Description: Tags: 060500b

Monday,
June 5, 2000
Part IV
Department of
Education
34 CFR Part 361
The State Vocational Rehabilitation
Services Program; Final Rule
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 14:27 Jun 02, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\05JNR3.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 05JNR3
35792 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Pursuant to section 106(a)(3) of the of program performance that facilitate
Act and Executive Order 12866, which the accomplishment of the purpose and
34 CFR Part 361 encourages Federal agencies to facilitate policy of the VR program. (3) The
meaningful participation in the Secretary develops the evaluation
RIN 1820–AB14 regulatory development process, the standards and performance indicators
Secretary, through the Rehabilitation with input from State VR agencies (or
The State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) of the the designated State unit), related
Services Program U.S. Department of Education professional and consumer
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and (Department)—(1) consulted with the organizations, recipients of VR services,
Rehabilitative Services, Department of rehabilitation community during the and other interested parties. (4) Each
Education. development of the evaluation designated State unit (DSU) must report
standards and performance indicators; to the Secretary after the end of each
ACTION: Final regulations.
(2) published a ‘‘notice of intent to fiscal year the extent to which it is in
SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulate’’ to solicit comments on the compliance with the evaluation
regulations governing The State development of the proposed evaluation standards and performance indicators.
Vocational Rehabilitation Services standards and performance indicators; (5) The Secretary provides technical
Program (VR program). These (3) held a public meeting to discuss assistance to any DSU that performs
amendments are needed to implement several issues related to the below the established evaluation
changes in the Rehabilitation Act of development of proposed evaluation standards and develops jointly with the
1973, as amended (Act). These changes standards and performance indicators; DSU a program improvement plan
establish evaluation standards and (4) discussed the development of the outlining the specific actions to be taken
performance indicators for the VR proposed indicators on numerous by the DSU to improve program
program. occasions with various members of the performance. (6) If a DSU that performs
rehabilitation community; and (5) below the established evaluation
DATES: These regulations are effective published for review and comment a standards fails to enter into a program
July 5, 2000. notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) improvement plan, or is not complying
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for this program in the Federal Register, substantially with the terms and
Beverlee Stafford, Policy, Planning and 63 FR 55292 (October 14, 1998). In conditions of such a program
Evaluation Service, Rehabilitation response to the NPRM, we received 62 improvement plan, the Secretary
Services Administration, U.S. comments, each of which we reviewed reduces or makes no further payments
Department of Education, 400 Maryland and considered in the development of under the VR program to the DSU until
Avenue, SW., room 3014 Mary E. the final regulations. These final the DSU has entered into an approved
Switzer Building, Washington, DC regulations reflect the input received program improvement plan or is
20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 205– through these efforts. complying substantially with the terms
8831. These final regulations amend 34 CFR and conditions of such a program
Individuals with disabilities may part 361, which contains the VR improvement plan. (7) The Secretary
obtain this document in an alternate program regulations, by adding a provides an annual report to Congress
format (e.g., Braille, large print, Subpart E entitled ‘‘Evaluation containing an analysis of program
audiotape, or computer diskette) on Standards and Performance Indicators.’’ performance, including relative State
request to Katie Mincey, Director of the These final regulations implement performance, based on the evaluation
Alternate Format Center, at (202) 205– certain requirements of the standards and performance indicators.
8113. Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 The NPRM contained two evaluation
If you use a telecommunications (1992 Amendments), Pub. L. 102–569 standards, each of which had at least
device for the deaf (TDD), you may call (October 29, 1992), and the two or more implementing performance
the Federal Information Relay Service Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 indicators by which to measure DSU
(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to reach (1998 Amendments), which are in Title performance. The NPRM also contained
either Beverlee Stafford or Katie IV of the Workforce Investment Act of specific proposed performance levels for
Mincey. 1998 (WIA), Pub. L. 105–220 (August 7, each indicator that identified the
1998). The 1992 Amendments added minimum level of performance that a
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The VR section 106 to part A of Title I of the DSU would need to achieve to pass a
program is authorized by Title I of the Act, which requires the Secretary to given indicator. Under the NPRM, a
Act (29 U.S.C. 701–751). This program establish and publish evaluation DSU would have had to pass a
provides support to assist States in standards and performance indicators. minimum of five of the seven proposed
operating a comprehensive, The 1998 Amendments modified performance indicators, including at
coordinated, effective, efficient, and section 106 of the Act to require that, to least two of the three proposed primary
accountable program to assess, plan, the maximum extent practicable, the VR indicators, for Evaluation Standard 1
develop, and provide vocational standards and indicators be consistent and both proposed performance
rehabilitation (VR) services to with the core indicators of performance indicators for Evaluation Standard 2.
individuals with disabilities to enable (Core Indicators) established under These final regulations contain a
them to prepare for and engage in section 136(b) of WIA. limited number of significant changes to
gainful employment, consistent with Section 106 of the Act also includes, what we proposed in the NPRM. These
their strengths, resources, priorities, among other things, the following changes are based on both public
concerns, abilities, capabilities, and requirements: (1) The Secretary comment and interdepartmental review.
informed choice. Section 106 of the Act establishes and publishes in the Federal A detailed description of these changes
requires that the Secretary establish and Register evaluation standards and is contained in the ‘‘Analysis of
publish evaluation standards and performance indicators for the VR Comments and Changes’’ section. In
performance indicators for the program. program. (2) The evaluation standards addition, we reviewed and revised the
These final regulations implement that and performance indicators must final regulations in accordance with the
requirement. include outcome and related measures Department’s ‘‘Principles for
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 35793
Regulating,’’ which were developed as have been eligible to enroll in a medical Definition of ‘‘Service Rate’’
part of the Administration’s regulatory insurance program. Because we have Comments: Two commenters
reinvention initiative under the deleted proposed Performance Indicator requested clarification of this term.
