Miss Wheelchair DC
1. PRESS RELEASE
Contact:
Ms. Jeri Wasco
301 593 6988 (telephone)
301 681 0947 (fax)
Email: mswheelchairdc@aol.com
Office:
2939 Van Ness Street, NW, Suite 631
Washington, DC 20008
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WOMEN WITH DISABILITIES SOUGHT FOR PAGEANT
Ms. Wheelchair DC, Inc. is seeking dynamic women to participate as contestants in the upcoming Ms. Wheelchair DC Gala 2001. Ms. Wheelchair DC raises public awareness in the District of Columbia about the abilities of persons with disabilities. She also serves as a role model to empower people with disabilities. As a spokesperson, she may appear before schools, businesses, civic groups and religious organizations and speak about disability issues, such as individual rights and accommodations.
Ms. Wheelchair DC will be selected during a closed competition on February 24,2001 at Arena Stage Rehearsal Hall. The selection process includes participation in empowerment seminars, the delivery of a platform speech and judged interviews. The finalist will travel to Denver, Colorado to compete in the Ms. Wheelchair America Pageant. Eligible contestants will be women between ages of 21-60. She has to be a US. Citizen, and uses a wheelchair or scooter for primary mobility, have a permanent disability and are residents of the District of Columbia.
2. Both Ms. Wheelchair DC and Ms. Wheelchair Maryland organizations are seeking contestants, volunteers, and contributions. For more information, call: 301-657-3283 or www.dateable.org
Call for Submissions: Mark Taper Forum - Other Voices Project
The National Arts and Disability Center would like to inform you of a Call
for Submissions for the Mark Taper Forum Other Voices Project.. If you have questions contact John Belluso, Co-Director/ OTHER VOICES - 213-972-0759.
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS Mark Taper Forum's
OTHER VOICES presents: Chautauqua 2001:
A Celebration of Disability Culture and Community Description: A three-day play development retreat for theatre artists with disabilities, consisting of readings of the participants' plays by a diverse
Group of actors, group responses led by the invited facilitators, cultural conversations between the artists and scholars, and lots of good food. To take place at the Mark Taper Forum, June 29th-July 1st 2001. Cost: Travel, lodging and a modest stipend are provided for all participants. Guidelines/Applications: Accepting plays written by writers with disabilities on the topic of the disability experience. Accepting unsolicited play synopsis and 10-page dialogue sample, or full script if submitted by an agent or theatre professional. Submissions must be postmarked by March 1st, 2001, and should be mailed to:
OTHER VOICES/Chautauqua 2001
Mark Taper Forum
135 N. Grand Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
For further information contact: John Belluso, Co-Director/ OTHER VOICES -
213-972-0759
Ticket to Work and Work Incentive Advisory Panel
You are Cordially Invited
by the
Ticket to Work and Work Incentive Advisory Panel
TO GET INVOLVED
The Ticket to Work and Work Incentive Advisory Panel of the Social Security Administration (SSA) is holding a series of public meetings to obtain public input across the country. The purpose of these meetings and teleconferences is to collect ideas and reactions from all interested parties on the proposed regulations the Social Security Administration issued on December 28, 2000. These regulations spell out the program rules and the SSA implementation plans for the new Ticket to Work and Work Incentive Improvement Act programs.
The new "Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program'' is authorized by the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. The program will provide SSA disabled beneficiaries with more choice in employment services, vocational rehabilitation services, and other kinds of support services to help them return to work. The Ticket program will pay the new providers of those services after a SSA beneficiary achieves a certain level of work.
The Panel is preparing a Report of Advice to the Commissioner of Social Security Administration on the proposed regulations. Your reactions to the regulations that will affect the opportunities for Social Security beneficiaries to go to work will help us frame our advice. We want to hear from you in person, on the phone and by email. Even if we hear from you briefly, a written version of your ideas will help us even more. Please limit your oral comments to five minutes.
Please note that your comments to the Panel will NOT be considered as a response to the SSA on the proposed regulations. The Panel strongly encourages you to also make comments directly to the SSA in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making. To be sure that your comments are considered, SSA must receive them no later than February 26, 2001.
