Improving Educational Outcomes for Students with Disabilities
Program Solicitation
NCD-06-02
National Council on Disability
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. offeror's local time):
May 1, 2006
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
General Information
Program Title:
Improving Educational Outcomes for Students with Disabilities
Synopsis of Program:
NCD is seeking researchers who will conduct a formal evaluation of the implementation of both the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Thanks to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its push for increased access to education for students with disabilities, and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), with its push for improved student outcomes, educators across the U.S. are reexamining their practices to find ways to close the achievement gaps between groups of students. Students with disabilities are a focus of this attention, as schools and states labor to improve their academic outcomes. Policymakers are studying both the reauthorization of IDEA and the ongoing implementation of NCLBA to determine the most effective means for serving students with disabilities. At the beginning of fiscal year 2006, ample time has passed since passage of NCLBA and the reauthorization of IDEA for this research to be undertaken.
Designated Project Officer(s):
Martin Gould, Ed.D., Director of Research and Technology, National Council on Disability,
1331 F. St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004, telephone: 202-272-2112, email: mgould@ncd.gov
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
Not applicable
Eligibility Information
Organization Limit: None Specified.
PI Eligibility Limit: None Specified.
Limit on Number of Proposals: None Specified.
Award Information
Anticipated Type of Award: Cooperative Agreement
Estimated Number of Awards: 1
Anticipated Funding Amount: $125,000
Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: This solicitation contains complete information.
Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
B. Budgetary Information
Cost Sharing Requirements: Cost Sharing is not required by NCD.
Indirect Cost Limitations: Not Applicable.
Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations do not apply.
C. Due Dates
Full Proposal Deadline Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. offeror's local time):
May 1, 2006
Proposal Review Information
Review Criteria: National Council on Disability approved criteria. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Award Administration Information
Award Conditions: No additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Reporting Requirements: Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary of Program Requirements
I. Introduction
II. Program Description
III. Eligibility Information
IV. Award Information
V. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
VI. Proposal Review Information
VII. Award Administration Information
VIII.Contacts for Additional Information
IX. About the National Council on Disability
I. INTRODUCTION
This solicitation is for proposals that addresses NCD’s primary interest in undertaking a follow-up to its 2004 paper Improving Educational Outcomes for Students with Disabilities.
II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
NCD expects that this research and report will be used by policymakers and the public to refine and strengthen the ongoing implementation of the two laws, and serve as one source for data based decision making by educational leaders and policymakers during the current phase of implementation of the two laws, as well as during the next cycle of reauthorization of the federal laws.
Background
In 2004, the National Council on Disability (NCD) conducted research exploring how attitudes and expectations for students with disabilities were changing as a result of NCLBA and the impact of IDEA. In addition, NCD’s 2004 assessed the status of evidenced-based research that produced outcomes for students with disabilities.
The findings of that 2004 NCD research revealed that, overall, there was strong support for increasing expectations for students with disabilities and helping them to improve their academic outcomes. At the same time, there was concern about how states and schools will manage this process, largely as a function of lack of knowledge of effective interventions and strategies. At times there appeared to be some lack of will to undertake the difficult change, and fall back on excuses, but findings reveal a hope that these laws and policies will result in more equitable outcomes for students with disabilities.
Many research respondents indicated that the focus on closing the achievement gap for certain student groups, such as students with disabilities, was a very laudable and necessary goal. One of the main messages was to change the low expectations people have for students with disabilities.
Findings also showed a great deal of concern about how educators will respond to the possible poor performance by students with disabilities on standardized assessments and high stakes tests. The pressure to meet adequate yearly performance (AYP) and the use of high stakes tests to measure it was leaving states and districts with little time to think constructively how best to do that. Fears existed that high stakes tests may have a disproportionate impact on students with disabilities. Unfortunately, at that time, there was no data to indicate whether high stakes tests would increase the rate of dropout by students with disabilities, but there certainly was an identified need for more study.
There were also concerns about how states and schools would handle measuring adequate yearly performance (AYP) for subgroups of students with disabilities and whether they could “game” the system by setting unrealistically high subgroup levels that most schools will not meet, and therefore won’t have to report performance numbers. Others felt that a particular school could be punished for low scores in a subgroup, and administrators fear including students with disabilities.
