonly 
shared means of classifying all aspects of AT interventions. 
Standardization of intervention measurement would promote the 
replicability of AT interventions that are shown by rigorous research 
to be associated with positive outcomes. A valid classification of AT 
interventions would capture key characteristics of the device or 
device-type being provided, as well as information about key 
characteristics of AT provision, including setting, assessment, fit/
customization, user training, and device maintenance (Fuhrer, 2001; 
Edyburn, 2003).
    In addition to the creation and classification of new outcomes 
measures, current AT Outcomes Research Project grantees have developed 
conceptual frameworks to guide future AT outcomes research (Fuhrer, 
Jutai, Scherer, & DeRuyter, 2003). These grantees have designed 
sophisticated data-collection interfaces to bring new efficiencies to 
the collection of data on AT interventions, key contextual factors, and 
outcomes. To facilitate the development of rigorous evidence-based 
knowledge in the AT field, these conceptual frameworks and data 
collection technologies must be applied more broadly and 
systematically. More systematic application of these tools would allow 
the AT field to move beyond a series of limited ad hoc evaluations of 
single AT products, towards a scientific body of knowledge regarding 
expected outcomes associated with the delivery of a wide variety of AT 
interventions.
References
    Edyburn, D. (2003). Measuring Assistive Technology Outcomes: Key 
Concepts. Journal of Special Education Technology. 18(1): 53-55.
    Fuhrer, M., Jutai, J., Scherer, M., & DeRuyter, F. (2003). ``A 
Framework for the Conceptual Modeling of Assistive Technology Device 
Outcomes.'' Disability and Rehabilitation. 25: 1243-1251.
    Fuhrer, M. (2001). Assistive Technology Outcomes Research: 
Challenges Met and Yet Unmet. American Journal of Physical Medicine 
and Rehabilitation. 80(7): 528-535.
    Jutai, J., Fuhrer, M., Demers, L., Scherer, M., & DeRuyter, F. 
(2005). Toward a Taxonomy of Assistive Technology Device Outcomes. 
American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 84(4): 
294-302.

Proposed Priority

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research 
Project (DRRP) for an Assistive Technology (AT) Outcomes Research 
Project. Under this priority, the DRRP must be designed to contribute 
to the following outcomes:
    (a) Improvement of the AT field's ability to measure the impact of 
AT on the lives of people with disabilities by continuing to develop AT 
outcomes measures and measurement systems.
    (b) Improvement of the AT field's ability to measure the impact of 
AT on the lives of people with disabilities by developing validated 
methods for measuring and classifying AT interventions, including key 
characteristics of both the AT device and AT provision (e.g., setting, 
assessment, fit/customization, user-training, and device maintenance).
    (c) Enhanced understanding of the impact of AT on the lives of 
people with disabilities by conducting at least one research project 
that systematically applies state-of-the-science measures of AT 
interventions, outcomes, and data collections mechanisms.
    (d) Collaboration with the relevant NIDRR-sponsored projects, such 
as the Rehabilitation Research Training Center on Measuring 
Rehabilitation Outcomes and relevant projects within the Rehabilitation 
Engineering Research Center program, as identified through consultation 
with the NIDRR project officer.

Priority 8--Mobility Aids and Wayfinding Technologies for Individuals 
With Blindness and Low Vision

Background
    Three of the most challenging and dangerous problems faced by 
individuals with blindness and low vision are travel related: (1) 
Negotiating complex transit stations; (2) locating bus and metro train 
stops; and (3) crossing light-controlled intersections safely and 
efficiently (Crandall, Bentzen, Myers, & Brablyn, 2001). To address 
these challenges, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
requires that transportation plans and projects include, where 
appropriate, consideration of pedestrian safety issues, including 
installation of audible traffic signals and signs at street crossings 
(23 U.S.C. 217(g)(c)). Our knowledge about the effectiveness of the 
range of technology solutions developed in response to this law and 
other intervention strategies for safety, travel, location, and 
mobility issues is limited, particularly with regard to subpopulations 
within the blind and visually impaired community.
    Navigation and travel related challenges are most often addressed 
by two primary approaches, orientation and mobility (O&M) and 
wayfinding technology solutions. O&M is the conventional approach 
designed to provide instruction and experience in independent travel in 
the community, including the use of public transportation. Orientation 
refers to an individual's ability to monitor his or her position in 
relation to the environment, and mobility refers to an individual's 
ability to travel safely, detecting and avoiding obstacles and other 
potential hazards. Advanced technologies designed to assist individuals 
with blindness and low vision in attaining the body of knowledge 
relative to the location of spaces through which they travel is known 
as wayfinding or ``environmental literacy.'' Whereas many O&M tools, 
such as white canes, are designed to address a traveler's mobility 
safety concerns, wayfinding or environmental literacy tools, such as 
talking signs located at street crossings, are designed to provide a 
traveler with orientation information. Some O&M aids are worn on the 
body and often are designed to detect and identify obstacle features. 
Wayfinding or environmental systems are technologies that are typically 
embedded in the texture of spaces and that provide ``location-based'' 
information (access to some kind of ``knowledge sharing network'' or 
``geographic data base'')--for example, manually activated audible 
pedestrian signals embedded in intersection traffic lights (Baldwin, 
D., 2005).
    Although O&M and wayfinding techniques are widely used by 
individuals with vision loss, there is ongoing controversy about 
whether newly developed wayfinding technologies should supplement 
rather than supplant already accepted O&M aids such as white canes and 
guide dogs. Currently, no empirically based studies examining or 
comparing differences between outcomes for O&M