The Panel is interested in your response to a number of questions pertaining to the proposed rule. Please refer to the "Questions for the Public regarding the NPRM" at the bottom of this notice.
For electronic information on the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act see the www.ssa.gov/work web site and for a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, look under the topic SSA at www.access.gpo.goc/su-docs/fedreg/a001228c.html
For more information on these events, please contact Conwal, our meeting coordinator at (703) 448 - 2300 ask for Robin at extension 338 robint@conwal.com or Rona at extension 326.
Date and Time Event Location
1/22/01
9:00 AM- 11:00 AM
(Mountain Time) Northwest Regional
Teleconference
Call in 1-800-779-3141
Pass code 12211
1/22/01
12:00 PM - 2:00 PM
(Mountain Time) Regional
Meeting Hilton Salt Lake City Center
255 South West Temple
Salt Lake City, UT
801-328-2000
1/24/01
2:30 PM - 5:30 PM
(Central Time)
Regional Meeting and Teleconference Minnesota World Trade Conference Center, Presentation Room
3rd Floor Tower
30 E. 7th Street
St. Paul, MN
Call in 1-800-779-3141
Pass code 12211
1/25/01
10:30 AM -12:30 PM
(Pacific Time) West Coast Teleconference Call in 1-800-779-3141
Pass code 12211
1/26/01
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM
(Mountain Time) Southwest Regional Teleconference Call in 1-800-779-3141
Pass code 12211
1/26/01
12:00 PM - 2:00 PM
(Mountain Time) Regional
Meeting Pueblo Grand Museum
4619 East Washington
Phoenix, AZ
1/29/01
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM
12:00 PM - 2:00 PM
(Eastern Time) Regional Meeting and Teleconference Hyatt Regency
265 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA
404-577-1234
Call in 1-800-779-3141
Pass code 12211
2/15/01
10:30 AM - 12:30 PM
(Pacific Time)
West Coast Teleconference Call in 1-800-779-3141
Pass code 12211
2/21/01
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM
12:00 PM - 2:00 PM
(Eastern Time) Regional Meeting and Teleconference To be announced
Call in 1-800-779-3141
Pass code 12211
THE TICKET TO WORK AND WORK INCENTIVES ADVISORY PANEL
QUESTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC ON THE PROPOSED RULES FOR
The Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program
On December 28, 2000, the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) published a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) in the Federal Register for the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program authorized by Public Law 106-170, the Ticket to Work and Work incentives Improvement Act of 1999. The Ticket to Work program will provide beneficiaries with disabilities with expanded access to employment services, vocational rehabilitation services and other support services.
It is the duty of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel (the Panel), also authorized by P.L. 106-170, to advise the President, the Congress, and the Commissioner of Social Security on issues related to work incentives programs, planning, and assistance for individuals with disabilities. The following questions to the public are posed by the Panel to elicit input on the proposed rule. The Panel will take the responses to these questions into consideration when it develops its advice report.
TICKET AND EMPLOYMENT NETWORK QUESTIONS
1. Which beneficiaries should get a ticket? At what age should a beneficiary receive a ticket? A beneficiary is informed when Social Security will perform a medical review (Continuing Disability Review or CDR) to determine whether the person remains disabled when the person is first awarded Social Security disability benefits. This is part of what Social Security calls a CDR "diary." If Social Security decides that a beneficiary is expected to medically improve (Medical Improvement Expected or MIE) when first awarded benefits, should the beneficiary be eligible for a Ticket?
2. Consistent with language in the statute, if a beneficiary is currently a client of the state VR, or applying for VR services, should the beneficiary be able to deposit his/her ticket with a different provider, that is, someone other that the state VR agency?
3. How many tickets should a beneficiary receive? The Ticket program makes monthly payments to Employment Networks once a beneficiary earns enough money to stop payment of monthly cash benefits. A beneficiary could work for many months and use up most of a Ticket's value. A provider would get paid for services. Then, a beneficiary could still return to the rolls within the same period of disability. Should this beneficiary be able to get a second full value Ticket?
4. What should happen with partially used Tickets? For example, a beneficiary works fifty out of the sixty months in which outcome payments can be made to a provider in his/her behalf, but then loses the job, remains disabled and goes back on the rolls. Should the ticket be reset back to full value? Or should that person's Ticket only be valued at 10 more remaining months of outcome payments to the Employment Network?"