‘‘National Performance Review II.’’ The 1.7 (for reasons discussed later in this These commenters stated that it was not
principles are designed to ensure that preamble), a definition of the term ‘‘full- clear whether the computation would be
we regulate in the most flexible, most time employment’’ is no longer based on the rate services are accessed
equitable, and least burdensome way necessary. or the rate employment outcomes are
possible. Changes: We have deleted the
achieved.
proposed definition. Discussion: The term ‘‘service rate’’
Analysis of Comments and Changes
Definition of ‘‘Individuals From a reflects the rate at which services were
In response to our invitation in the
Minority Background’’ received by individuals who exited the
NPRM, we received 62 comments on the
Comments: None. VR program and is not based on the rate
proposed regulations. Our analysis of
Discussion: We have adopted the at which the individuals achieve
the comments and of the changes in the
designations mandated by the Office of employment. (The response to
regulations since publication of the
Management and Budget (OMB) for comments regarding Performance
NPRM follows.
reporting and recording race and Indicator 2.1 includes an expanded
We group major issues according to
ethnicity, as mandated in the ‘‘Revisions discussion of this issue.)
subject under appropriate sections of
to the Standards for the Classification of The numerator for the service rate
the regulations. We discuss other
Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity’’ calculation is the number of individuals
substantive issues under the sections of
(Revisions), 62 FR 58, 781–85, and 790 whose records are closed after they have
the regulations to which they pertain.
(October 30, 1997). These designations received services under an IPE, whether
Generally, we do not address technical
are mandatory for all new and revised or not they achieved an employment
and other minor changes—and
recordkeeping or reporting requirements outcome. The denominator of the ratio
suggested changes the law does not
that include racial or ethnic information is the number of all individuals whose
authorize the Secretary to make. Please
after the publication date of the records are closed after they had applied
note also that, in the NPRM, we
‘‘Revisions.’’ for services, whether or not they had an
requested comments on several issues
Changes: Because OMB designates IPE. The denominator includes those
regarding performance standards and
‘‘individuals from a minority individuals who— (1) applied for VR
indicators that are currently under
background’’ differently from the services but were not accepted into the
consideration for regulatory
definition included in the NPRM, we program for any reason (including
development, including draft proposed
have changed the proposed regulatory failure to cooperate, moved, etc.); (2)
Evaluation Standard 3 (Consumer
definition to conform to OMB’s had been accepted for VR services but
Satisfaction), draft proposed Evaluation
designation. did not receive services for any reason
Standard 4 (Retention of Employment
(including those individuals who
and Earnings), and draft proposed Definition of ‘‘Non-minority Individual’’ withdrew from the program while on a
Evaluation Standard 5 (Adequate Use of
Comments: Eight commenters waiting list where the DSU is under an
Resources). We received many
disagreed with the proposed definition order of selection for services); (3)
comments on these draft proposed
of ‘‘non-minority individual’’ and received services under an IPE but did
evaluation standards and will give each
recommended that the term be defined not achieve an employment outcome;
comment serious consideration during
as those individuals whose ethnicity or and (4) received services under an IPE
the development of additional standards
race is reported as White who are non- and achieved an employment outcome.
and indicators. We thank all individuals
Hispanic. RSA will calculate the service rate for
and organizations for their input.
Discussion: As we previously both minority and non-minority VR
Section 361.81 Applicable Definitions discussed, we have adopted the race consumers.
and ethnicity designations mandated by Changes: None.
Definition of ‘‘Full-time Employment’’
OMB for recording and reporting race
Comments: Five commenters stated Section 361.82 Evaluation Standards
and ethnicity. The NPRM proposed to
that requiring a minimum of 35 hours identify as ‘‘non-minority individuals’’ Comments: Two commenters
per week for a position to be considered those individuals who designate expressed concern that the evaluation
‘‘full time’’ is not realistic and themselves as both non-Hispanic and standards and performance indicators
recommended that the number of hours White using the OMB-mandated do not assess whether the employment
be lowered to 30 or 32 hours as a more designations. outcome is consistent with the
accurate reflection of existing workplace The ‘‘Revisions’’ mentioned individual’s informed vocational choice.
conditions. Other commenters objected previously— (a) require the data Discussion: While these final
to any minimum for the number of collector to request that the individual regulations do not contain a
hours worked per week required to identify himself or herself; and (b) performance indicator for measuring
constitute ‘‘full-time employment’’ and explicitly allow the individual to informed choice, we want to emphasize
stated that the determination of whether identify as many race or ethnicity our commitment to ensuring that each
the work is ‘‘full time’’ should be designations as the individual believes individual applicant and eligible
consistent with the implementation of apply. The data collector is to accept the individual is able to exercise informed
the individual’s Individualized Plan for individual’s designation or designations choice throughout the VR process. We
Employment (IPE). and may not make any independent also want to emphasize that we expect
Discussion: The proposed definition judgment regarding the individual’s to develop an indicator to measure the
of ‘‘full-time employment’’ applied only choice. extent to which informed choice is part
to proposed Performance Indicator 1.7, Changes: We have revised the of the provision of services. As
which would have measured the definition of ‘‘non-minority discussed in the preamble to the NPRM,
percentage of individuals in ‘‘full-time,’’ individuals’’ to be consistent with we have proposed development of an
competitive employment who would OMB’s definition. evaluation standard for consumer
satisfaction (draft proposed Evaluation ‘‘employment outcomes’’ are of the One-Stop service delivery system
Standard 3 (Consumer Satisfaction)) ‘‘subsidized’’ or ‘‘unsubsidized.’’ Thus, established under Title I of WIA.
that, in part, would measure the level of in assessing success in achieving Section 136(b)(2)(A)(i)(II) and (III) of
informed choice given to consumers employment outcomes under the VR WIA (WIA Core Indicators II and III)
during the VR process. We are in the program, it is necessary to consider the measure retention of unsubsidized
process of reviewing the comments full range of outcomes contemplated by employment 6 months after entry into
received on draft proposed Evaluation the Act. employment and earnings 6 months
Standard 3. However, until an Performance Indicator 1.1 also reflects after entry into employment,
evaluation standard for measuring other requirements that are specific to respectively. Consequently, we
informed choice is formally proposed the VR program. In addition to making developed Draft Proposed Evaluation
through the regulatory process, the VR services available to individuals Standard 4 and its attendant draft
requirement for informed choice will with disabilities entering the job market, performance indicators and presented
continue to be enforced through the the VR program authorizes VR services those draft measures for public
monitoring and review process for eligible individuals who need those comment in the preamble to the
mandated in section 107 of the Act. services to retain their current job. Thus, proposed regulations, in an effort to
Changes: None. measuring only the number of ensure that future measures for the VR
individuals ‘‘entering’’ employment program reflect Core Indicators II and
Section 361.84(c) Performance under the VR program, as done under III. Since the proposed regulations were
Indicators WIA Core Indicator I, would not published, however, we have been
Section 361.84(c)(1)(i) Performance account for those individuals who working with the Department of Labor
Indicator 1.1 receive VR services to maintain or to further modify that draft Standard
continue their employment. and its Indicators to better align those
Comments: One commenter suggested More generally, determining whether measures with each of the first three
that Performance Indicator 1.1 be a VR program participant has Core Indicators under Title I of WIA (the
changed to measure the number of successfully achieved an employment fourth WIA core indicator—attainment
people who ‘‘enter employment’’ to outcome depends on many factors in of a recognized credential—is not
make this indicator consistent with Core addition to the individual’s ability to reflected in our drafts since the success
Indicator I under section 136(b) of WIA. start or enter a job. For example, under of the VR program is judged solely on
The commenter notes that Core the VR program regulations, the the basis of achievement of employment
Indicator I measures the extent to which individual’s employment must be outcomes, particularly high-quality
individuals ‘‘enter unsubsidized consistent with the individual’s outcomes).
