the supported employment data collection that is being done by the variety of agencies that are involved in supported work.

As soon as the agreements between Voc Rehab and Montana's DD and mental health authorities for the extended or the followalong services are finalized, 30 people who are eligible for State DD services and 30 more who are eligible for mental health services will be immediately referred to the voc rehab agency to initiate Title 6[c] services. As a minimum allotment state in the Title 6[c] grant program, we are the recipient of $250,000 for 1987 but we are unsure of the receipt of that minimum allotment in 1988.

Because of the State budgeting process and because we feel a lot of thoughtful planning has to go into the expenditure of those dollars, we have to budget for the 1988 dollars, but if for some reason those dollars do not arrive, we will be vulnerable to litigation, to say nothing of the loss of credibility we are going to have with the other organizations who were depending on that money. Replacing those 1988 and beyond Title 6[c] dollars will require a diversion of our Section 110 dollars that are already budgeted for other client benefit purposes.

Because the Section 311 subgrants have a one-year life span and because a one-year effort doesn't constitute systemic change or the demonstration of vocational rehabilitation as a single point of access, those being two goals for the Montana project. Montana VR has made a commitment to replace those Section 311 dollars, and that too will have to come from Section 110.

The second thing I want to briefly summarize for you is the published information on guidelines. Once the 1986 amendments to the Rehab Act became law on October 21, 1986, we began preparing our commitment to supported employment, but conflicting messages or no messages of guidance on policy and procedure for our involvement in supported work came from our Federal partner, the Rehab Services Administration. This, paired with very vocal expectations from consumer groups, caused credibility gaps with other groups in Montana who do have a vested interest in supported employment.

Prior to the issuance of the Federal regulations on supported employment, we were barraged with a variety of information from a variety of resources. Then, 10 months after the 1986 amendments became law, the Federal regulations were published. Their narrow and sometimes unclear perspective established the tenor of what the supported employment program should be.

While we prefer no assistance from the Department of Education's OSERS authority in complying with these regulations, we welcome an opportunity from our Federal partner, the Rehab Services Administration, to first of all provide input for the establishment of minimum standards that would describe VR's involvement in the various modes of supported employment. Secondly, we would like to again have the opportunity for public comments on our continual concerns with the Federal regulations.

The third area I would like to summarize is that of technical assistance. Through the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation-through that network-we have heard of both the hospitality agenda and monitoring visits by OSERS. Montana has not been directly involved with either of those. On a national

level, however, we will be participating in the 27-State grant meeting in December here in Washington, and we will be soliciting technical assistance from the Universities of Oregon and Maryland. Regionally we have already felt the benefits of many technical assistance visits by the Disability Branch of the Denver Regional Social Security Office, and in February of 1988 we will be participating in the supported employment forum that is being sponsored by the Denver Regional Rehab Services Administration Office. InState we have taken advantage of job coaching technical assistance that has been provided to us by the Job Training Partnership Act and the technical assistance that has been provided under the auspices of our grant.

In closing, I would like to just summarize some of the statistics in Montana as far as services to the severely disabled. In Federal fiscal year 1987, 7,308 Montanans or 18 percent of the 41,000 individuals assumed eligible for VR services, received those services. 735, or 10 percent, were rehabilitated at an average cost of 1,200. 66 percent of those were severely disabled. To give you an example, 346 people with mental retardation were served; 228 were severely disabled.

We feel, too, that getting involved in supported employment is going to strengthen those statistics in every State VR agency throughout the Nation. Before those statistics can increase significantly, I feel there are some impediments that have to be overcome. First, a new program naturally requires extra staff time and training and an experimentation phase to reach a level of comfort, not only for the purchaser like Voc Rehab but for the provider of that service, for the client, to say nothing of the employer that is involved.

The biggest impediment, however, to the successful implementation of this program will be the commitment for extended or follow-along services that are going to be sought by VR in behalf of people who want the supported employment service. To overcome this impediment and to be able to offer this vocational option to as many people with severe disabilities as possible in Montana, our umbrella agency director, with the endorsement of the Governor, has appointed an Interagency Funding Committee for Supported Employment.

That committee will include representation from Developmental Disabilities, Vocational Education, Special Education, Mental Health, the Job Training Partnership Act, Medicaid, and Vocational Rehabilitation. We on that committee are going to be charged with the coordination of all the current supported employment efforts in the State, assistance in developing interagency agreements, investigating future funding options, and developing an interdepartmental plan that we can take to our 1989 legislature.

We in the States look to you in the Congress to locate possible Federal extended or follow-along funding streams as well. We also look to you to protect the partnership between the Rehab Services

Administration and the State agencies that you legislated and that we have been nurturing for many, many years, and we have been doing that on behalf of people with disabilities.

Again, I do appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and I would certainly be willing to answer any questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Margaret A. Bullock follows:]

Vocational Rehabilitation

Program of Montana's Department of
I have served in a variety
Rehabilitation Program since

Social and Rehabilitation Services.
of capacities in the Vocational
starting as the agency's Planner-Evaluator in 1971.

to appear

It is a privilege
with you Montana's efforts
Employment, which may reflect
states as well.

before this Committee and discuss to date in the area of Supported similar activities in other rural

I view Supported Employment as the natural next step in the evolution of services for people with especially severe disabilities, as well as the vehicle to provide one more vocational option to these people as they enter the VR system. With the addition of Supported Employment to the Rehabilitation Act as an acceptable vocational outcome, this piece of federal legislation continues to be the most complete and well balanced legislation in the field of human services. It has become a model for many others.

My comments will reflect where Montana has been with Supported Employment, what efforts currently exist in the state to maintain the effort and the direction we hope to take in this area with the assistance of both our federal partner and other agencies committed to the sustenance of this necessary service.

STATISTICS ON MONTANA'S SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM Before Supported Employment was defined in federal regulation many organizations including Montana's Developmental Disabilities and Vocational Rehabilitation authorities were buying service

2

activities they were identifying as Supported Employment. However, in a majority of cases those service activities were lacking at least one of the criteria to meet the now accepted federal definition of Supported Employment. For example, the Developmental Disabilities and VR agencies both paid for a variety of services that were delivered under the auspices of a crew. However, often there was no integration; and no evidence of a written commitment to the follow-along or extended services was evident. But as the concept of Supported Employment began to evolve and the crew model was identified as a Supported Employment model, some organizations began to label their crew activity as Supported Employment anyway. Organizations other than VR were experimenting with making individual placements and referring to them as Supported Employment even though all the features of Supported Employment were not present. Through the use of a Plan of Self Support (PASS), VR was purchasing job coaching for Social Security Disability claimants who were VR eligible. However, VR was not locating a third party followalong provider. Because these attempts as well as those of other agencies did not meet the current accepted definition of Supported Employment, any statistics claiming to tout a service as Supported Employment in Montana prior to the issuance of the federal regulations are suspect even though the service may have closely resembled Supported Employment.

Since the passage of the 1986 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act, Montana has reinforced its commitment to this necessary service outcome by applying for and receiving the following financial and legislative support:

1.

to the Vocational Section 311 grant, the

The federal Section 311 grant to the state's Vocational Rehabilitation authority in September, 1986. 2. Authority from the 1987 Legislature Rehabilitation authority to spend the federal Title VI, C dollars, and to hire personnel necessary to implement Supported Employment through Montana's VR system.