5. Who should be in an employment network? Who should be in an employment network providing services to Ticket holders (beneficiaries)? Give us examples of organizations or businesses that might provide more choice and quality of services? Should non-traditional support people be allowed to contract as employment networks? ? Should non-traditional support people be allowed to be included as providers in an employment network? Should a beneficiary be allowed to be his/her own service provider? Should collectives of beneficiaries be in an employment network as group providers to each other? Should an employer be allowed to be a Ticket program provider for employment outcomes in that company?
6. The draft rules for ENs (Section 411.315 (c)) state: "An entity (that is, an employment network) must have applicable certificates, licenses, or other credentials if such documentation is required by State law to provide VR services, employment services or other support services in the State." Do you agree or disagree with this level of certification? Please comment.
7. What financial reporting would you see as needed by employment networks to the Program Manager or Social Security?
8. The Ticket "contract" is a two party signed voluntary contract between a beneficiary and an employment network. We want to know what measures to use to ensure that employment networks are competent to deliver vocational counseling, employment services and/or other supports. Should staff of Employment Networks have educational background or direct services experience, including but not limited to vocational rehabilitation and counseling, human relations, teaching or psychology? Is this measure of staff background the appropriate level of qualifications needed so that employment networks provide quality services to Ticket holders? What would you require? Please comment.
9. The proposed regulations allow the Program Manager to assess whether a beneficiary is making "timely progress towards self-supporting employment" which will then keep Continuing Disability Review (CDR) protections in place. Should "timely progress" be measured by minimum standards for all beneficiaries or should the terms and conditions specified in the IWP determine timely progress?
10. Should the State VR agency be allowed to use the Individual Plan for Employment (IPE) as a substitute for the Individual Work Plan (IWP)? If so, should other individualized service delivery plans be acceptable alternatives, provided they meet the minimum standards outlined in the statute?
PAYMENT METHOD QUESTIONS
1. How can the milestone payment system be structured to encourage providers to serve eligible individuals including those who are harder to serve?
2. One proposal is to pay milestone payments at three and seven months of employment at SGA. Are three and seven-month milestone payments reasonable/adequate? What payment amounts and timing of payments would allow a wide array of SSI/SSDI beneficiaries to use the ticket as a means of accessing employment and achieving self-sufficiency resulting in savings to the Social Security trust fund?
3. Should milestone/outcome payments be negotiated on an individualized basis? If so, what administrative methods should be in place to ensure the process is moving the individual towards self-sufficiency? Is there a danger of overpayment of milestone/outcome payments in such a milestone system? If so, what administrative mechanisms could be put in place to minimize overpayments?
4. How can we provide payment to providers without encouraging them to target individuals who are easier to serve?
5. The statute defines the harder-to-serve population in section1148 (h)(5)(c) as individuals with a need for ongoing support and services; individuals with a need for high-cost accommodations; individuals who earn a subminimum wage; and individuals who work and receive partial cash benefits. How can we design an effective and fair milestone/outcome payment structure that will provide information leading to permanent solutions for the issues raised regarding individuals in these categories?
6. The substantial gainful activity (SGA) level for blind beneficiaries currently is $1240. Will ENs be discouraged from serving these beneficiaries because of the higher SGA? For beneficiaries receiving SSI, will ENs be discouraged from serving these beneficiaries because they must reach a higher level of earnings before reaching 0-cash benefits status?
7. Should the individual work plan (IWP) include statements by the beneficiary and the employment network acknowledging their responsibilities and understanding of the employment goals to be achieved? How should beneficiary employment information be provided to the employment network?
8. How should documentation of beneficiary earnings be provided by the EN to the Program manager to validate payments due to the EN?
9. One payment proposal sets the total potential payment under the milestone/outcome payment structure at 85% of the outcome-only payment structure. Is this percentage appropriate? Should the 85% be something different? One of the reasons for milestone payments in the law is to provide equitable and fair access by individuals who are harder to serve. What payment structure would be fair and equitable?
