Division for the blind and visually impaired vocational rehabilitation
Divison for the Blind and Visually Impaired Vocational Rehabilitation
Overview
(a) Input of State Rehabilitation Council
(b) Request for Waiver of Statewideness
(c) Cooperative Agreements with Agencies Not Carrying Out Activities Under the Statewide Workforce Development System
(d) Coordination with Education Officials
(e) Cooperative Agreements with Private Nonprofit Organizations
(f) Arrangements and Cooperative Agreements for the Provision of Supported Employment Services
(G) Coordination with Employers
(H) Interagency Cooperation
(I) Comprehensive System of Personnel Development; Data System on Personnel and Personnel Development
(J) Statewide Assessment
(K) Annual Estimates
(L) State Goals and Priorities
(M) Order of Selection
(N) Goals and Plans for Distribution of title VI Funds
(O) State's Strategies
(P) Evaluation and Reports of Progress: VR and Supported Employment Goals.
(Q) Quality, Scope, and Extent of Supported Employment Services.
Overview
The Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services Portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan [1] must include the following descriptions and estimates, as required by section 101(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by WIOA:
(a) Input of State Rehabilitation Council
All agencies, except for those that are independent consumer-controlled commissions, must describe the following:
(1)input provided by the State Rehabilitation Council, including input and recommendations on the VR services portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan, recommendations from the Council's report, the review and analysis of consumer satisfaction, and other Council reports that may have been developed as part of the Council’s functions;
(2)the Designated State unit's response to the Council’s input and recommendations; and
(3)the designated State unit’s explanations for rejecting any of the Council’s input or recommendations.
The State Rehabilitation Council (SRC) meets at least bi-monthly to review, analyze and advise the Maine Division for the Blind and Visually Impaired (DBVI). The SRC DBVI has been involved in Maine’s development of a Unified State Plan, including the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Portion, through:
- Participation in a 3 day event to set the strategic vision, goals and objectives with the WIOA core partners and other stakeholders, ensuring that people with disabilities were represented;
- Review and identification of recommendations resulting from DBVI’s Comprehensive Statewide Needs Assessment FFY 2012-2014;
A statewide public hearing seeking input for the Unified State Plan was held, January 20, 2016 using the Polycom or telephone system which connected Career Center sites in Portland, Bangor, Lewiston, Presque Isle and Augusta. These locations were advertised in the local newspaper and the DOL website, and were sent directly to the various groups of the organized blind community in the state. The public hearing was held to review, answer any questions and address concerns of the 2016 draft State Plan. A copy of the draft State Plan was distributed to all of the members of the SRC following the hearing and written comments were requested.
SRC- DBVI State Plan Comments
This is been quite a year for the SRC and DBVI. The year started out quietly but as it progressed some major issues within the agency came to light, testing the relationship between the SRC and DBVI. We are ending the year with, what we hope to be, an agency that is moving forward in a healthy manner, with a sustainable plan, and working cooperatively together as the SRC and DBVI.
As RSA knows DBVI ran into a financial shortfall starting in June 2015. The SRC started working on this issue in September 2015.There has been much input from the community as to where the SRC should be devoting it resources in 2016. The major areas are: homemaker closures, transition students (Pre-ETS) and "realignment".
Homemaker:
DBVI has historically used the homemaker closure to meet the needs of its older independent living consumers. The Independent Living arm of DBVI is currently in a financial deficit. In the past "homemakers" have fallen into the Title I section of the DBVI budget. It is clear this will not be happening as we move forward. Though the homemaker client represents a large portion of who DBVI Maine serves, most of this document focuses on employment. Employment is an important and worthwhile goal. It appears to the SRC the older blind and visually impaired populations make up a large and growing portion of the state’s residents. The state plan appears to treat this portion of the blind community as an afterthought. It is the SRC's opinion that DBVI needs to allocate time and resources to this population of blind Mainers.
Transition:
DBVI and the SRC also have to develop a plan with its Pre-ETS students.There is much work to be done in this area: retention of students, the 15% fiscal set aside in a state that is aging without dismantling the services being provided to other consumers of DBVI services.
Realignment:
The final focus of the SRC this year is the "realignment" activities of DBVI. Realignment is the term coined to describe the activities of DBVI to or seek efficiency and re-organize DBVI to bring operational expenditures back in line with federal and state funding. DBVI and the SRC are taking a retrospective look at how we ended up in the financial situation we are currently in. Working together, and trying to get a clear picture of what happened and how to prevent this from happening in the future. We are doing this by reviewing budgets, talking to staff and consumers along with reviewing various parts of the agency specifically contracts, technology, staffing, and outreach to the community.