employment,’’ while Performance strengths, resources, priorities, The new draft Standard, which we
Indicator 1.1 will measure the extent to concerns, abilities, capabilities, and would implement through a separate
which individuals ‘‘exiting the VR informed choice, and the individual rulemaking effort (i.e., an NPRM seeking
program * * * achieved an must be performing well on the job. public comment and final regulations)
employment outcome.’’ The commenter Success in meeting these requirements would measure the extent to which
questioned the need for the differences cannot be accurately measured at the participants in the VR program: (1)
between the two measures and also time the individual enters employment. achieve an employment outcome with
questioned whether Performance Therefore, the determination of whether wages after receiving VR services
Indicator 1.1—under which individuals a VR program participant has (analogous to WIA Core Indicator I—
with disabilities must maintain successfully achieved an employment entry into unsubsidized employment),
employment for at least 90 days to be outcome is best made at a later point. (2) retain their employment 6 months
considered to have ‘‘achieved an The 90-day retention period from the after exiting the VR program with a job
employment outcome’’—establishes a time the individual begins working or (WIA Core Indicator II), and (3) increase
more restrictive standard for the VR no longer receives VR services is their earnings from the time they enter
program than that which applies to designed to ensure that the particular the VR program to the point 6 months
programs under Title I of WIA. job is appropriate to the individual and after they exit the program with a job
Discussion: As the commenter has at least some measure of stability. (WIA Core Indicator III). We are also
correctly points out, the Act requires We believe that using this and the other working closely with the Department of
that the standards and indicators for the requirements for achieving an Labor to adopt a common data base,
VR program be consistent, to the employment outcome under 34 CFR specifically, the Unemployment
maximum extent practicable, with the 361.56 to measure whether an Insurance (UI) Wage Data system
four Core Indicators established under individual’s participation in the VR maintained by State Employment
section 136(b) of WIA. To that end, program was successful is much more Security Agencies, for purposes of
Performance Indicator 1.1 is consistent accurate than focusing solely on the measuring performance under the new
with the general objective of the WIA ability of an individual to enter draft Standard.
Core Indicators, which is to examine the employment. Thus, the differences Consequently, this new measure
success in achieving employment between proposed Performance under the VR program would be very
outcomes for individuals receiving Indicator 1.1 and WIA Core Indicator I closely aligned with the performance
services, but also accounts for the range are necessary, and further alignment of measures under WIA on key
of employment outcomes available the two measures would not result in an performance items that are common to
under the VR program. ‘‘Employment accurate measure of the extent to which all employment programs, i.e., helping
outcomes’’ under the VR program States are successful in assisting people unemployed persons become employed,
include the full scope of employment with disabilities achieve employment working to ensure that participants are
options available to persons receiving outcomes under the VR program. able to retain their jobs, and assisting
VR services (e.g., competitive Nevertheless, we recognize that the persons to obtain or maintain
employment, employment in non- WIA Core indicators represent employment in which their earnings
integrated settings, homemaker, and important measures for all programs, increase over time. We expect to publish
unpaid family worker), whether those including the VR program, that are part this new Standard and supporting
indicators for public comment once we Section 361.84(c)(1)(iii) Performance Report’’ of the ‘‘Longitudinal Study of
have completed our assessment of the Indicator 1.3 the Vocational Rehabilitation Service
extent to which State VR units can Comments: Five commenters Program,’’ published in August 1998
obtain and use UI wage record recommended that those individuals (‘‘Third Interim Report’’), reported that
information in support of the draft who achieve an employment outcome of over 96 percent of VR consumers who
Standard and have determined the types ‘‘self-employment’’ be eliminated from achieved employment outcomes had
of assistance State VR units might need consideration under Performance prior work experience. Specifically, the
to complete those tasks. We are giving report stated the following: 36.9 percent
Indicator 1.3 until a means to measure
a high priority to these efforts in order of VR consumers were working at the
the true wages of self-employed
to better streamline the systems for time they applied for VR services; 37.8
individuals is developed. These
measuring performance across partner percent of VR consumers had worked in
commenters believe that the concept of
programs of the One-Stop delivery the 2 years prior to applying for VR
‘‘wages’’ is not applicable to self-
system. services; and 21.7 percent of VR
employed individuals because wages
Available data collection methods and consumers had worked previously, but
apply to what one person must pay
instruments enable us to implement not in the 2 years prior to applying for
another and not what someone may be
only Standards 1 and 2 of the final VR services. Additionally, the
willing to earn if they are self-employed.
regulations at this time. However, once performance indicator includes only
Discussion: Performance Indicator 1.3
we have confirmed that State VR those individuals earning at least the
is not dependent on measuring ‘‘wages’’
agencies are able to report on the draft minimum wage (necessarily excluding
per se. The measure is of an individual’s those individuals who earn less than the
standard, we will determine what ‘‘earnings’’ and whether those
combination of evaluation standards minimum wage at placement and whose
‘‘earnings’’ are equivalent to at least the inclusion would lower the ratio), and
and performance indicators (e.g., adding minimum wage. Although self-
the draft Standard and indicators to the the minimum performance level is set at
employed individuals may not earn a ratio of less than .6 (an earnings level
performance measures in these final ‘‘wages’’ per se, they do have
regulations, using the draft Standard as for VR consumers of less than 60
‘‘earnings,’’ and their ‘‘earnings’’ can be percent of the ‘‘State Average Annual
a substitute for one or more of the final calculated on an hourly basis.
regulatory measures, or implementing Pay’’). We believe the performance level
In addition, ‘‘self-employment’’ is for Performance Indicator 1.5 is
some other combination of measures) specifically included within the
should be implemented in the future. consistent with the Act’s emphasis on
definition of ‘‘employment outcome’’ in high-quality employment outcomes.