10. How should milestone payments be amortized or spread out during the outcome-only payment period and over what period of time? One proposal suggests recovering paid milestones within the first year of outcome-only payments. Is this an appropriate timeframe? If not, what would be appropriate?
11. Should ENs ever receive outcome and/or milestone payments for a beneficiary who is still receiving benefits?
12. Should a developed and signed commitment on the IWP by the beneficiary and the EN be a milestone with a milestone payment made accordingly? If so, what should that payment be?
DISPUTE RESOLUTION QUESTIONS
Disputes between Beneficiaries and Employment Networks
1. Should the regulations include timelines for: (1) Employment Networks' (EN) grievance procedures; (2) appeals to the Program Manager (PM); and (3) review by the Social Security Administration (SSA)? If so, how much time should allowed at each level of appeal or review and what should be the total number of days, weeks or months allowed between the time a beneficiary files a complaint and a final decision by the SSA?
2. Should use of mediation services be included in the regulations as an option available to beneficiaries and ENs? If so, at what point(s) during the dispute resolution process? - At any point? Before or after the internal grievance procedure? Before or after an appeal to the PM? Before an appeal to the SSA?
3. Who should pay for the costs of mediation?
4. Do the regulations sufficiently provide for beneficiaries to be informed about the availability of assistance from the State Protection and Advocacy (P&A) system?
5. When and how should information about the P&A's assistance be provided to beneficiaries and by whom?
6. Should assistance from the P&A system be available to beneficiaries at any time and not just during the dispute resolution process?
7. Should the State P&A be provided information, that is, formal notification, about all disputes in which a beneficiary files a complaint with the EN unless the beneficiary specifically indicates that this information should not be provided to the P&A?
8. In an appeal to the PM, should the PM be required to request and accept information from both the EN and the beneficiary regarding a dispute?
9. Should the regulations describe the SSA review process that is available to the parties if a dispute is not resolved at the PM level?
10. What other concerns about the dispute resolution process for beneficiaries should the final regulations address that the proposed regulations do not address?
Disputes between ENs or Service Providers and PMs
1. In disputes that are not resolved at the PM level and are forwarded to the SSA for review, should SSA be required to request and accept information from all parties regarding a dispute?
2. Should the regulations include timelines for SSA to respond to disputes between ENs and the PM? If so, how much time should be allotted from the date the dispute is submitted in writing to SSA by either party?
3. Should an EN be permitted to have assistance or representation, at their own cost, during the dispute process?
4. What other concerns about the dispute resolution process for ENs should the final regulations address that the proposed regulations do not address?
5. Should use of mediation services be included in the regulations as an option available to beneficiaries and ENs? If so, at what point(s) during the dispute resolution process? - At any point? Before or after the internal grievance procedure? Before or after an appeal to the PM? Before an appeal to the SSA?
6. Who should pay for the costs of mediation?
MACS Disability Advisories Job Announcement
From: Diane McComb (macs@erols.com )
To: MACS Disability Advisories (macsdisabilityadvisories@egroups.com )
Subject: MACS Disability Advisories Job Announcement
Date: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 1:35 PM
Director of Quality Assurance
The Baltimore Association for Retarded Citizens (BARC) is seeking a knowledgeable and energetic professional to serve as Director of Quality Assurance (QA). The QA Director is a senior management position reporting directly to the CEO/Executive Director. The QA Director has broad responsibilities aimed at ensuring that the agency promotes, protects and ensures clients' rights, safety, health, satisfaction and community inclusion and participation. Applicants should hold a Masters degree and have eight or more years of relevant experience. A detailed resume and salary requirements should be transmitted to: BARC, 7215 York Road, Balto. MD, 21212, Att..: S. Morgan; fax: 410-296-2394; e-mail: barc@baltimorearc.org
Direct Support Staff Make a Difference. Shouldn't they also make a living?
http://macs.myassociation.com/home.jsp
Van conversions
Subject: Announcement
2001 Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country with
IMS Rampvan Conversion - Fully tested and in production.
