Fiscal Year 2011
Monitoring Report
on the
Pennsylvania office of
Vocational Rehabilitation Program


U.S. Department of Education

Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services

Rehabilitation Services Administration

August 8, 2011

Table ofContents

Page

Section 1: Executive Summary

Section 2: Performance Analysis

Section 3: Emerging Practices

Section 4: Results of Prior Monitoring Activities

Section 5: Focus Areas

A. Organizational Structure Requirements of the Designated State Agency (DSA) and Designated State Unit (DSU)

B. Transition Services and Employment Outcomes for Youth with Disabilities

C. Fiscal Integrity of the Vocational Rehabilitation Program

Section 6: Compliance Findings and Corrective Actions

Appendix A: Agency Response

Appendix B: Legal Requirements

Section 1: Executive Summary

Background

Section 107 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act), requires the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) to conduct annual reviews and periodic on-site monitoring of programs authorized under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act to determine whether a state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agency is complying substantially with the provisions of its State Plan under section 101 of the Rehabilitation Act and with the evaluation standards and performance indicators established under Section 106. In addition, the commissioner must assess the degree to which VR agencies are complying with the assurances made in the State Plan Supplement for Supported Employment (SE) Services under Title VI, part B, of the Rehabilitation Act.

Through its monitoring of the VR and SE programs administered by the Pennsylvania Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (OVR) in fiscal year (FY) 2011, RSA:

  • reviewed the VR agency’s progress toward implementing recommendations and resolving findings identified during the prior monitoring cycle (FY 2007 through FY 2010);
  • reviewed the VR agency’s performance in assisting eligible individuals with disabilities to achieve high-quality employment outcomes;
  • recommended strategies to improve performance and required corrective actions in response to compliance findings related to three focus areas, including:
  • organizational structure requirements of the designated state agency (DSA) and the designated state unit (DSU);
  • transition services and employment outcomes for youth with disabilities; and
  • the fiscal integrity of the VR program;
  • identified emerging practices related to the three focus areas and other aspects of the VR agency’s operations; and
  • provided technical assistance (TA) to the VR agency to enable it to enhance its performance and to resolve findings of noncompliance.

The nature and scope of this review and the process by which RSA carried out its monitoring activities, including the conduct of an on-site visit from May 23, 2011 through May 27, 2011,is described in detail in the FY 2011 Monitoring and Technical Assistance Guide for the Vocational Rehabilitation Program located at: reports/2011/monitoring-and-technical-assistance-guide.doc or,

Emerging Practices

Through the course of its review, RSA collaborated with OVR, the State Rehabilitation Council (SRC), the Technical Assistance and Continuing Education (TACE) center and other stakeholders to identify theemerging practices belowimplemented by the agency to improve the performance and administration of the VR program.

  • Transition -- Project Promoting Academic Success (Project PAS): OVR implementedProject PAS which provides a one-credit college course offered to students with disabilities in their junior or senior year of high school to help them determine if post-secondary education is an appropriate goal.
  • Transition -- Summer Academy for Students who are Blind or Visually Impaired: OVR implementeda two-week summer academy for high school transition students who are blind or visually impaired to build on their current skills and independence in pursuit of possible college enrollment.
  • Quality Assurance -- Commonwealth Workforce Development System (CWDS): OVR implemented an updated case management system to provide bureau directors and Regional Managers with access to reports to provide managerial support fordecision-making, goal setting, and quality assurance (QA) activities.

A more complete description of these practices can be found in Section 3 of this report.

Summary of Observations

RSA’s review of OVRresulted in the observations related to the focus areas identified below. The entire observations and the recommendations made by RSA that the agency can undertake to improve its performance are contained in Section 5 of this report.

Organizational Structure of the DSA and DSU

  • State Board of Vocational Rehabilitation (SBVR) Roles and Responsibilities: There is a lack of clarity regarding the roles and responsibilities of the SBVR.
  • OVR Supervision at One-Stop Career Centers, known as CareerLinks: The MOU between OVR and its One-Stop partners incorporates a reference that OVR staff members at the One-Stop location are under the functional supervision of the CareerLink Administrator.
  • Service Provision to Individuals Not Applying For or Receiving OVR Services: OVR maintains an agency resource document on OVR’s participation in the One-Stop system that is out-of-date and contains inaccurate information.