One other concern expressed by several respondents was the limited focus on measuring academic skills because of the assessments required by NCLBA. Particularly for students with disabilities, respondents indicated that it was important to find ways to allow them to express their abilities in various ways, and they also benefit greatly from developing workplace competencies.
The role of school leadership and teacher qualifications was also explored. Not surprisingly, respondents noted that when school leaders had the vision and commitment to increase expectations for students with disabilities, the teachers and staff held similar views and were supported in their efforts to change teaching to help individualized needs students achieve.
A number of issues were raised regarding teachers. It was mentioned by several respondents that the push for highly qualified teachers is needed and that improved outcomes for students with disabilities should result from a better teaching force. But the logistical issues of finding and training those teachers is a difficult reality faced by schools.
The types of assessments and accommodations used for students with disabilities are also under review by school leaders. They are working to align assessment accommodations and instructional accommodations and align all of that with the standards – very time consuming and difficult work. Others saw value in more frequent assessments of students, saying [A]ssessments are fundamental to education reform in this country, whether a regular assessment or high-stakes test. NCLB does not necessarily require a high-stakes test, it is an accountability test—not necessarily the same thing. It is forcing the question of how to test and assess. But a final concern was expressed about the misuse of assessments, If students with disabilities aren’t accommodated or there aren’t alternative assessments, school scores will be affected. If so, the school will figure out a creative way of counting these kids out or the kids will choose to leave.
Need for Current Research
As a follow-up to its 2004 paper Improving Educational Outcomes for Students with Disabilities, NCD will conduct a formal evaluation of the implementation of both the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Thanks to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its push for increased access to education for students with disabilities, and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), with its push for improved student outcomes, educators across the U.S. are reexamining their practices to find ways to close the achievement gaps between groups of students. Students with disabilities are a focus of this attention, as schools and states labor to improve their academic outcomes. Policymakers are studying both the reauthorization of IDEA and the ongoing implementation of NCLBA to determine the most effective means for serving students with disabilities. At the beginning of fiscal year 2006, ample time has passed since passage of NCLBA and the reauthorization of IDEA for this research to be undertaken.
NCD is commissioning this study to determine how the federal laws are working, what outcomes children and youth with disabilities are achieving, and how the educational system can be improved in the context of current education reform initiatives. It is useful to understand the common assumptions underlying the laws, and the expectations that individuals have concerning the laws and its associated regulations. NCD believes that the following elements exist for understanding and implementing the NCLBA and IDEA:
The laws promote assessment and accountability systems to for students’ and/or schools’ performance and results.
The laws enhance the opportunities for students to learning the skill that are needed in the general curriculum, such as reading and mathematics.
The laws will enhance the capacity for all students to achieve positive academic outcomes.
The laws will enhance the opportunities for teaching personnel to attain necessary levels of competency in key instructional areas.
More specifically, this study will investigate: (a) how much student achievement status has changed since the laws were (re)authorized; (b) whether and to what extent student achievement growth has changed since the laws were implemented; (c) the impact of the laws on the achievement status and growth of students by diversity group; (d) the impact of the laws on assessment systems, accountability systems, and systems of personnel development; (e) which barriers are impeding the achievement of students with disabilities, and how to overcome those barriers; (f) what barriers are impeding the meaningful participation of parents and families in their sons’/daughters’ educational programs, and how to overcome those barriers; and (g) what cultural and socio-economic factors are adversely affecting desired outcomes.
Suggested Approach
The methodology used for this project will, of necessity, combine quantitative and qualitative features. For example, to investigate the impact of the laws on the achievement status and growth of students by diversity group under NCLB and IDEA, researchers could assess quantitative student outcomes data, testing scores, or assessment results. To investigate what barriers are impeding the meaningful participation of parents and families in their sons’/daughters’ educational programs, and how to overcome those barriers, researchers could obtain qualitative information through parent interviews or focus groups. It is up to individual offerors, however, to carefully develop the framework and procedural approach they will follow to conduct the following required project research activities.
The range of research activities necessary for this project will include, but not be limited to: (a) interviews with a range of stakeholders including key Departmental managers and staff, Congressional staff members, national and state community leaders, students with disabilities and family members; (b) reviews of federal and state educational data systems for NCLBA and IDEA; (c) examinations of all relevant Departmental reports, memos, policy guidance, etc. as well as all relevant Congressional testimony, reports, etc.; (d) other pertinent materials, such as federal and state case law; (e) federal and state education agencies’ technical assistance activities related to NCLBA and IDEA; (f) federal and state level professional development and management activities related to NCLBA and IDEA; (g) federal and state level in-service and pre-service efforts related to NCLBA and IDEA; (h) federal and state level knowledge transfer and diffusion activities related to NCLBA and IDEA; and (i) monitoring and enforcement of NCLBA and IDEA by the federal government and states.