IMS is now taking orders for the new 2001 Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country Rampvan Conversion. The vehicles were successfully crash tested and met or exceeded all FMVSS standards for 204 (Steering Column rearward displacement), 219 (Windshield Zone Intrusion), 301F,S, & R (Frontal, Side & Rear Impact-Fuel System Integrity), as well as 208/212
(Occupant Crash Protection/Windshield Mounting. All applicable Canadian Transport Standards were also in compliance. Please note that for the first time the tests were done with the optional 56-inch raised door (ADA).
Besides many new OE features, these exciting new 2001 model Rampvan conversions feature many important design innovations.
* Significantly smaller ramp motor pocket for more interior space
* Elimination of the ramp tower for more interior space
* New improved door drive cable for improved reliability
* Improved Ramp design for increased durability and reliability
* Revised Ramp Flap deployment chain system eliminates surface drag and improved safety
* New design stamped floor (high strength Cor 10 Steel) is both lighter and stronger, reducing overall conversion weight by 75 lbs. over previous conversions - improves both load carrying capacity and fuel economy
* Improved interior space, 3.75 inch more width between 'B' posts for a total overall width of 61.25 inches - Length and headroom equal or slightly better then previous model means "Best In Class" spaciousness
* Increased fuel tank capacity of over 20 gallons - OE style multi-layer blow molded tank design is guaranteed to pass new 2001 engine OBD 3 diagnostics - Will not turn on "Check Engine' warning light
* New improved dash switches and placement for even easier use
* Magnetic exterior switch now standard equipment for better access convenience
* New Flooring: New OE grade molded carpet and new non-skid flooring option for improved appearance and durability
* New version Computer Control Module, placement and logic for better dependability and access
You deserve better than left overs! You deserve a New IMS 2001 Rampvan.
Now it can be yours and save up to $2095.00. Call your local dealer for details. Limited time offer: http://www.ims-vans.com
DORS Public Meetings Schedule
The Maryland Division of Rehabilitation Services (DORS) and the State Rehabilitation Council will hold five public meetings in February, 2001 in locations around the state. At these meetings, people with disabilities, their families and advocates can discuss issues with DORS management and members of the State Rehabilitation Council such as:
* How DORS can help remove barriers to full employment for people with disabilities
* How DORS can help high school students with disabilities prepare for careers
* How DORS and the State Rehabilitation Council can help Maryland's One-Stop Career Centers meet the needs of individuals with disabilities
* How DORS can make programs and services more effective
The public may review and comment on the draft State Plan for Vocational Rehabilitation Services. This Plan assures that DORS operates in accordance with the federal Rehabilitation Act.
MEETING LOCATIONS/DATES
Crossroads Rehabilitation Program
1821 Portal St.
Baltimore, MD 21224
Tuesday, February 20, 2001
3:30 p.m.- 5:50 p.m.
Montgomery Blair High School
51 University Blvd. East
Silver Spring, MD 20902
Wednesday, February 21, 2001
4:00 p.m.- 6:00 p.m.
Cecil Community College
Technology Building, 1st Floor Amphitheater
Northeast, MD 21901
Monday February 26, 2001
2:30p.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Frostburg State University Center, Hagerstown Campus
16 W. Washington St. Room 110
Hagerstown, MD 21740
Tuesday February 27, 2001
3:00 p.m.- 5:00 p.m.
Charlotte Hall Library
37600 New Market
Charlotte Hall, MD 20622
Wednesday, February 28, 2001
3:30 p.m.- 5:30 p.m.
For further information about how to review the State Plan for Vocational Rehabilitation Services, to arrange accommodations or to get directions, contact Kathleen Long, Staff Specialist, Public Information and Planning at 410/554-9435 (voice); 888/554-0334 (toll-free voice); 410/554-9411(TTY); 410/554-9412 (fax). Sign language interpreters will attend each meeting. To make comments about the State Plan or DORS programs, you may attend a public meeting. Please limit comments to five minutes and, if possible, provide a written copy. Comments can also be mailed to DORS, 2301 Argonne Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218, Attn: Kathleen Long by March 9, 2001. E-mail comments to dors@msde.state.md.us
If local schools are closed for inclement weather, that day's meeting will be canceled.
The State Plan can be found on www.dors.state.md.us in mid-February. Copies can also be requested from Kathleen Long at the above address/phone.