Transition Services and Employment Outcomes for Youth with Disabilities

  • OVR Transition Resources: Several internal agency resources are not being updated and utilized by different levels of the agency to facilitate systemic internal collaboration on transition service delivery.

Fiscal Integrity of the VR Program

  • Fiscal Planning: OVR has not developed a sufficient long-range financial planning process that is linked tostrategic programmatic activities.

Summary of Compliance Findings

RSA’s review resulted in the identification of compliance findings in the focus areas specified below. The complete findings and the corrective actions that OVRmust undertake to bring itself into compliance with pertinent legal requirements are contained in Section 6 of this report.

  • DSU Participation on the Local Workforce Investment Boards (LWIBs): The representation of OVR on the LWIB would cease upon the expiration of the current term.
  • Program Income: OVR does not properly track and report program income through required financial status reports.
  • Monitoring Grant Activities: OVR does not have procedures in place to monitor the grant-supported services provided through its letters of understanding (LOUs), its oversight of its comprehensive rehabilitation center, and its coordination with its One-Stop partners.
  • Assigning Personnel Costs – VR Program: OVR uses VR funds for personnel costs that are incurred in the administration of theIndependent Living (IL) Part B program, the Older Individuals Who Are Blind (OIB) program, and non-federal programs.
  • Maintenance of Effort: OVR uses non-federal funds for a fiscal year at a level not equal to the non-federal expenditures from the fiscal year two years prior.
  • Proposal Costs -- Not Allowable as Direct Cost: OVR charges staff time to proposal costs, i.e., grant proposals, as direct costs to the VR program.

Development of the Technical Assistance Plan

RSA will collaborate closely with OVRandRegion IIITACEto develop a plan to address the TA needs identified by OVRin Appendix A of this report. RSA, OVRandRegion III TACE will conduct a teleconference within 30 days following the publication of this report to discuss the details of the TA needs, identify and assign specific responsibilities for implementing TA and establish initial timeframes for the provision of the assistance. RSA, OVRand Region III TACE will participate in teleconferences at least semi-annuallyto gauge progress and revise the plan as necessary.

Review Team Participants

Members of the RSA review team included Charles Sadler (TAUnit), Craig McManus (Fiscal Unit), David Jones (VRUnit), Christy Cavataio (VRUnit), Julya Doyle (Data Unit), Jean Yan (Data Unit), and Deb Cotter (ILUnit). Although not all team members participated in the on-site visit, each contributed to the gathering and analysis of information, along with the development of this report.

Acknowledgements

RSA wishes to express appreciation to the representatives of OVRand the SBVR for the cooperation and assistance extended throughout the monitoring process. RSA also appreciates the participation of the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, theSRC, the Client Assistance Program and advocates, and other stakeholders in the monitoring process.

Section 2: Performance Analysis

This analysis is based on a review of the programmaticdata contained in Table2.1and is intended to serve as a broad overview of the VR program administered byOVR. It should not be construed as a definitive or exhaustive review of all available agency VR program data. As such, the analysis does not necessarily capture all possible programmatic trends.In addition,the data in Table 2.1 measure performance based on individuals who exited the VR program during FY 2006 through FY 2010. Consequently, the table and accompanying analysis do not provide information derived from OVR open service records including that related to current applicants,individuals who have been determined eligible and those who are receiving services.OVRmay wish to conduct its own analysis, incorporating internal open caseload data, to substantiate or confirm any trends identified in the analysis.

