We are currently remodeling

Skip Navigation

Main Navigation Bar (Deactivated)

Public Policy

The goal of the Disability Policy Collaboration is to impact national public policy for people with developmental disabilities, including those with cerebral palsy and intellectual disability, and their friends, families and loved ones.

Go back to top

Technology

Background on State Assistive Technology Grant Programs and Leveraging of Non-Federal Funds: Need for Continued Federal Role

AT Legislation Background
States began to receive federal funds in 1989 under the Technology-related Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities Act (Tech Act) of 1988. The first states to receive the five year grants were: Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska and Utah. The federal mandate was to "increase access to, availability of, and funding for assistive technology through state efforts and national initiatives." The Act was reauthorized in 1994 and the mandate extended for another 5 years. The 1994 amendments included a sunset provision indicating that federal funding would begin to decrease in the final three years of the program and would completely cease at the end of 10 full years of funding. States were expected to take fiscal responsibility for these programs when federal funding ceased. In 1998, as the first 9 states faced elimination from federal funding, the US Congress realized that it must continue its role in assisting states to meet their mandate. Congressional action resulted in the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (AT Act). Congressional findings included in that legislation recognized the tremendous advances in technology and the benefit of statewide programs. The AT Act extended funding so that states that did not receive initial funding until 1994 could receive their full ten years. States who had been in the program prior to 1994 were given three additional years of funding (at approximately 43% of their initial funding level) to continue meeting the federal mandate giving them additional time to address the revolutionary changes in electronic technology for people with disabilities. Beginning in FY 2002, programs under the AT Act of 1998 will begin to be eliminated from federal funding, beginning with the first nine states listed above.

Leveraging of Non-Federal Funds
During the past decade many states have been successful in leveraging non-federal funds to support components of the federal mandate in their states. For example, Utah has generated approximately $1 million per year in state appropriated funds to be used for the purchase of assistive technology (AT). Nebraska has generated nearly $2 million over the past 3 years to provide direct assistive technology services through the home and community-based waiver program. Colorado secured a large state contract ($498,000 per year) to provide intensive assistive technology training and technical assistance to education staff and related service providers statewide. State legislatures and agency administrators provide funding for specific assistive technology initiatives but not to support the infrastructure that gets the funds to people with disabilities in the most appropriate and efficient manner. The table below conservatively demonstrates the recent success of several states in leveraging non-federal funds to meet the ever-emerging needs of people with disabilities. States have generated additional federal funds in the form of grants and contracts; these figures are not reported. It is not possible to calculate the fiscal impact of assistive technology policy development, public awareness, and training activities on the appropriations to specific state agencies for assistive technology-related purposes. Nor is it possible to determine the financial benefits of myriad state activities that resulted in Medicaid revising its coverage policies to begin providing assistive technology (augmentative and alternative communication devices is a specific example) to people with disabilities.

Leveraged Funds

With leveraged funds, all states would benefit by the amendment being offered which shifts money from one title to another title of the ATA to the state grant program.
State Non-federal Funds (Purpose)
Arkansas $1,667,794 (1995-present, for AT services, targeted training, and revolving loan fund). Ongoing amount varies.
Colorado $1,394,000 (1999-present, for AT services and targeted training). $498,000 annual/ongoing.
Georgia $227,000 (1997-present, for AT services). Ongoing amount varies.
Illinois $440,000 (1997-present, for AT services). $160,000 annual/ongoing.
Kansas $1,041,000 (1997-present, for AT services). $210,000 annual/ongoing.
$650,000 (one time state appropriation for alternative financing program).
Kentucky $2,006,900 (1998-present, for AT services and equipment recycling). Ongoing amount varies.
Missouri $3,640,000 (1998-present, for AT services through DD council initiatives and early intervention). Ongoing amount varies.
Nebraska $4,039,357 (1997-present, for home and community-based waiver service programs, job site assessments, purchase of AT). $1,100,000 annual/ongoing.
Pennsylvania $3,219,000 (1997-present, for state lending library). $890,000 annual/ongoing.
$2,000,090 (1999-present, for VR grant program to small businesses). $1,000,000 annual/ongoing. $1,000,000 (1998-present, state appropriations for alternative financing program).
Utah $2,105,000 (1993-present, for purchase of AT). $600,000 annual/ongoing.
$4,588,000 (1993-present, for AT services). $530,000 annual/ongoing. $75,000 (1993-present, private donations for alternative financing program).
$85,000 (1997-present for AT training)

For a more in-depth look at what each state would receive, visit the Washington Watch article "Budget, Appropriations and Special Education Conference".