Therefore, the future performance section 7(11) of the Act. Congress has
system for the program will include that Therefore, we do not believe a change
recognized the importance of including is needed in this performance indicator.
combination of measures that best all possible employment outcomes for Changes: None.
accounts for the uniqueness of the VR individuals with disabilities. The VR
program and the need for a universal program regulations and these Section 361.84(c)(1)(vii) Performance
system for measuring performance of indicators should be consistent with the Indicator 1.7
the State One-Stop system. Act and congressional intent. Therefore, Comments: Fourteen commenters
Changes: None. we believe that self-employment expressed concern that proposed
Section 361.84(c)(1)(ii) Performance outcomes for individuals with earnings Performance Indicator 1.7 was not a fair
Indicator 1.2 comparable to at least the minimum measure of DSU performance because
wage should be included in the the provision of medical insurance by
Comments: Twelve commenters percentage of individuals who exit the the employer is outside the DSU’s
recommended that Performance VR program with earnings comparable control. In addition, they felt that this
Indicator 1.2 should measure only the to at least the minimum wage. proposed measure does not account for
percentage of individuals who obtain Changes: None. variability among States with regard to
employment after the individual is the availability of insurance programs
determined eligible and an IPE has been Section 361.84(c)(1)(v) Performance
and the changing nature of the labor
established. These commenters further Indicator 1.5
market where employment-related
recommended that Performance Comments: Some commenters were benefits are less available. Three
Indicator 1.2 should not measure the concerned about comparing the earnings commenters were concerned that this
percentage of individuals whose cases of VR consumers exiting the VR proposed indicator would negatively
were closed (either as ineligible or after program to the State’s average hourly impact VR consumers obtaining jobs
an eligibility determination was made) earnings. Their concern was based on with small employers who are less
before any services were received. their belief that most VR consumers likely to provide medical insurance as a
Discussion: We agree with the achieve employment outcomes that are benefit option.
comments and want to clarify that those at the level of workers newly entering Discussion: Performance Indicator 1.7
individuals whose cases were closed the work force while the State’s average would have addressed what research
(either as ineligible or after an eligibility hourly wage is computed for all workers indicates is a major impediment to
determination) before any services were in the State, including workers with individuals with disabilities entering
received will not be included in the years of employment. These the workforce—the unavailability of
percentage of individuals measured by commenters believed that a more adequate health insurance. The growing
Performance Indicator 1.2. As appropriate comparison would be to the number of employers that do not
recommended by the commenters, average entry level worker in the State’s provide health insurance worsens this
Performance Indicator 1.2 will measure work force. problem. If this trend continues, DSUs
only the percentage of individuals who Discussion: The assumption that most will have reduced opportunities to place
exit the VR program after they have VR consumers achieve only individuals with disabilities into jobs
been determined eligible and an IPE has employment comparable to that of new that provide health insurance. This
been implemented. workers is inconsistent with the would cause their performance on
Changes: None. available data. The ‘‘Third Interim Indicator 1.7 to erode.
However, many individuals are competitive employment by a VR We believe DSUs should make every
covered by Medicaid, Medicare, and agency make more than $7 but less than reasonable effort to find those
private insurance provided by their $9 per hour. employers who will provide health
spouses, families, or other means. Also, The increase in jobs that offer health insurance to their employees who are
all employees are covered by workers’ insurance is not as dramatic as wages not covered by Medicaid or some other
compensation for injuries and illnesses increase. Only 54.9 percent of jobs that health insurance. However, we
that occur while on the job. In addition, pay more than $9 but less than $11 per recognize the difficulty in finding those
the ‘‘Ticket-to-Work and Work hour offer health insurance. However, employers. For this reason we believe
Incentives Improvement Act of 1999,’’ only 8.8 percent of individuals who are this proposed indicator is not
Pub. L. 106–170 (December 17, 1999), placed in competitive employment by a appropriate at this time.
allows Medicaid recipients to keep their VR agency make more than $9 but less Changes: We have deleted proposed
coverage even if they find employment. than $11 per hour. Performance Indicator 1.7.
Because approximately one quarter of Finally, at the highest wage level for
which we have data, 65 percent of jobs Section 361.84(c)(2)(i) Performance
all individuals served by the VR Indicator 2.1
program receive Supplemental Security that pay more than $11 per hour offer
Income (SSI) and Social Security health insurance. However, only 12.1 Comments: One commenter suggested
Disability Insurance (SSDI), we expect percent of individuals who are placed in that Performance Indicator 2.1 does not
that a growing number of individuals competitive employment make more include enough variables to adequately
served by the DSUs will be eligible to than $11 per hour. assess DSU services to individuals from
retain Medicaid after they find The data show that nearly 62.5 minority backgrounds. This commenter
employment. This will reduce the need percent of individuals who achieve suggested that comparing minority
for employer-provided health insurance competitive employment earn $7 or less versus non-minority numbers by type of
for individuals served by DSUs. per hour and that only a small closure would be more statistically
Despite this limited availability of percentage of jobs at these low wage significant. Another commenter
health insurance for some individuals levels offer health insurance. Therefore, suggested that a better measurement
served by DSUs, the problem persists. we believe that the burden associated than service rate would be to compare
Of the nearly 34.67 million poor people with satisfying this proposed indicator the employment outcome rate of
in the U.S., only approximately 14 does not justify the extra resources, individuals from minority backgrounds
million are covered by Medicaid. Of the time, and effort DSUs would have to to the employment outcome rate of non-
remaining 20.67 million poor, only devote to finding those few jobs that minority individuals. Still another
approximately 9.47 million have health offer health insurance for the majority of commenter suggested that this indicator
insurance. The remaining 11.2 million individuals served by DSUs. should compare the employment
poor do not have health insurance and In addition, even if we did believe outcome rate, the average hourly wages,
will not be helped by the new law. finding the few jobs with health and availability of medical insurance
In proposing this indicator, we insurance was worth the extra burden, benefits of individuals from minority
assumed that health insurance was we believe that this proposed indicator backgrounds to those of non-minority
evenly distributed across the income would not have encouraged DSUs to individuals. One commenter questioned
spectrum and was reasonably available assist individuals with disabilities to the need for this indicator if it can be
at all levels of income. However, further acquire health insurance from other satisfied through an examination of the
examination of the data provided in the sources, even though those other DSU’s policies and procedures.