Finally, early in the fall the combining of DVR and DBVI was not “off the table” The SRC would request from BRS/DOL whether activities within BRS are still looking at combining the two agencies as an option or has this issue been taken off "the table" permanently?
Though we have been on a rocky road we appreciate the effort DBVI is currently putting forth to help solve some very big issues in conjunction with the SRC for the community it serves.
Sincerely,
SRC DBVI
Agency Response: DBVI agrees with the observations of the SRC in regard to the events of 2015 and believes that we have re-established a collaborative relationship that will provide a unified analysis of these issues. In the absence of any analysis regarding potential cost savings, consolidation of the existing DSUs is not under consideration at this time.
Specific Comments Separated by Headings:
(a) Input of State Rehabilitation Council
As an ACB member and PTGDU member I had no knowledge this ever happened. I heard about it from a source outside of these specific groups. I then distributed the information about the hearings to these organizations.
Agency Response: DBVI expects that SRC representatives of consumer organizations will regularly communicate SRC conversations and activities to their membership.
Blind consumers have requested that DBVI be moved out of BRS into its own Commission.
DBVI has not responded to the consumers’ desires/request.
Agency Response: DBVI is established in law and can only be moved or relocated departmentally by the Maine State Legislature. This is not within DBVI’s discretion.
The plan does not address the projected shortfall of funding of IL for the blind community.
Agency Response: This is the Title I plan for Vocational Rehabilitation and does not address Independent Living services.
Consumers are not familiar or very comfortable with the public hearing process. Consequently the consumer voice in the state plan process has historically been less than what it could or should be. the state plan should make clear that DBVI will create plans to proactively and consistently meet consumers where they gather throughout the year to collect needs data, satisfaction data and other comments regarding consumers’ needs and how well the DBVI is meeting them.
Agency Response: DBVI Director and staff have historically met regularly met with consumer organizations and the SRC, in addition to surveying customers directly about their satisfaction with DBVI services.
(c) Cooperative Agreements with Agencies Not Carrying Out Activities Under the Statewide Workforce Development System
This paragraph speaks regarding a strong relationship between DVR and OADS/SAMHS. Does this information pertain to DBVI? If so, what is DBVI doing with these entities in terms of “implementing joint approaches to the workforce development of community rehabilitation providers and business engagement throughout the state”?
Agency Response: DBVI has revised the plan to state “DBVI/DVR and OADS/SAMHS…” DBVI staff and service providers are able to participate in training and workforce development opportunities funded jointly by OADS/SAMHS and DVR/DBVI, but also do cross-training to ensure that we are working jointly and knowledgeably with DHHS in service delivery.
(d) Coordination with Education Officials
We believe 504 students should also be added to this MOU.
Agency Response: DBVI has revised the plan to include this element.
The plan states that the DBVI Director sits on DOE advisory committee and is a member of a DOE team preparing for statewide implementation of UEB. The DBVI Director position has been vacant for several months. Who is fulfilling this role to ensure that DBVI is involved in moving these efforts forward?
Agency Response: Karen Fraser was attending these meetings when she was in the role as Acting DBVI Director and for continuity continued to represent DBVI as the implementation plan was completed. Nancy Moulton, Program Director for CCME, continues to provide liaison to the UEB implementation along with Karen.
(f) Arrangements and Cooperative Agreements for the Provision of Supported Employment Services
The plan states that DVR and DBVI are working with DHHS to learn about new service opportunities such as Discovering Personal Genius and Medicaid waiver funding for persons with head injury. Does DPG pertain to DBVI or just to DVR?
AgencyResponse: DBVI uses a “Future’s Planning” to learn more about the client, his/her interests and abilities and therefore has not used the Discovering Personal Genius.
(G) Coordination with Employers
The SRC would like to see some data surrounding how the Business Relations Specialist has benefited DBVI in the past. Also, please explain why the Business Relations Specialist positions have not been filled. It does not seem feasible that DBVI Counselors/directors can cover these duties, considering the reductions in staff that have occurred.
Agency Response: These positions have been filled and then vacated over the last couple of years. Some of the employments that were connected to these positions for DBVI were at TAMbrands and Proctor & Gamble. Since then, funding has made it more difficult to justify filling these positions and many DBVI counselors have begun to work more directly with employers. We are confident that counselors can manage the direct work with employers that might be asked of them.