[[Page 6325]]

users and outcomes for wayfinding technology users exist.
    There is a paucity of sound scientific studies examining the 
effectiveness of both O&M and wayfinding solutions and intervention 
approaches in varied situations, conditions, and functional capacities, 
but the literature that is available identifies specific problems with 
existing technology and supports the need for better wayfinding and O&M 
solutions. For example, bird-call type signals do not provide 
unambiguous information about which crosswalk has the walk interval. 
Signals comprised only of a bird-call and bell do not indicate the 
presence or location of a pedestrian push button and, therefore, do not 
solve one of the most important problems associated with push buttons: 
the difficulty in knowing whether pedestrian action is required 
(Bentzen, Barlow, & Franck, 2000). Although advances have been made to 
address some of these problems, there is no consensus about whether 
available solutions are adequate to address the travel needs of 
individuals with blindness and low vision. Research leading to 
development of innovative and effective solutions that will help 
individuals with blindness and low vision to safely and independently 
navigate their surroundings, and a better understanding of technology 
applications would increase our capacity to improve disability and 
rehabilitation outcomes for these individuals.
References
    Baldwin, D. Navigational Technology Textbook Current Wayfinding 
Technology. Retrieved April 22, 2005, from https://
www.wayfinding.net/iibnNECtextcurrent.htm.
    Bentzen, B.L., Barlow, J.M., & Franck, L., 2000. Addressing 
barriers to blind pedestrians at signalized intersections. Institute 
of Transportation Engineers, 70-9, 32-35.
    Crandall, W., Bentzen, B.L., Myers, L., & Brablyn, J. (2001). 
New orientation and accessibility option for persons with visual 
impairment: Transportation applications for remote infrared audible 
signage. Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 84:3 120-131.
    National Eye Institute https://www.nei.nih.gov/eyedata/ (2004).

Proposed Priority

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research 
Project (DRRP) on Mobility Aids and Wayfinding Technologies for 
Individuals With Blindness and Low Vision. To meet this priority, the 
DRRP must be designed to contribute to the following outcomes:
    (a) Effective technology solutions and intervention approaches that 
can enable blind and low vision individuals to safely and independently 
navigate their surroundings. The DRRP must contribute to this outcome 
by identifying or developing and testing methods, models, and measures 
that will inform the technology solutions and intervention approaches.
    (b) Improved understanding about the effectiveness of wayfinding 
technology and orientation and mobility (O&M) techniques for navigation 
and travel problems. The DRRP must be designed to contribute to this 
outcome by, at a minimum, conducting comparative analysis of outcomes 
for specific subpopulations of individuals with blindness and low 
vision who use O&M techniques and wayfinding technology.
    (c) Increased technical and scientific knowledge about the 
applications of navigation and travel technologies for individuals with 
blindness and low vision, leading to more effective use of technologies 
and intervention strategies, through the development of knowledge 
translation and utilization activities.
    (d) Coordination of research activities. The DRRP must contribute 
to this outcome by collaborating and consulting with relevant Federal 
agencies responsible for the administration of public laws that address 
access to and usability of transportation and transit-related systems 
and environmental structures for individuals with disabilities, such as 
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the 
U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration, 
Federal Transit Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, and relevant NIDRR-funded research projects as 
identified through consultation with the NIDRR project officer.

Priority 9--Improving Employment Outcomes for the Low Functioning Deaf 
(LFD) Population