‘‘Third Interim Report’’ indicates the sources may be more appropriate for Discussion: At this time, we do not
difficulty in finding jobs that offer many individuals with disabilities. This have any data on which to compare the
health insurance at the wages earned by proposed indicator also would have employment outcome rates, the average
the majority of individuals with served as a disincentive to recruiting hourly wages, types of closures, or
disabilities who are served by VR and accepting individuals with little or availability of medical insurance
agencies. no education or work experience. benefits of individuals from minority
For example, nearly 31.5 percent of Instead, this proposed indicator would backgrounds to those of non-minority
individuals who are placed in have provided an incentive for individuals. We believe that the
competitive employment by a VR recruiting and accepting those comparison of service rates between
agency make $5 or less per hour. individuals with disabilities who individuals from minority backgrounds
However, only 13 percent of jobs that already are well-educated, have and individuals from non-minority
pay $5 or less per hour offer health extensive job experience, or are more backgrounds as the performance
insurance. likely to be candidates for community indicator for this evaluation standard is
In addition, nearly 31 percent of college or university training. We do not the appropriate starting point to
individuals who are placed in believe this would be a desirable result. determine whether individuals with
competitive employment by a VR The data from the ‘‘Third Interim disabilities from minority backgrounds
agency make more than $5 but less than Report’’ also indicate that part-time have equal access to VR services. As we
$7 per hour. However, only 35 percent workers, who are a significant continue to collect additional data, we
of jobs that pay more than $5 but less percentage of individuals with may determine in the future that
than $7 per hour offer health insurance. disabilities who are employed, are less comparing minorities and non-
For slightly higher paying jobs, the likely to find jobs that offer health minorities by the type of closure, rate of
percentage that offer health insurance insurance. Finally, the data indicate that employment outcomes, average hourly
increases significantly, although the firms with fewer than 25 employees are wages, or availability of medical
percentage is still barely more than 50 least likely to offer health insurance. insurance benefits is also necessary.
percent. For example, 52.1 percent of These data show the difficulty in Until we collect that additional data, we
jobs that pay more than $7 but less than finding jobs that offer health insurance will not be able to develop an indicator
$9 per hour offer health insurance. for individuals with disabilities, who to measure these factors.
However, only 16.6 percent of are more likely to end up in low-paying, We believe that requiring a DSU to
individuals who are placed in part-time jobs with smaller employers. describe the policies it has adopted and
the steps it has taken to ensure that reasonable period of time so that they impaired—provide the highest quality
individuals with disabilities from are eventually at the same performance of services to eligible individuals.
minority backgrounds have equal access level as general and combined DSUs. Changes: None.
to VR services is the best performance One commenter suggested that we Comments: Five commenters
indicator for this evaluation standard. create a separate performance level for recommended that the availability of
The two-step approach in combined DSUs because many States resources and whether a DSU is
§ 361.86(b)(2)(i) and (ii) for measuring are considering creating a separate operating under an order of selection for
compliance with Performance Indicator agency serving blind and visually services under section 101(a)(5) of the
2.1 ensures that DSUs will make impaired individuals. The commenter Act be included as factors in
appropriate efforts to ensure equal also suggested that the transition for determining minimally acceptable
access to services for minority those combined DSUs will be easier if levels of performance.
individuals. different performance levels are in effect Discussion: We agree that the
Changes: None. when the transition occurs. availability of resources belongs in the
Section 361.84(c)(2)(ii) Performance Discussion: We believe that agencies performance equation. However, we do
Indicator 2.2 serving only individuals who are blind not agree that the availability of
or visually impaired should continue to resources should be included in
Comments: Nine commenters
have different levels of performance measuring whether a DSU has achieved
suggested that proposed Performance
from combined DSUs (those agencies a minimally acceptable level of
Indicator 2.2 should be eliminated
that serve individuals who are blind or performance. Given that DSUs with the
because it is invalid to compare
visually impaired and individuals with same amount of resources may perform
individuals with significant disabilities
other disabilities) and general DSUs quite differently, the proper criterion for
who self-report to the Census a
(those agencies that do not serve measuring performance under an
disability that prevents them from
individuals who are blind or visually outcome-based standards and indicators
working to individuals with significant
impaired). Individuals served by system is whether a DSU is successfully
disabilities who are eligible to receive
agencies for the blind are, in many (if assisting individuals with disabilities to
VR services. Four commenters
not most) cases, totally blind. Total achieve employment outcomes. If a DSU
recommended deleting this proposed
blindness is a significant disability that fails to meet the indicator for achieving
indicator if the 2000 Census does not
often places more limitations on an a minimally acceptable level of
include the data necessary to measure
individual than other types of performance (e.g., achieving
how to comply with it. Three
disabilities. As a result, the services employment outcomes), the Act and the
commenters suggested that comparing
provided by agencies that serve regulations require that the Secretary
the percentage of DSU consumers who
individuals who are blind or visually and DSU jointly develop a program
are from minority backgrounds to the
impaired are generally more improvement plan that outlines the
percentage of minority individuals in
comprehensive and take longer to specific actions the DSU will take to
the general population is a more valid
provide than the services provided to improve program performance. In
and reliable indicator. One commenter
many individuals who receive VR developing the program improvement
suggested that data on SSDI
services from a general or combined plan, we will consider, pursuant to the
beneficiaries and SSI recipients may be
DSU. In addition, because of the Act and these final regulations, all
used as an alternative to Census data.
Discussion: In addition to the significance of their disability, a much available and relevant data and
comments opposed to this proposed smaller number of individuals who are information related to the DSU’s
indicator, the Bureau of the Census has blind or visually impaired achieve a performance. Because the availability of
decided not to continue to collect the competitive employment outcome. The resources greatly affects what actions
data necessary to perform the proposed greater significance of their disability may be taken to improve performance,
comparison. We will give serious also results in generally lower wage we believe that the time to properly
consideration to the comments on the levels for the majority of individuals consider the availability of resources
proposed indicator in the development served by agencies that serve will be during the development of the
of a new indicator. individuals who are blind or visually program improvement plan.