(I) Comprehensive System of Personnel Development; Data System on Personnel and Personnel Development
Plan states that DBVI’s leadership will continue to monitor and deliver training needs although CSPD is no longer a requirement. Should this state that DBVI has continued to monitor and deliver the services instead of will continue?
Agency Response: Yes and this change has been made to the plan.
In regards to projected vacancies over the next five years, is the Rehab Services Manager position the Assistant DBVI Director position? If not, where is the Assistant Director position? Why is the position projected to be vacant over the next five years? Why is the Business Enterprise Program staff position expected to be vacant over the next five years? There is no discussion in this section regarding the staffing cuts that have occurred or the impact of these cuts on DBVI. Please address the cuts as well as the impacts.
Agency Response: This chart includes the Rehab Services Manager that used the working title of Assistant Director which is currently vacant. These vacancies will exist into the period of this plan but are not expected to remain vacant for five years.
Could DBVI please elaborate on the statement, "Going forward there are concerns regarding the impact on retention of qualified staff due to limited training resources and other physical challenges."
Agency Response: Because DBVI no longer receives a training grant from RSA, there will only be limited opportunities for training. This certainly could impact the retention (or recruitment) of qualified staffas they need a certain number of credits each year to retain CRC accreditation.
(J) Statewide Assessment
One of the themes in the CSNA was the need for peer support/peer monitoring. We would recommend DBVI subscribe to the Iris networks newsletter (community connections) for a list of peer support groups around the state that staff could refer consumers too.
Agency Response: Iris Network support groups exist because DBVI funds this activity and staff are well aware of and often participate in regional support groups.
The section talks of service delivery models. The two listed are, home-based and center-based models. In the past, there has been a third model a regional model. In the regional model several consumers from a community get together and receive services. This is cost-effective. It also allows consumers to be with others who are going through similar situations.
Agency Response: DBVI agrees that the regional group model will be considered for utilizations in the future.
Where is the data or sources to support this statement? The statement being, "consumers continue to stress the need to have in-state option."
Agency Response: DBVI has modified this statement in the plan..
Plan needs to address/include community-based model of services. There is great concern from blind consumers that choices have been strictly limited as independent providers have stopped receiving referrals to provide services. How is DBVI going to ensure consumer choice as well as timely access to services?
Agency Response: Provisions in our Request for Proposals for community based services beginning July 1, 2016 will result in more efficient distribution of VRT staff throughout the state, which will improve and equalize access to services. Also, DBVI will continue to offer consumer choices wherever possible as prescribed in the federal regulations.
The SILC and others in the disability community are working toward developing a transportation voucher system in Maine which would substantially improve transportation problems for people with disabilities, especially in the rural areas. DBVI should include the intention of participating and supporting the development and implementation of an effective transportation voucher program in Maine.
Agency Response: DBVI is and will continue to be supportive of any effort to improve transportation options in Maine.
What were the ages of the people attending out-of-state immersion centers?
Agency Response: This information is not known to us at this time, but we will research.
The SRC believe "Awareness of DBVI Services" should be the first grouping in the section.
Agency Response: DBVI agrees with this revision.
In regards to DBVI eligible population doubling, how will DBVI prepare to serve these numbers? What additional resources will be needed and how will the resources be accessed? Additionally, the plan states that “consumers identified the need to explore service delivery models” related to non-English speaking immigrants and refugees. How will DBVI explore service delivery models and plan to better serve this identified population?
Agency Response: While DBVI does anticipate strong growth in the number of visually impaired (esp. older) individuals, we do not expect a doubling of referrals in the near term.
(L) State Goals and Priorities
Goal 1) The goal focuses on stabilizing DBVI’s financial situation; however, neither the goal nor the plan identifies DBVI’s financial situation. DBVI experienced significant changes during the past reporting year. Staff positions were eliminated; providers stopped receiving referrals; contracts were reduced. The structure of DBVI was changed in a significant way. Please speak to the changes and the potential impacts. Please include a goal that focuses on DBVI’s plan to restore structure, positions, and services statewide.
It is concerning that re-allotment funds will be used for “one-time initiatives.” Shouldn’t DBVI focus on initiatives that are sustainable and have great impact on individuals served?
Agency Response: DBVI is not yet able to describe a plan for restoration of reductions made during the past year, but we expect to be able to do so by April 2016. Reallotment funds have been used in FFY16 and are anticipated to be included next year, but not in a way that would put DBVI in jeopardy if the funds were not available in future years.