III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
The categories of proposers identified at grants.gov Guide are eligible to submit proposals under this project announcement/solicitation. This project is open to all potential bidders.
IV. AWARD INFORMATION
Pending the availability of funds, NCD expects to make 1 award with an anticipated funding amount of $125,000 from FY 2006 funds which will be available for this project.
V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
Due Dates
Proposals must be submitted by the following date(s):
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):
May 1, 2006
The proposal must be prepared in two parts: A 'Technical Proposal' and a 'Business Proposal.'Each of the parts shall be separate and complete in itself so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently of evaluation of the other. The technical proposal must not contain reference to cost; however, resource information, such as data concerning labor hours and categories, materials, subcontracts, etc., must be contained in the technical proposal so that your understanding of the scope of the work may be evaluated. It must disclose your technical approach in sufficient detail to provide a clear and concise presentation that includes, but is not limited to, the requirements of the technical proposal instructions.
The proposal must be signed by an official authorized to bind your organization. You must submit an original and 8 copies of your technical proposal and an original and 4 copies of your business proposal, including an electronic file copy of the technical and business proposal,to:
National Council on Disability
1331 F Street, N.W., Suite 850
Washington, DC 20004-1107
You may, at your discretion, submit alternate proposals, or proposals which deviate from the requirements; PROVIDED, that you also submit a proposal for performance of the work, as specified in the statement of work. These proposals may be considered if overall performance would be improved or not compromised and if they are in the best interest of the Government. Alternate proposals, or deviations from any requirements of this RFP, must be clearly identified.
The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in Section M of this request for proposals.
It is understood that your proposal will become part of the official contract file.
The solicitation does not commit the Government to pay any cost for the preparation and submission of a proposal.
To assist you in the preparation of your proposal, the Government estimates the effort to perform this contract to be as stated below. These numbers are furnished for the offeror’s information only and are not considered restrictive for proposal purposes.
Labor Category Staff Hours
1. PROFESSIONAL 1800
2. CLERICAL 500
Proposals which merely offer to conduct a program in accordance with the requirements of the Government’s scope of work will not be eligible for award. You must submit an explanation of the proposed technical approach in conjunction with the tasks to be performed in achieving the project objectives.
A detailed work plan must be submitted indicating how each aspect of the statement of work is to be accomplished. Your technical approach should be in as much detail as your consider necessary to fully explain your proposed technical approach or method. The technical proposal should reflect a clear understanding of the nature of the work being undertaken.
The technical proposal must include information on how the project is to be organized, staffed, and managed. Information should be provided which will demonstrate your understanding and management of important events or tasks. You must explain how the management and coordination of consultant and/or subcontractor efforts will be accomplished.
The technical proposal must include a list of names and proposed duties of the professional personnel, consultants, and key subcontractor employees assigned to the project. Their resumes should be included and should contain information on education, background, recent experience, and specific requirement related or technical accomplishments. The approximate percentage of time each individual will be available for this project must be included. The proposed staff hours for each of the above individuals should be allocated against each task or subtask for the project.
The technical proposal must provide the general background, experience, and qualifications of the organization. Similar or related contracts, subcontracts, or grants should be included and contain the name of the customer, contract or grant number, dollar amount, time of performance, and the names and telephone numbers of the contracting officer’s technical representative or project officer and contracting/grants officer.
The technical proposal must contain a discussion of present or proposed facilities and equipment which will be used in the performance of the contract.
The technical proposal must be prepared and submitted in the following format:
1. Abstract (no more than 2 pages)
A two-page summary shall be provided abstracting the proposal contents (e.g., objectives, activities, expected outcomes) in language understandable to an informed layperson. The narrative should be limited to no more than 250 words.
2. Table of Contents
3. Introduction (no more than 20 pages)
Offerors shall summarize, in their own words, the purposes and objectives of the project to demonstrate their complete understanding of NCD’s intent and requirements. This section also should contain a specific statement of any interpretations, questions, qualifications, limitations, deviations, or exceptions to the Solicitation's scope of work and the extent to which the offeror’s proposal can be expected to meet the requirements set forth in the scope of work.