Changes: We have deleted proposed impaired. These factors and the In reviewing data concerning the past
Performance Indicator 2.2. challenges faced by individuals who are performance of all DSUs, we found that
blind or have visual impairments the performance of DSUs operating
Section 361.86 Performance Levels require that we establish different under an order of selection did not,
Comments: Three commenters stated performance levels for agencies serving overall, vary significantly from the
that establishing different performance these individuals. performance of DSUs not operating
levels for agencies that serve only blind The performance levels established in under an order of selection. Thus,
or visually impaired individuals these final regulations are only the first whether or not a DSU is operating under
implied incorrectly that those step in ensuring improved DSU an order of selection should not be a
individuals were more significantly performance. The Act requires that the factor in determining a minimally
disabled than individuals served by standards and indicators be reviewed acceptable level of performance.
general or combined DSUs. Two every 3 years. Section 361.86(a)(2) of However, the yearly analysis of program
commenters were concerned that the these final regulations allows us to performance based on the standards and
lower performance levels for agencies establish new performance levels indicators (to be included in the Annual
serving only blind or visually impaired through the regulatory process, which Report to Congress) will indicate
individuals were in conflict with the includes the opportunity for public whether a DSU is operating under an
Act’s commitment to competitive comment. We intend to adjust order of selection.
employment outcomes above the performance levels in the future to Changes: None.
minimum wage. These two commenters ensure that all agencies—general DSUs, Comments: Two commenters were
recommended raising the level of combined DSUs, and agencies serving concerned that meeting the performance
performance for these agencies over a individuals who are blind and visually level for Performance Indicator 2.1 may
result in quotas because the level is set measuring its performance on those governments in the exercise of their
too high. indicators. governmental functions.
Discussion: We disagree that Changes: We have deleted the Summary of Potential Costs and
Performance Indicator 2.1 requires a requirements to report the number of Benefits
DSU to impose quotas. If the service rate individuals exiting the VR program in
for minority individuals is less than 80 full-time, competitive employment We summarized the potential costs
percent of the service rate for non- (proposed § 361.88(a)(7)); health and benefits of these final regulations in
minority individuals or if fewer than insurance data (proposed § 361.88(a)(8)); the preamble to the NPRM under the
100 individuals from a minority and the number of individuals from following headings: Executive Order
population have exited the VR program minority backgrounds with significant 12866 (1. Potential Costs and Benefits)
during the reporting period, the DSU disabilities who exit the program after and Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
only needs to describe the policies it has receiving VR services under an IPE (63 FR 55292 and 55301) We include
adopted or will adopt and the steps it (proposed § 361.88(a)(13)). additional discussion of potential costs
has taken or will take to ensure that Therefore, we have correspondingly and benefits in the section of this
individuals with disabilities from renumbered the remaining reporting preamble titled Analysis of Comments
minority backgrounds have equal access requirements (numbered (9), (10), (11) and Changes.
to VR services. In these instances, RSA and (12) in the NPRM) as §§ 361.88(a)(7) We believe the changes in these final
will examine a DSU’s existing or through (10), respectively. regulations will improve the VR
proposed policies and the steps it has program and will yield substantial
Goals 2000: Educate America Act
taken or proposes to take to determine benefits in terms of improved
their effectiveness in achieving equal The Goals 2000: Educate America Act accountability and performance. We
access for minority individuals with (Goals 2000) focuses the Nation’s also believe the final regulations will
disabilities. education reform efforts on the eight improve accountability by focusing on
A greater than 20 percent racial National Education Goals and provides the most critical areas of DSU
disparity in service rates will trigger a a framework for meeting them. Goals performance. Therefore, we have
review of a DSU’s seemingly neutral 2000 promotes new partnerships to determined that the potential benefits of
practices to determine whether they are strengthen schools and expands our these changes justify the potential costs.
having the effect of racial capacities for helping to exchange ideas
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
discrimination. This approach is well- and obtain information needed to
established within the Department and achieve the goals. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
in desegregation case law. Its use in the These final regulations address the does not require you to respond to a
education context dates to the early National Education Goal that every collection of information unless it
1970’s when the Department of Health, adult American will possess the displays a valid OMB control number.
Education, and Welfare, the predecessor knowledge and skills necessary to We display the valid OMB control
to the Department of Education, was compete in a global economy and number assigned to the collections of
actively involved in the desegregation of exercise the rights and responsibilities information in these final regulations at
public school districts pursuant to the of citizenship. The regulations further the end of the affected sections of the
Supreme Court’s decision in Swann v. the objectives of this Goal by regulations.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of implementing a program that affords
Intergovernmental Review
Education, 91 S.Ct. 1267 (1971). In that individuals with disabilities
case, the Court held that a ‘‘substantial opportunities for job training, job This program is subject to the
disproportion’’ in the racial composition placement, placement in competitive requirements of Executive Order 12372
of schools warranted an examination of employment, and career advancement. and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
the school district’s policies and The objective of the Executive order is
Executive Order 12866
practices to determine if remedial action to foster an intergovernmental
was necessary. In adopting this measure We have reviewed these final partnership and a strengthened
of performance, and in response to the regulations in accordance with federalism by relying on processes
commenters’ concern that the measure Executive Order 12866. Under the terms developed by State and local
may require quotas, we are guided by of this order, we have assessed the governments for coordination and
the Federal case-law established potential costs and benefits of this review of proposed Federal financial
pursuant to Swann. Courts have held regulatory action. assistance.
that the law does not require a racial The potential costs associated with In accordance with the order, we
balance reflecting the composition of the final regulations are those resulting intend this document to provide early
the community. However, courts have from statutory requirements and those notification of our specific plans and
ruled that limited use of mathematical we have determined to be necessary for actions for this program.
ratios may serve as a starting point in administering this program effectively
Assessment of Educational Impact
identifying whether a racial imbalance and efficiently. This preamble identifies
is the result of racial discrimination that and explains any burdens that may be In the NPRM, we requested comments
requires remedial action. specifically associated with information on whether the proposed regulations
Changes: None. collection requirements. would require transmission of
In assessing the potential costs and information that any other agency or
Section 361.88 Reporting authority of the United States gathers or
benefits—both quantitative and
Requirements makes available.
qualitative—of these final regulations,
Comments: None. we have determined that the benefits of Based on the response to the NPRM
Discussion: Our decision to delete the final regulations justify the costs. and on our review, we have determined
proposed Performance Indicators 1.7 We also have determined that this that these final regulations do not
and 2.2 (discussed previously) regulatory action does not unduly require transmission of information that
eliminates a DSU’s need to report data interfere with State, local, and tribal any other agency or authority of the
United States gathers or makes Subpart E—Evaluation Standards and beginning with fiscal year 1999.
available. Performance Indicators However, DSUs that exclusively serve
individuals with visual impairments or
Electronic Access to This Document § 361.80 Purpose. blindness must report each year the
You may view this document, as well The purpose of this subpart is to aggregated data for the 2 previous years
as all other Department of Education establish evaluation standards and for Performance Indicators 1.1 through
documents published in the Federal performance indicators for the Program. 1.6; the second year must coincide with
Register, in text or Adobe Portable (Authority: 29 U.S.C. 726(a)) the performance period for general or
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet combined DSUs.