VR Program PerformanceAnalysis

Table 2.1

OVR Program Performance Data for FY 2006 through FY 2010

Program Performance Data for FY 2006 – FY2010
Pennsylvania Office of Vocational Rehabilitation - Dept of Labor and Industry / 2006 / 2007 / 2008 / 2009 / 2010 / Change from 2006 to 2010 / All Combined Agencies 2010
TOTAL CASES CLOSED / Number / 27,973 / 27,059 / 21,935 / 23,352 / 25,061 / -2,912 / 281,286
Percent / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0% / -10.4% / 100.0%
Exited as an applicant / Number / 2,986 / 2,416 / 2,279 / 3,044 / 3,563 / 577 / 47,487
Percent / 10.7% / 8.9% / 10.4% / 13.0% / 14.2% / 19.3% / 16.9%
Exited during or after trial work experience/extended employment / Number / 182 / 190 / 106 / 132 / 173 / -9 / 1,708
Percent / 0.7% / 0.7% / 0.5% / 0.6% / 0.7% / -4.9% / 0.6%
TOTAL NOT DETERMINED ELIGIBLE / Number / 3,168 / 2,606 / 2,385 / 3,176 / 3,736 / 568 / 49,195
Percent / 11.3% / 9.6% / 10.9% / 13.6% / 14.9% / 17.9% / 17.5%
Exited without employment outcome after signed IPE / Number / 92 / 64 / 34 / 72 / 33 / -59 / 5,824
Percent / 0.3% / 0.2% / 0.2% / 0.3% / 0.1% / -64.1% / 2.1%
Exited from order of selection waiting list / Number / 1,637 / 1,622 / 1,111 / 989 / 276 / -1,361 / 1,390
Percent / 5.9% / 6.0% / 5.1% / 4.2% / 1.1% / -83.1% / 0.5%
Exited without employment after eligibility / Number / 4,116 / 3,521 / 2,656 / 2,750 / 3,687 / -429 / 68,696
Percent / 14.7% / 13.0% / 12.1% / 11.8% / 14.7% / -10.4% / 24.4%
TOTAL EXITED AFTER ELIGIBILITY, BUT PRIOR TO RECEIVING SERVICES / Number / 5,845 / 5,207 / 3,801 / 3,811 / 3,996 / -1,849 / 75,910
Percent / 20.9% / 19.2% / 17.3% / 16.3% / 15.9% / -31.6% / 27.0%
Exited with employment / Number / 10,995 / 11,228 / 9,221 / 9,305 / 9,460 / -1,535 / 78,860
Percent / 39.3% / 41.5% / 42.0% / 39.8% / 37.7% / -14.0% / 28.0%
Exited without employment / Number / 7,965 / 8,018 / 6,528 / 7,060 / 7,869 / -96 / 77,321
Percent / 28.5% / 29.6% / 29.8% / 30.2% / 31.4% / -1.2% / 27.5%
TOTAL RECEIVING SERVICES / Number / 18,960 / 19,246 / 15,749 / 16,365 / 17,329 / -1,631 / 156,181
Percent / 67.8% / 71.1% / 71.8% / 70.1% / 69.1% / -8.6% / 55.5%
EMPLOYMENT RATE / 57.99% / 58.34% / 58.55% / 56.86% / 54.59% / 50.49%
Transition aged youth closed / Number / 9,170 / 8,987 / 7,613 / 8,168 / 9,027 / -143 / 100,116
Percent / 32.8% / 33.2% / 34.7% / 35.0% / 36.0% / -1.6% / 35.6%
Transition aged youth employment outcomes / Number / 3,657 / 3,880 / 3,266 / 3,328 / 3,317 / -340 / 27,745
Percent / 33.3% / 34.6% / 35.4% / 35.8% / 35.1% / -9.3% / 35.2%
Competitive employment outcomes / Number / 10,626 / 10,864 / 8,145 / 8,544 / 8,665 / -1,961 / 73,995
Percent / 96.6% / 96.8% / 88.3% / 91.8% / 91.6% / -18.5% / 93.8%
Supported employment outcomes / Number / 385 / 349 / 270 / 261 / 261 / -124 / 7,004
Percent / 3.5% / 3.1% / 2.9% / 2.8% / 2.8% / -32.2% / 8.9%
Average hourly wage for competitive employment outcomes / Average / $10.34 / $10.65 / $11.80 / $11.55 / $12.10 / $11.33
Average hours worked for competitive employment outcomes / Average / 33.1 / 33.1 / 33.3 / 32.5 / 32.4 / 31.4
Competitive employment outcomes at 35 or more hours per week / Number / 6,580 / 6,748 / 5,122 / 5,000 / 5,035 / -1,545 / 38,784
Percent / 59.8% / 60.1% / 55.5% / 53.7% / 53.2% / -23.5% / 49.2%
Employment outcomes meeting SGA / Number / 7,699 / 7,749 / 6,281 / 6,100 / 6,298 / -1,401 / 48,900
Percent / 70.0% / 69.0% / 68.1% / 65.6% / 66.6% / -18.2% / 62.0%
Employment outcomes with employer-provided medical insurance / Number / 3,705 / 3,727 / 908 / 907 / 1,140 / -2,565 / 18,791
Percent / 33.7% / 33.2% / 9.8% / 9.7% / 12.1% / -69.2% / 23.8%