Emerging Federal AT Initiatives
While much progress had been made in the areas of systems enhancement, public awareness and information, advocacy, training, and financing, tremendous advances in technology and public policy have outpaced state efforts to ensure access to, availability of, and funding for appropriate assistive technology. During the past decade, these advances have been met with initiatives to: (a) improve acquisition of new technology, (b) provide training in specific areas of need, (c) develop equipment loan programs and equipment recycling programs, and (d) improve access to accessible information technology in business and government. Emerging issues such as the Olmstead decision, the New Freedom Initiative, E-government initiatives, telecommuting, IDEA ’97 and its impending reauthorization, Section 508 final guidelines, personal computer use in homes, use of the Internet for personal and business purposes (E-commerce), the shift of public health care to managed care and PPOs, Ticket to Work: Work Incentives Improvement Act (TWIIA), election reform and electronic voting, accessibility provisions under the ADA, improved medical technology that prolongs the lives of people with severe disabilities, and the Telecommunications Act Sect. 255 were not anticipated when the sunset provisions were conceived. Technology-related initiatives and policies are evolving as rapidly as the technology itself.

Need for Federal Role
Continued federal support will not supplant state funded activities. States often develop interdisciplinary councils for information sharing and, sometimes, for dealing with complex, social service cases. They do not set up these councils to engage in the broad range of activities currently undertaken by state AT grant programs (e.g., policy monitoring, public awareness, technical assistance); these cross-disability, lifespan activities are not generally within the purview of state-funded agencies. Keeping pace with changing societal needs, policies, and rapidly advancing technology requires an intense, focused, interdisciplinary lifespan approach. Further, state service agencies focus their assistive technology-related training and technical assistance efforts on technology applications within their respective eligibility or entitlement domains. They do not address lifespan issues. State assistive technology programs are designed to address the broad range of disability issues across the lifespan.

In 1998, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) published findings and recommendations in the "Blueprint for the Millenium: An Analysis of Regional Hearings on Assistive Technology for People with Disabilities." It described continued and emerging barriers to consumer acquisition of assistive technology. Proposed solutions to these barriers clearly indicated the need for the federal government to continue its support of the 1988 mandate. In response to the document, NIDRR invested nearly $1,000,000 to develop a national assistive technology data collection system. This data is to be used to monitor local, state, and national trends in AT use and acquisition, access to AT devices and services, and other consumer issues with regard to assistive technology. State assistive technology grant programs are the logical entity to address this new component of the federal mandate.

In order for the Federal government to continue its role through the demonstrated expertise of state AT grant programs, Congressional action must be taken now to eliminate the sunset provision. Below is proposed sunset waiver language that maintains the knowledge and expertise of these programs and ensures adequate resources for each program.

    "Provided, That the funds provided for Title I of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (the AT Act) shall be allocated notwithstanding section 105 (b) of the AT Act and Section 101(f) of the AT Act shall not limit the award of an extension grant to three years; provided further, That each State shall be provided a minimum of $500,00 and each outlying area $150,000 for activities under Section 101 of the AT Act and each state shall be provided a minimum of $100,000 and each outlying area $50,000 for activities under section 102 of the Act. If the funds appropriated for the AT Act are insufficient to fund these minimum allotments, current award levels under section 101 and 102 shall be maintained and any new funds shall be allocated proportionally to achieve the prescribed minimums."

Conclusion
States have done an excellent job meeting the mandates given in 1988 and renewed in 1994 and 1998. State assistive technology programs are in an excellent position, with the infrastructure in place, to meet the evolving mandates prescribed by current federal policy initiatives. With a very small federal investment ($34 million) the states can continue to leverage additional funds to address the technology initiatives of local, state, and national policy. The federal government has a role to ensure equal access and equal opportunity for all; No individual should be left behind. To eliminate state assistive technology programs when they are making strident efforts to address the needs of emerging federal policy and, more importantly, individual independence needs, is inconsistent with current federal initiatives. There are several options that would continue the benefits of a federal role in assistive technology policy implementation through the state assistive technology grant programs.

The first 9 states to lose funding will be eliminated in the FY2002 budget. Action must be taken now. Losing the expertise and momentum of these projects, to be followed by the loss of 14 more programs the next year, will be very detrimental to national efforts to "increase access to, availability of, and funding for assistive technology through state efforts and national initiatives."