§ 361.81 Applicable definitions. Primary indicators means
at either of the following sites:
In addition to those definitions in Performance Indicators 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5,
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm § 361.5(b), the following definitions which are specifically designed to
http://www.ed.gov/news.html apply to this subpart: measure—
Average hourly earnings means the (1) The achievement of competitive,
To use the PDF you must have the average per hour earnings in the week self-, or BEP employment with earnings
Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with prior to exiting the vocational equivalent to the minimum wage or
Search, which is available free at either rehabilitation (VR) program of an higher, particularly by individuals with
of the previous sites. If you have eligible individual who has achieved a significant disabilities; and
questions about using the PDF, call the competitive employment outcome. (2) The ratio between the average
U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Business Enterprise Program (BEP) hourly earnings of individuals who exit
toll free, at 1–888–293–6498; or in the means an employment outcome in the VR program in competitive, self-, or
Washington, DC area at (202) 512–1530. which an individual with a significant BEP employment with earnings
Note: The official version of this document disability operates a vending facility or equivalent to the minimum wage or
is the document published in the Federal other small business under the higher and the State’s average hourly
Register. Free Internet access to the official management and supervision of a earnings for all employed individuals.
edition of the Federal Register and the Code designated State unit (DSU). This term RSA–911 means the Case Service
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO includes home industry, farming, and Report that is submitted annually by a
Access at: http://www.acess.gpo.gov/nara/ DSU as approved by the Office of
other enterprises.
index.html
Exit the VR program means that a Management and Budget (OMB).
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance DSU has closed the individual’s record Self-employment means an
Number: 84.126 The State Vocational of VR services in one of the following employment outcome in which the
Rehabilitation Services Program) categories: individual works for profit or fee in his
(1) Ineligible for VR services. or her own business, farm, shop, or
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 361
(2) Received services under an office, including sharecroppers.
Reporting and recordkeeping individualized plan for employment Service rate means the result obtained
requirements, State-administered grant (IPE) and achieved an employment by dividing the number of individuals
program—education, Vocational outcome. who exit the VR program after receiving
rehabilitation. (3) Received services under an IPE but one or more services under an IPE
did not achieve an employment during any reporting period by the total
Dated: March 6, 2000. outcome. number of individuals who exit the VR
Richard W. Riley, (4) Eligible for VR services but did not program (as defined in this section)
Secretary of Education. receive services under an IPE. during that reporting period.
General or combined DSU means a State’s average hourly earnings means
For the reasons discussed in the DSU that does not serve exclusively the average hourly earnings of all
preamble, the Secretary amends Title individuals with visual impairments or persons in the State in which the DSU
34, Chapter III, part 361, of the Code of blindness. is located.
Federal Regulations as follows: Individuals from a minority (Authority: 29 U.S.C. 726(a))
1. The authority citation for Part 361 background means individuals who
continues to read as follows: report their race and ethnicity in any of § 361.82 Evaluation standards.
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 711(c), unless the following categories: American (a) The Secretary establishes two
otherwise noted. Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or evaluation standards to evaluate the
African American, Native Hawaiian or performance of each DSU that receives
2. Subpart E, consisting of §§ 361.80 Other Pacific Islander, or Hispanic or funds under this part. The evaluation
through 361.89, is added to read as Latino. standards assist the Secretary and each
follows: Minimum wage means the higher of DSU to evaluate a DSU’s performance in
the rate specified in section 6(a)(1) of serving individuals with disabilities
PART 361—THE STATE VOCATIONAL the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 under the VR program.
REHABILITATION SERVICES U.S.C. 206(a)(1), (i.e., the Federal (b) A DSU must achieve successful
PROGRAM minimum wage) or applicable State performance on both evaluation
Subpart E—Evaluation Standards and
minimum wage law. standards during each performance
Performance Indicators Non-minority individuals means period.
individuals who report themselves (c) The evaluation standards for the
Sec.
exclusively as White, non-Hispanic. VR program are—
361.80 Purpose.
Performance period is the reporting (1) Evaluation Standard 1—
361.81 Applicable definitions.
361.82 Evaluation standards. period during which a DSU’s Employment outcomes. A DSU must
361.84 Performance indicators. performance is measured. For assist any eligible individual, including
361.86 Performance levels. Evaluation Standards 1 and 2, an individual with a significant
361.88 Reporting requirements. performance data must be aggregated disability, to obtain, maintain, or regain
361.89 Enforcement procedures. and reported for each fiscal year high-quality employment.
(2) Evaluation Standard 2—Equal who are determined to have achieved an income as the largest single source of
access to services. A DSU must ensure employment outcome. economic support at the time they exit
that individuals from minority (iii) Performance Indicator 1.3. Of all the VR program and the percentage who
backgrounds have equal access to VR individuals determined to have report their own income as the largest
services. achieved an employment outcome, the single source of support at the time they
(Approved by the Office of Management and percentage who exit the VR program in apply for VR services.
Budget under control number 1820–0508.) competitive, self-, or BEP employment (2) Equal access to services.
(Authority: 29 U.S.C. 726(a)) with earnings equivalent to at least the (i) Performance Indicator 2.1. The
minimum wage. service rate for all individuals with
§ 361.84 Performance indicators. (iv) Performance Indicator 1.4. Of all
disabilities from minority backgrounds
(a) The performance indicators individuals who exit the VR program in
as a ratio to the service rate for all non-
establish what constitutes minimum competitive, self-, or BEP employment
with earnings equivalent to at least the minority individuals with disabilities.
compliance with the evaluation
standards. minimum wage, the percentage who are (Approved by the Office of Management and
(b) The performance indicators individuals with significant disabilities. Budget under control number 1820–0508.)
require a DSU to provide information on (v) Performance Indicator 1.5. The (Authority: 29 U.S.C. 726(a))
a variety of factors to enable the average hourly earnings of all
§ 361.86 Performance levels.
Secretary to measure compliance with individuals who exit the VR program in
the evaluation standards. competitive, self-, or BEP employment (a) General.