N.O.D. Applauds Bush's New Freedom Initiative
PRESS RELEASE
For information, contact:
Brewster Thackeray, Director of Communications
202/293-5960 Thackeray@nod.org Cell: 703/508-4418
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION ON DISABILITY
APPLAUDS BUSH'S NEW FREEDOM INITIATIVE
Proposals Reflect Commitment to Diverse and Pressing Disability Issues
WASHINGTON, D.C. February 1, 2001 - President Bush's New Freedom
Initiative, announced at a White House ceremony today, brings national attention to the participation gaps in many aspects of life affecting Americans with disabilities. The National Organization on Disability (N.O.D.), which has for two decades led the effort to identify, track, and close these gaps, commended the Bush administration for prioritizing full participation in American life for the nation's 54 million citizens with disabilities.
"President Bush's New Freedom Initiative is exciting for the disability community," said Alan A. Reich, President of the National Organization on Disability. "Having the President address our concerns in such a comprehensive way early in his administration augurs well for the one-fifth of the population who live with disabilities. We will share our experience and press to ensure progress toward our goal of full and equal participation in all aspects of life."
Harris Poll surveys commissioned by the National Organization on Disability over the past decade have found persistent gaps in employment, education, voting and political participation, and in involvement in community, social and religious life, between those with disabilities and other Americans. Despite progress on some fronts since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law by the new President's father President George H.W. Bush in 1990, only a third of working age individuals with disabilities are currently employed, compared to more than 80 percent of the non-disabled. People with disabilities also are twice as likely not to finish high school (22 versus nine percent). A far higher percentage live in households that are below the poverty level (29 versus 10 percent), and a similarly disproportionate number report not having adequate access to health care (28 versus 12 percent) or transportation (30 versus 10 percent). These statistics on the participation gaps were released last year in the 2000 N.O.D./Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities.
"Closing these pervasive gaps is America's Disability Agenda. We need and welcome a national commitment to close them. The New Freedom Initiative promises to not only bring new resources, but to inspire greater efforts in the private sector. The nation needs the talent of all its citizens, and we are not only eager to participate, but to contribute to America just like everyone else," said Mr. Reich.
NEW FREEDOM INITIATIVE-2
Although voting by citizens with disabilities increased in last year's presidential election to 40 percent, up from 31 percent in 1996, this is still 10 percentage points behind the overall population. The National Organization on Disability's VOTE! 2000 campaign registered half a million new voters from this community, and led a get-out-the-vote campaign that played a large role in getting roughly 14 million citizens with disabilities to cast ballots and cut the participation gap substantially. Pressure for election reform and accessible voting has accelerated in the wake of the
2000 election, and President Bush's New Freedom Initiative addresses political involvement.
Another area included in the Initiative that N.O.D. has worked to bring to the nation's attention is involvement by people with disabilities in religious life. Nearly 2,000 congregations representing diverse faiths have become partners in N.O.D.'s "That All May Worship" campaign, setting an example for congregations nationwide to welcome and facilitate the participation of congregants with disabilities. The New Freedom Initiative establishes a national fund to provide matching grants to religious organizations and private clubs to become ADA compliant.
N.O.D. is also pleased that the New Freedom Initiative recognizes the vital role technology can play in closing the gaps and opening opportunities. Individuals who are deaf or blind, or have limited physical movement, stand to benefit from cutting edge technology-but only if it is made affordable to them. The Initiative will make funding available for this effort, and for such related programs as the "Access to Telework" fund that will assist people with disabilities in purchasing the equipment to work from home.
"The new funding called for in the President's initiative will bring technological innovations to the benefit of people with disabilities in transportation, home-based employment, accessible and independent voting, usable community services, and availability of education," said Mr. Reich.
"We commend President Bush for starting this new decade by recognizing the great potential of America's single largest minority-those with disabilities-just as his father did in signing the A.D.A. at the start of the past decade. All America gains by recognizing that it is ability, not disability, that counts."
- END -
The National Organization on Disability, founded in 1982, promotes the full and equal participation and contribution of America's 54 million men, women and children with disabilities in all aspects of life. N.O.D. is funded entirely by private donations and accepts no government funding. For more information visit www.nod.org
Bethany Hoffman
Content Manager
National Organization on Disability
www.nod.org
