[Colorado-talk] Interim Study Update

[Dan Burke]

Greetings all -

Last Wednesday, August 12 was the opening meeting of the 2015 Interim
Study Committee on Vocational Rehabilitation Services for the Blind.
Tomorrow is the second of the six meetings the Committee will hold.
It will be held in House Meeting Room 0112 at the Capitol from 1 p.m.
to 4 p.m.  If you can't attend, the meeting will likely be streamed,
so look for that link on Colorado Talks tomorrow.

The Committee's web page contains more schedule and other information,
though future agendas are not yet finalized.  Here's the link:

2015 Vocational Rehabilitation Services for the Blind | Colorado
Legislative Council
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cga-legislativecouncil/2015-vocational-rehabilitation-services-blind

At last week's meeting, NFB of Colorado President Scott LaBarre led
off the agenda and with his testimony set the stage for the
Committee's work.  Below is his revised testimony, which was submitted
to the Committee for the official record.


* * * *

TESTIMONY OF SCOTT C. LABARRE
Before the Vocational Rehabilitation Services for the Blind Interim
Study Committee
Delivered in Person Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Testimony Submitted to Record August 18, 2015

INTRODUCTION
Greetings!
I am Scott LaBarre, President of the National Federation of the Blind
of Colorado.  I wish to begin by thanking Representative Danielson,
Representative Primavera, Representative Windholz, Senator Balmer,
Senator Aguilar, and Senator Lundberg for this tremendous opportunity
to offer testimony before what we believe to be a very important
committee and process, the result of which has the potential to usher
in a new era of services to the blind in our state, a model that could
be emulated all over the world.  I would be remiss if I did not offer
special thanks and extend our gratitude to Representative Pete Lee and
Senator Michael Merrifield for originally sponsoring the legislative
request which led to this Committee and this process.  Originally, I
had prepared this testimony prior to the hearing on the 12th, but
given the extra time, I have revised my comments to incorporate
thoughts and questions voiced by the Committee and to respond to some
items covered by other witnesses on the 12th.
In way of background, The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) is
the oldest and largest organization of the blind in the United States
and in Colorado.  The primary mission of the Federation is to allow
the blind to live the lives they want in all areas of life from
insuring basic civil rights to securing employment and education for
the blind.  Founded officially in 1955, the NFB of Colorado engages in
a number of programs specifically designed to create greater
opportunities for the blind.  For example, the Federation is the chief
sponsor of the Colorado Center for the Blind.  The Colorado Center
provides training in the alternative skills blind people need to
become fully participating members of society.  Additionally, NFB
offers national and statewide academic scholarships.  We provide a
free talking newspaper called NFB-NEWSLINE® which allows the blind of
our state to read the daily newspaper just as easily as their sighted
peers.  We advocate for the rights of the blind in all areas ranging
from education to employment.  Where positive changes are happening in
the blindness field, there is a good chance that the Federation is
involved.