VR Performance Trends

Positive Trends

Despite a significant economic decline statewide during the time ofnational recession, OVR’s overall performance in serving individuals with disabilities remained generally consistent during FY 2006 through FY 2010, with a decline of 10.4 percent, as demonstrated by the total number of cases closed. In FY 2010, the total number of individuals receiving services was 17,239, of which 37.7 percent exited with employment outcomes in comparison to the national average of 28.0 percent forcombined VR agencies. OVR maintained a 40.0 percent average ofindividuals exiting with employment outcomes over the five-year cycle.

While OVR’s employment rate,(the ratio of those individuals who received services under anindividualized plan for employment (IPE) who exited with employment compared to those who exited without employment), decreased slightly from 58.0 percent to 55.6 percent during the five-year cycle, OVR still exceeds the 50.5 percent nationalaverage for combined VR agencies. In addition, the overall quality of employment outcomes has been slightly higher than that of combined agencies nationally with respect to quality indicators includinghourly wage, average hours worked, and employment outcomes meeting significant gainful activity (SGA). The average hourly wage was $12.10 in FY 2010 compared to the national average of $11.33; the average hours worked for competitive employment outcomes was 32.4 hours compared to the national average of 31.4 hours; and the average of employment outcomes meeting SGA was 66.6 percent compared to the national average of 62.0 percent in FY 2010.

The total number of individuals who exited after eligibility but prior to receiving services declined 31.6 percent from 5,845 individuals in FY 2006 to 3,996 in FY 2010. In FY 2010, 15.9 percent exited the program in this manner compared to the national average of 27.0 percent for combined VR agencies. This decline has been consistent across different closure categories for those individuals who exited the VR program. For those individuals who exited without employment outcomes after a signed IPE, there was a 64.1 percent decrease from 92 to 22 individuals. For those individuals who exited from the OOS waiting list, there was an 83.1 percent decrease from 1,637 to 276 individuals. For those who exited without employment after eligibility, there was a 31.6 percent decrease from 4,116 to 3,687 individuals. Overall, after a VR consumer is determined eligible for services, OVR improvedits performance in maintaining the individualin service delivery status.

Trends Indicating Potential Risk to the Performance of the VR Program

The total number of individuals receiving services from OVR declined 8.6 percent from 18,960 in FY 2006 to 17,329 in FY 2010. While more VR consumers are staying in service delivery status after the eligibility determination, there has been a 19.3 percent increasein the number of individualswho exited as applicants over the five-year period from 2,986 in FY 2006 to 3,563 in FY 2010.

During the FY 2011 monitoring, RSA provided TA on coding issues to ensure accurate data reporting. As a result of the TA, OVR confirmed and subsequently corrected a coding error related to the decreasein the employment outcomes with employer-provided medical insurance from 33.2 percent in FY 2007 to 9.8 percent in FY 2008.

In the area of SE, OVR requested TA regardingits performance in comparison to the national combined agency average. In this area, OVR’s performance decreased from 3.5 percent for all employment outcomes in FY 2006 to 2.8 percent in FY 2010, compared to the national average of 8.9 for combined VR agenciesin FY 2010.