4. Procedural Plan (no more than 40 pages)
This section shall fully describe the theoretical and technical approaches the offeror will employ in complying with each task in the scope of work. While a general statement of strategy is appropriate, the offeror shall be specific in describing the manner in which the overall review will be conducted, and the intended approach to the design.
5. Management Plan and Schedule (no more than 15 pages)
The management plan shall show the feasibility of implementing the offeror’s resources. The offeror shall present a time chart that specifies the amount of time (in person days) each staff member will commit to implementing each task. The plan shall present a clear description of the working relationships among personnel. Finally, the plan shall contain a method for insuring the timely and successful completion of each work task.
6. Personnel
Personnel with major responsibilities shall be listed by name, title, position, academic background, relevant experience, responsibilities with the project, and the extent to which this commitment is assured. This section should include specific time commitments of staff to other projects, both Federal and non-Federal. Consultants who have agreed to serve on the project should be similarly identified and assurances of their commitment included. The Project Director shall be committed for no less than approximately 60 percent of the contract. Vitae for all principal personnel, including consultants, should be appended to the proposal. Each vitae should be limited to not more than two (2) pages and should emphasize areas of experience directly relevant to this work statement.
7. Organization Experience
This section shall describe the offeror’s pertinent experience and qualification in conducting work of a similar nature. Offerors shall offer evidence of not more than 5 previous related assignments, including the names and telephone numbers of client project offices who would be able to comment on the offeror’s performance of those assignments. Summaries (not to exceed one page) of related work shall be included. References to products resulting from these related activities shall also be included.
8. Resources/Facilities/Equipment
This section shall identify those resources (other than personnel), facilities, and equipment (e.g., library holdings, computer hardware, and software) available for use in conducting this project. Offeror should address accessibility for persons with disabilities.
9. Current Contractual Obligations
Each offeror will be required to outline both Federal and non-Federal contractual obligations existing during the course of his award for all projects involving personnel who will be assigned to this project. Such organizations/agencies must be identified by name and the percentage of work time allotted to these projects by personnel committed to the proposed project must be provided.
10. Issues and Associated Data Items
When responding to the Tasks, when identifying what should receive emphasis, careful consideration should be given to the issues identified, their associated data items, and the statement of products desired in the Final Report.
All information provided by NCD must be returned to NCD upon completion of the analysis and no later than 10 working days after the completion of the contract. The information may not be reproduced or released without the prior written permission of the NCD contracting officer.
11. Rights in Data, Copyright, and Disclosure
a. Data – The term data as used here includes written reports (progress, draft, and final), electronic format and work of any similar nature that is required under this contract. It does not include the contractor’s financial reports, or other information incidental to contractor administration. Data submitted to and accepted by the NCD under this contract shall be the property of the NCD, and NCD shall have full and unlimited rights to use such data for any purpose in whatever manner deemed desirable and appropriate, including making it available to the general public. Such use shall be without any additional payment to the contractor. Data may be published as the property of NCD without giving authorship to the contractor.
b. Copyright – The contractor relinquishes any and all copyrights and/or privileges developed under this contract. The contractor shall not include in the data any copyrightable matter without the written approval of NCD, unless the contractor provides the NCD with the written permission of the copyright owner for the NCD to use the matter.
c. Disclosure – The contractor agrees not to divulge or release any information, reports or recommendations developed or obtained in connection with the performance of this contract, and not otherwise available to the public, without the prior approval of the NCD.
The Government will make award to the responsible offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the Government, cost or price and other factors considered. For this solicitation, technical quality is more important than cost or price. As proposals become more equal in their technical merit, the evaluated cost or price becomes more important. As the technical merit and the evaluated cost or price become essentially equal, other factors may become a determining factor.
Technical Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation criteria will score proposals with a maximum of 100 points, divided as follows:
1. A clear understanding of the nature of the work (20 points)
The proposal presents a clear understanding of the importance of national disability performance indicators and data relating to people with disabilities. The proposal will present the rationale/interpretation of the project approach.