(c) The performance indicators are as with earnings levels equivalent to at (1) Paragraph (b) of this section
follows: least the minimum wage as a ratio to the establishes performance levels for—
(1) Employment outcomes. State’s average hourly earnings for all (i) General or combined DSUs; and
(i) Performance Indicator 1.1. The individuals in the State who are (ii) DSUs serving exclusively
number of individuals exiting the VR employed (as derived from the Bureau individuals who are visually impaired
program who achieved an employment of Labor Statistics report ‘‘State Average
or blind.
outcome during the current performance Annual Pay’’ for the most recent
period compared to the number of available year). (2) The Secretary may establish, by
individuals who exit the VR program (vi) Performance Indicator 1.6. Of all regulations, new performance levels.
after achieving an employment outcome individuals who exit the VR program in (b) Performance levels for each
during the previous performance period. competitive, self-, or BEP employment performance indicator.
(ii) Performance Indicator 1.2. Of all with earnings equivalent to at least the (1)(i) The performance levels for
individuals who exit the VR program minimum wage, the difference between Performance Indicators 1.1 through 1.6
after receiving services, the percentage the percentage who report their own are—
Performance level by type of DSU

Performance indicator
General/combined Blind
1.1 .............................................................. Equal or exceed previous performance period ............................................................. Same.

1.2 .............................................................. 55.8% ............................................................................................................................ 68.9%
1.3 .............................................................. 72.6% ............................................................................................................................ 35.4%
1.4 .............................................................. 62.4% ............................................................................................................................ 89.0%
1.5 .............................................................. .52 (Ratio) ..................................................................................................................... .59
1.6 .............................................................. 53.0 (Math. Difference) ................................................................................................. 30.4
(ii) To achieve successful performance performance requirement in paragraph (1) The number of individuals who
on Evaluation Standard 1 (Employment (2)(iii) of this section. exited the VR program in each closure
outcomes), a DSU must meet or exceed (iii) If a DSU’s performance does not category as specified in the definition of
the performance levels established for meet or exceed the performance level ‘‘Exit the VR program’’ under § 361.81.
four of the six performance indicators in required for Performance Indicator 2.1, (2) The number of individuals who
the evaluation standard, including or if fewer than 100 individuals from a exited the VR program in competitive,
meeting or exceeding the performance minority population have exited the VR self-, or BEP employment with earnings
levels for two of the three primary program during the reporting period, the at or above the minimum wage.
DSU must describe the policies it has
indicators (Performance Indicators 1.3, (3) The number of individuals with
adopted or will adopt and the steps it
1.4, and 1.5). significant disabilities who exited the
has taken or will take to ensure that
(2)(i) The performance level for individuals with disabilities from VR program in competitive, self-, or BEP
Performance Indicator 2.1 is— minority backgrounds have equal access employment with earnings at or above
to VR services. the minimum wage.
Performance (4) The weekly earnings and hours
Performance indicator (Authority: 29 U.S.C. 726(a))
levels worked of individuals who exited the
§ 361.88 Reporting requirements. VR program in competitive, self-, or BEP
2.1 ...................................... .80 (Ratio) employment with earnings at or above
(a) The Secretary requires that each
DSU report within 60 days after the end the minimum wage.
(ii) To achieve successful performance of each fiscal year the extent to which (5) The number of individuals who
on Evaluation Standard 2 (Equal access), the State is in compliance with the exited the VR program in competitive,
DSUs must meet or exceed the evaluation standards and performance self-, or BEP employment with earnings
performance level established for indicators and include in this report the at or above the minimum wage whose
Performance Indicator 2.1 or meet the following RSA–911 data: primary source of support at the time
they applied for VR services was (c) Data reported by a DSU must be Secretary establishes new performance
‘‘personal income.’’ valid, accurate, and in a consistent levels under § 361.86(a)(2), the Secretary
(6) The number of individuals who format. If a DSU fails to submit data that and the DSU must jointly modify the
exited the VR program in competitive, are valid, accurate, and in a consistent program improvement plan based on the
self-, or BEP employment with earnings format within the 60-day period, the new performance levels. The Secretary
at or above the minimum wage whose DSU must develop a program continues reviews and requests
primary source of support at closure improvement plan pursuant to revisions until the DSU sustains
was ‘‘personal income.’’ § 361.89(a). satisfactory performance based on the
(7) The number of individuals exiting
(Approved by the Office of Management and current performance levels over a period
the VR program who are individuals Budget under control number 1820–0508.)
from a minority background. of more than 1 year.
(8) The number of non-minority (Authority: 29 U.S.C. 726(b)) (d) If the Secretary determines that a
individuals exiting the VR program. § 361.89 Enforcement procedures. DSU with less than satisfactory
(9) The number of individuals from a performance has failed to enter into a
minority background exiting the VR (a) If a DSU fails to meet the
established performance levels on both program improvement plan or comply
program after receiving services under substantially with the terms and
an IPE. evaluation standards as required by
§ 361.82(b), the Secretary and the DSU conditions of the program improvement
(10) The number of non-minority plan, the Secretary, consistent with the
individuals exiting the VR program after must jointly develop a program
improvement plan that outlines the procedures specified in § 361.11,
receiving services under an IPE. reduces or makes no further payments
(b) In lieu of the report required in specific actions to be taken by the DSU
paragraph (a) of this section, a DSU may to improve program performance. to the DSU under this program until the
submit its RSA–911 data on tape, (b) In developing the program DSU has met one of these two
diskette, or any alternative electronic improvement plan, the Secretary requirements or raised its subsequent
format that is compatible with RSA’s considers all available data and performance to meet the current overall
capability to process such an information related to the DSU’s minimum satisfactory level on the
alternative, as long as the tape, diskette, performance. compliance indicators.
or alternative electronic format includes (c) When a program improvement (Approved by the Office of Management and
the data that— plan is in effect, review of the plan is Budget under control number 1820–0508.)
(1) Are required by paragraph (a)(1) conducted on a biannual basis. If (Authority: 29 U.S.C. 726(b) and (c))
through (10) of this section; and necessary, the Secretary may request
(2) Meet the requirements of that a DSU make further revisions to the [FR Doc. 00–13948 Filed 6–2–00; 8:45 am]
paragraph (c) of this section. plan to improve performance. If the BILLING CODE 4000–01–U

Description: Tags: 060500b

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Description: Tags: 060500b

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Monday,

Performance level by type of DSU

1.1 .............................................................. Equal or exceed previous performance period ............................................................. Same.

Você também pode gostar