Publication Year: 2010
Report Prepared for
The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center
On Vocational Rehabilitation
Institute for Community Inclusion
University of Massachusetts, Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd.
Boston, MA 02125
Prepared by
Robert “Bobby” Silverstein, J.D.
POWERS PYLES SUTTER & VERVILLE, P.C.
1501 M Street, N.W., 7th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Bobby.Silverstein@ppsv.com
In Partnership with
The Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation
JANUARY 11, 2010
This paper was funded, in part, by a grant (Grant No. H133VO70001B) from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) and the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA). The opinions contained in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of NIDRR, RSA or any other office or agency of the U.S. Department of Education.
PURPOSES OF THE POLICY ANALYSIS
The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS), U.S. Department of Education, in announcing the funding opportunity for the Rehabilitation and Research Training Center (RRTC) on vocational rehabilitation, specified that the RRTC must focus on increasing knowledge of the order of selection provision used for prioritizing and providing services to individuals with the most significant disabilities when the State VR agency cannot serve all eligible individuals with disabilities under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act. The RRTC must contribute to this outcome by conducting research on the administration and implementation of the order of selection requirement.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the key policy elements included in the order of selection requirement and then analyze how the various states address each element. It is my expectation that this paper will help inform policymakers and other stakeholders about the OOS federal policy framework and policies currently used by states. It is not the purpose of this policy analysis to determine or judge the merits of any particular state policy and thus the descriptions of state policies included in this paper should not be construed as constituting “best practices”