2. Procedural Plan (30 points)
The proposal contains evidence of a fully described technical approach to comply with each of the tasks in the scope of work. The proposal is consistent with the goals, objectives, compliance requirements, and is practical in terms of producing needed information, analysis and recommendations on how implementation of the relevant laws may be improved through better legal enforcement and increased public information.
3. Management Plan and Schedule (20 points)
The degree to which the project team, including any use of consultants, is organized, managed, and motivated to accomplish effective and efficient implementation of all tasks to be completed. The proposal budget is appropriate to the administration of the project. The time frame is realistic. Plans and schedules to assure smooth cooperation with the NCD staff involved are evident. The proposal clearly identifies who will be key personnel and includes a table showing the number of person-days by tasks for each of the key personnel.
4. Personnel (15 points)
The proposal provides evidence of the specific qualifications and skills of staff and consultants to be assigned to this project, and their experience and familiarity with the topic, including relevant laws, regulations, procedures and practices in the Federal Government. Skills in writing, and conducting research should also be demonstrated clearly.
5. Organizational Experience (15 points)
The degree to which the overall experience and past performance of the offeror in executing similar projects should be described. Evidence of related assignments should be detailed. Offeror shall present evidence of related assignments, including the names and telephone numbers of previous project officers who would be able to comment on the offeror’s performance of those assignments.
Project Start Date
The projected start of the contract is May 15, 2006. There are several deliverables required, namely: A complete research synthesis, results of interview and focus group findings, and compilation of governmental accountability and assessment systems. In addition, the first complete draft of the report is due to NCD by April 25, 2007. The final draft of the report is due to NCD by May 31, 2007.
Furthermore, the vendor will be expected to conduct monthly teleconference calls with NCD staff and board members, will provide monthly progress reports to NCD staff, and will also be expected to meet with select NCD staff and Board Members upon the awarding of the contract.
Finally, the vendor is expected to develop and submit a “timeline and deliverables and payment schedule” chart which will be used to guide the conduct of the research.
Formatting Requirements for NCD Reports
If you are drafting a written report for the National Council on Disability (NCD), you must submit your material in hard copy and WordPerfect. In addition, you must adhere to NCD's format standards. They are:
FONTS
Use Times New Roman, 12 points.
MARGINS
Use standard one inch (1") margins on all sides.
PARAGRAPHS
Begin paragraphs with a 5-space margin tab from the left margin (use the tab key rather than the indent function key). Text should be in single column format with the copy justified left. Leave a double space between paragraphs.
PARAGRAPH HEADERS
Paragraph headers between major subject areas are encouraged. Headers should be bold, but not underlined. Headers may be all caps, if desired. Double space between headers and text.
Subparagraph Headers
To set off material within a paragraph, please use “bullets” rather than dashes. Bullets should be two spaces from the margin, with text material following indented five spaces from
the margin. To indent text, please use the indent function key. DO NOT use the space bar to indent text as this causes problems when material is merged by computer into a single document.
LINE SPACING
Set line spacing to 1.5. Reference sections should be single spaced.
FOOTNOTES
Use footnotes, not endnotes.
EDITING TIPS
Comma Use the serial comma before the conjunction in a series. A comma should always be used before “and” or “but” in a compound sentence. Use commas to set off nonrestrictive clauses beginning with “which.”
Indents/Tabs If indenting the first word in a paragraph, use the margin tab key. If indenting lines of text, e.g., text following a “bullet,” use the indent function key. DO NOT SPACE-IN TO INDENT TEXT, this causes problems if the format is subsequently changed.
Federal Government Use initial caps in “Federal Government.” Use lower case for “federal” and “state.”
Disability When referring to disability, use “disability,” not “disabled” or “handicapped.” When referring to a specific disability, refer to the person first, the disability second, such as “a person who is blind,” not “a blind person.”
Abbreviations Use abbreviations after the first use, such as “National Council on Disability (NCD).” Thereafter, use “NCD,” not “the NCD.”
Em-dash Use an em-dash instead of double hyphens, with no space separating the words.
SAMPLE REPORT FORMAT
An example of the organization and format that should be used by the contractor in preparing and transmitting the final copy of the report is NCD’s Reconstructing Fair Housing which was issued on November, 2001.
VI. PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION
Reviews of proposals submitted to NCD are solicited from peers with expertise in the substantive area of the proposed project. These reviewers are selected by NCD Staff charged with the oversight of the review process. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts with the proposer. Special efforts are made to recruit reviewers from non-academic institutions, minority-serving institutions, or adjacent disciplines to that principally addressed in the proposal.