Background
    Current population estimates indicate that there are approximately 
53 million individuals with disabilities in the United States and an 
estimated 8 million of these individuals are deaf or hard of hearing 
(McNeil, 1994; 1995). The pervasiveness of a hearing problem and its 
impact on every aspect of life, including employment status, is well 
documented (Stika, 1997; Hetu, Lalonde, and Getty, 1994).
    Within the population of individuals who are deaf or hard of 
hearing there is an even smaller sub-population, estimated at between 
125,000 and 165,000 persons referred to as ``low functioning deaf'' 
(LFD). While individuals considered LFD share the primary disability of 
hearing loss, as a group, they also are compromised by a combination of 
environmental risk factors and a lack of appropriate environmental and 
social supports. Most LFD individuals have limited communication 
skills, often are unable to live independently, cannot obtain or 
maintain employment, and exhibit minimal social and emotional 
competency.
    Studies indicate that the functional capacity of individuals who 
are LFD present unique challenges and complications at the individual 
and systems levels. More specifically, significant difficulty with all 
modes of communication, including the limited literacy proficiency that 
characterizes the LFD population (Wheeler-Scruggs, 2002), is a 
potentially important factor in disability and rehabilitation outcomes 
across the lifespan and major life domains for these individuals.
    While several factors influence employment outcomes for the general 
population of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, the LFD 
population is at particular risk for being underserved by 
rehabilitation and vocational training systems. Most LFD individuals 
are inadequately prepared for workforce participation due to limited 
communication abilities and low literacy rates; often LFD adults read 
below the second grade level and are unable to complete high school. 
Additionally, the majority of existing social supports and services are 
targeted to deaf and hard of hearing youth able to participate in 
college and other postsecondary vocational programs where a certain 
level of academic achievement is presumed (National Association for the 
Deaf, 2004). Thus, LFD individuals are at a distinct disadvantage in 
their ability to access and benefit from existing employment and 
vocational services and supports.
    Further, although the literature in this field documents the impact 
of hearing problems on functional outcomes, there is limited 
understanding about the unique employment needs of the LFD population. 
Past research on LFD and employment has not extensively examined the 
various elements of job readiness, job placement, and retention in 
relation to the impact that programs such as Supplemental Security 
Income, Social Security Disability Insurance, and welfare have on long-
term employment outcomes for individuals who are LFD.

[[Page 6326]]

    The complexity of the employment issues facing individuals who are 
LFD presents a unique opportunity for researchers to expand the current 
knowledge base and facilitate development of the most effective 
methods, approaches, and intervention strategies to improve employment 
outcomes for the LFD population (Dew, 1999). Research is needed to 
inform policy, program planning, and development activities and to 
assist with improving systems and individual level outcomes for the LFD 
population.
References
    Dew, Donald. Serving Individuals Who Are Low Functioning Deaf. 
25th Institute on Rehabilitation Issues, The George Washington 
University, Washington DC, 1999.
    Hetu, R., Lalonde, M., & Getty, L. (1987). Psychosocial 
disadvantages associated with occupational hearing loss as 
experienced by the family. Audiology, 26, 141-152.
    McNeil J.M. ``Americans with disabilities, 1994--95''. 
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 
1997. (Current population reports; series P70, no. 61).
    National Association for the Deaf, 2004. LFD Strategic Work 
Group (2004). A Model for a National Collaborative Service Delivery 
System: Position Paper. Washington DC. Retrieved from NAD Web site: 
https://www.nad.org/lfd.
    Stika, C.J. (1997). Living with hearing loss--focus group 
results: Family relationships and social interactions. Hearing Loss, 
September/October, November/December.
    Wheeler-Scruggs, K. Assessing the employment and independence of 
people who are deaf and low functioning. American Annals of the 
Deaf, October, 2002.

Proposed Priority

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services proposes a priority for a Disability Rehabilitation Research 
Project (DRRP) on Improving Employment Outcomes for the Low Functioning 
Deaf (LFD) Population. Under this priority, the DRRP must be designed 
to contribute to the following outcomes:
    (a) Enhanced knowledge about the unique functional and 
communication characteristics of the LFD population and the extent to 
which these characteristics affect disability and rehabilitation 
outcomes, including labor force participation and employment 
preparation. The DRRP must contribute to this outcome by developing and 
testing protocols that accurately measure population characteristics; 
and psychometrically sound instruments that measure predictors of 
disability, rehabilitation, and employment outcomes.
    (b) Improved employment outcomes and reduction of barriers to labor 
force participation for individuals who are LFD. The DRRP must 
contribute to this outcome by developing theory-based intervention 
strategies and methods that help to enhance functional skills, social 
interaction, communication and literacy competencies, and 
scientifically-sound approaches for identifying barriers to labor force 
participation.
    (c) Collaboration with NIDRR-sponsored projects, including the 
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC) on Measuring 
Rehabilitation Outcomes and other relevant projects within NIDRR's RRTC 
and Field Initiated programs.

Priority 10--Disability Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs)

Background
    The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 
12101 et seq. (ADA), prohibits discrimination against individuals with 
disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodations, 
State and local government services, and telecommunications. Since 
1991, NIDRR has supported 10 regional DBTACs that have provided 
technical assistance and training and disseminated information on the 
requirements of the ADA to entities covered by the law and individuals 
with disabilities. The current regional DBTACs provide information and 
services on ADA issues relating to employment, public services, and 
public accommodations, and communicate with businesses, public 
organizations, architects, individuals with disabilities, disability 
organizations, and others on the law's requirements (see https://
www.adata.org/centers.htm for a current listing of the DBTACs). Each 
DBTAC's activities vary, but all regional DBTACs provide technical 
assistance and training, disseminate materials, provide information and 
referral services, build public awareness, and work to build local 
capacity to promote technical assistance and training on the ADA. 
DBTACs provide their services via telephone calls (including toll-free 
``800'' number calls), the World Wide Web, workshops and other training 
sessions. Services provided by DBTACs in 2004 included providing 
training on employment issues for State human resource personnel; 
collaborating with a State agency to develop an ADA ref