While those individuals who exited with employment outcomes in FY 2010 is 9.7 percent higher than that for combined VR agencies, there has been a 14 percent decrease since FY 2006 from 10,995 to 9,460 individualsin FY 2010. During that same period, the number of competitive employment outcomes decreased 18.5 percent from 10,626 in FY 2006 to 8,665 in FY 2010.

Section 3: Emerging Practices

While conducting the monitoring of the VR program, the review team collaborated with the OVR, the SRC, the TACE, and agency stakeholders to identify emerging practices in the following areas:

  • strategic planning;
  • program evaluation and quality assurance practices;
  • human resource development;
  • transition;
  • the partnership between the VR agency and SRC;
  • the improvement of employment outcomes, including supported employment and self-employment;
  • VR agency organizational structure; and
  • outreach to unserved and underserved individuals.

RSA considers emerging practices to be operational activities or initiatives that contribute to successful outcomes or enhance VR agency performance capabilities. Emerging practices are those that have been successfully implemented and demonstrate the potential for replication by other VR agencies. Typically, emerging practices have not been evaluated as rigorously as "promising," "effective," "evidence-based," or "best" practices, but still offer ideas that work in specific situations.

As a result of its monitoring activities, RSA identified the emerging practicesbelow.

1. Transition -- Project Promoting Academic Success (Project PAS)

OVR implementedProject PAS, a program that provides a one-credit college course offered to students with disabilities in their junior or senior year of high school to help them determine if post-secondary education is an appropriate goal. This course is offered on a college campus to maximize the student’s experience in thepost-secondary education environment. The class meets two hours weekly over a period of eight weeks. The curriculum described below.

  • Week 1: Setting the Stage - Differences Between High School, Work, andCollege
  • Week 2: Active Learning
  • Week 3: Learning Styles
  • Week 4: Disability Law
  • Week 5: Assistive Technology
  • Week 6: Overview of Reading and Study Skills
  • Week 7: Evaluating Learning and Progress
  • Week 8: Problem Solving and Decision-Making

Beyond providing the student with the opportunity to experience a post-secondary education environment before leaving high school, Project PAS also provides the studentwith the knowledge and resources to be successful in post-secondary education upon pursuit of the IPE goal. OVR has found this program to be a cost-effective measure to assess a student’s probability of success, in contrast to sponsoring a student who may not be prepared for post-secondary education on a full-time basis. Currently, Project PAS includes 13 post-secondary educational institutions with a total of 23 sites. OVR has exceeded its goalto replicate Project PASat 20 sites throughout the Commonwealth.

2. Transition -- SummerAcademy for Students who are Blind or Visually Impaired

OVR implementeda two-week summer academy for high school students who are blind or visually impaired to build on their current skills and independence in pursuit of possible college enrollment. The experience is available to residents of Pennsylvania who are current consumers of the OVR Bureau of Blindness and Visual Services. Students are housed at OVR’s comprehensive rehabilitation centerwith daily living skills offered in the following focus areas: note-taking, travel, self-advocacy, networking techniques, career awareness, social skills, and enhancing access technology skills. During the summer of 2010, 18 individuals between the ages of 16 to 20participated. A self-assessment has been administered to the students at the beginning and end of the summer program with results demonstrating improvements by students in the different focus areas.

3. Quality Assurance -- Commonwealth Workforce Development System (CWDS)

OVR’s current custom-designed case management system, CWDS, has enhanced the agency’s capacity to generate timely reports, including both standard and ad hoc reports that are used by management to monitor the VR program. The comprehensive system is used by front-line staff for case management functions and for immediate access to job information and services and has improved capacity to provide relevant data to the SRC and the Pennsylvania state legislators. The system facilitates the sharing of relevant information with partner agencies, including the Department of Labor and Industry’s (DLI) Bureau of Workforce Development Partnership and the Department of Public Welfare’s Bureau of Employment and Training Programs; thus, strengthening these partnerships through enhanced communication.