In addition to external peer review, proposals will be evaluated both for their contribution to a systems level understanding of national indicator systems and statistics and data collection programs related to people with disabilities.
All proposals are carefully reviewed by at least three other persons outside NCD who are experts in the particular field represented by the proposal. Proposals submitted in response to this announcement/solicitation will be reviewed by Ad Hoc and/or panel review.
Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.
A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. The proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.
VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by the designated NCD Project Officer. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible. Verbatim copies of reviews, not included identifying names or information about proposal reviewers, will be made available upon request to the designated NCD Project Officer.
VIII. CONTACTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
General inquiries regarding this program should be made to the designated NCD Project Officer:
Martin Gould, Ed.D. telephone: 202-272-2112 email: mgould@ncd.gov
IX. ABOUT THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY
Overview and Purpose
The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent federal agency with 15 members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The purpose of NCD is to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities regardless of the nature or significance of the disability and to empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society.
Specific Duties
The current statutory mandate of NCD includes the following:
• Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, policies, programs, practices, and procedures concerning individuals with disabilities conducted or assisted by federal departments and agencies, including programs established or assisted under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, or under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, as well as all statutes and regulations pertaining to federal programs that assist such individuals with disabilities, to assess the effectiveness of such policies, programs, practices, procedures, statutes, and regulations in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities.
• Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, new and emerging disability policy issues affecting individuals with disabilities in the Federal Government, at the state and local government levels, and in the private sector, including the need for and coordination of adult services, access to personal assistance services, school reform efforts and the impact of such efforts on individuals with disabilities, access to health care, and policies that act as disincentives for individuals to seek and retain employment.
• Making recommendations to the President, Congress, the Secretary of Education, the director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and other officials of federal agencies about ways to better promote equal opportunity, economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society for Americans with disabilities.
• Providing Congress, on a continuing basis, with advice, recommendations, legislative proposals, and any additional information that NCD or Congress deems appropriate.
• Gathering information about the implementation, effectiveness, and impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.).
• Advising the President, Congress, the commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the assistant secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services within the Department of Education, and the director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research on the development of the programs to be carried out under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
• Providing advice to the commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration with respect to the policies and conduct of the administration.
• Making recommendations to the director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research on ways to improve research, service, administration, and the collection, dissemination, and implementation of research findings affecting people with disabilities.
• Providing advice regarding priorities for the activities of the Interagency Disability Coordinating Council and reviewing the recommendations of this council for legislative and administrative changes to ensure that such recommendations are consistent with NCD’s purpose of promoting the full integration, independence, and productivity of individuals with disabilities.
• Preparing and submitting to the President and Congress an annual report titled National Disability Policy: A Progress Report.
International
In 1995, NCD was designated by the Department of State to be the U.S. government’s official contact point for disability issues. Specifically, NCD interacts with the special rapporteur of the United Nations Commission for Social Development on disability matters.
Consumers Served and Current Activities
Although many government agencies deal with issues and programs affecting people with disabilities, NCD is the only federal agency charged with addressing, analyzing, and making recommendations on issues of public policy that affect people with disabilities regardless of age, disability type, perceived employment potential, economic need, specific functional ability, veteran status, or other individual circumstance. NCD recognizes its unique opportunity to facilitate independent living, community integration, and employment opportunities for people with disabilities by ensuring an informed and coordinated approach to addressing the concerns of people with disabilities and eliminating barriers to their active participation in community and family life.
NCD plays a major role in developing disability policy in America. In fact, NCD originally proposed what eventually became the ADA. NCD’s present list of key issues includes improving personal assistance services, promoting health care reform, including students with disabilities in high-quality programs in typical neighborhood schools, promoting equal employment and community housing opportunities, monitoring the implementation of the ADA, improving assistive technology, and ensuring that people with disabilities who are members of diverse cultures fully participate in society.
Statutory History
NCD was established in 1978 as an advisory board within the Department of Education (P.L. 95-602). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-221) transformed NCD into an independent agency.
Location:
National Council on Disability
1331 F Street, NW,
Suite 850
Washington, DC 20004
For General Information:
202-272-2004 Voice
202-272-2074 TTY
202-272-2022 Fax
www.ncd.gov
|