GENERAL BACKGROUND
In part, the reason we are all gathered here today is that the NFB of
Colorado passed a resolution in early November of 2014 calling upon
the General Assembly to study the delivery of vocational
rehabilitation services to the blind in our state.  The Committee
already has that Resolution in its materials, Resolution 2014-07.  The
reason why we adopted such a resolution is that we had observed a long
term degradation of services to the blind in our state.  Then, the
circumstances giving rise to the 2013 legislative audit of the
Colorado Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) under the
Department of Human Services (CDHS) evolved which only brought greater
turmoil to programs affecting the blind.  Not only did new blind
clients of Colorado DVR have to wait for years to even be deemed
eligible, the services received once accepted into the program were
diluted and disorganized.
After we adopted our resolution and began to implement our 2015
legislative priorities, we learned of this Assembly’s consideration of
moving DVR from CDHS into the Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment (CDLE).  This is a transfer that we applaud and favor along
with its corresponding process of gaining input from stakeholders.
Nevertheless, we still believe it is critically important that this
Committee study the unique barriers faced by the blind and seize the
opportunity to fashion recommendations that could become the envy of
the world.
Blindness is not well understood and greatly feared.  Polls taken in
recent times still suggest that people fear going blind more than
anything else except contracting potentially lethal diseases.  This
fear has led to low expectations and misunderstanding regarding the
true capacity of and barriers faced by the blind.  When we use the
word blind, we mean a wide spectrum of those having some form of
visual disability.  Legal blindness is regarded as essentially ten
percent of normal vision or less either in visual acuity or visual
field and often both.  Most blind people possess some level of
residual vision but their vision is sufficiently impaired that the use
of alternative, nonvisual techniques are required to address daily
tasks.
The problems of blindness lead to lack of access to appropriate
training to adjust to blindness, good education, and employment.  For
example, the working age blind face an unemployment rate of
seventy-five percent in some studies and sixty-three percent by the
most optimistic study out there.  Pause for a moment and think about
that.  The general public seems to panic any time unemployment exceeds
six or seven percent.  Imagine if our society faced a sixty-five to
seventy-five percent unemployment rate.  We called the unemployment
rate of the 1930’s of twenty-five to thirty percent the Great
Depression and declared a national emergency.  Yet the blind of our
state and nation face an unemployment rate over two times the worst
ever faced by the general society and we complacently stand by and
permit this to occur.
The governmental response to the situation faced by the blind and
others with disabilities has largely been focused through the
vocational rehabilitation system.  This system is funded mostly by the
federal government through the United States Department of Education,
Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA).  RSA provides
approximately eighty percent of the funding to the states in order to
operate vocational rehabilitation agencies.  The states are required
to provide about twenty percent of the funding.  A state can only
receive all available federal dollars if it puts up the full
approximated twenty percent of matching funds according to a formula
set in statute and largely based on population and other demographic
factors.  Unfortunately, over the last few years, Colorado has not
been receiving the maximum amount of federal funds.  We learned on the
12th that DVR would be returning some eight million dollars to RSA for
this fiscal year.  This is absolutely unacceptable and constitutes a
great waste of opportunity!  If nothing else, this Committee and the
General Assembly should work with CDLE/DVR going forward to make sure
we capture the maximum level of federal funding possible and put that
money into client services.
Overall, the focus of this Committee is essentially to determine the
best way or manner in which to deliver vocational rehabilitation
services to the blind in our state.  There are several models and
possibilities.  Here in Colorado, we have no specialized services for
the blind under our current DVR structure.  By this I mean that we do
not have a separate agency, division, or unit of vocational
rehabilitation designed to address the unique barriers faced by the
blind.  Title I of the federal Rehabilitation Act allows for states to
establish a separate designated state unit serving the blind.
Twenty-four states have such separate agencies.  In other states that
have one general vocational rehabilitation agency, there is often a
separate unit or division within that agency focused on the blind.
The research and anecdotal evidence suggest that more focused and
targeted services for the blind lead to a higher level of successful
outcomes.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Let me digress for a moment with a bit of my personal story.  I began
my journey into the world of blindness at age ten due to a childhood
virus which had the nasty habit of destroying key components of my
eyes.  At first and for a number of years, I thought my life had come
to a very tragic and premature end.  I believed wholeheartedly that
there was no meaningful path to success for someone who was blind.
All my childhood dreams were crushed, never to be realized.  This
occurred because everything that I had learned about blindness in my
brief life was negative, pictures of the blind begging on the street
and TV shows suggesting that we should pity the blind.
Thank God that my original picture of blindness turned out not to be
true.  I am an attorney running my own law practice.  I have a
wonderful family, a wife, Anahit, who originally hails from Armenia
and my children, Alex who began seventh grade on the 13th at West
Middle School in the Cherry Creek School District and my daughter,
Emily, starting fifth grade at Heritage Elementary at the same time
and in the same school district.  We own two homes, one in which we
live and one which we rent out.  We are healthy and deeply involved in
our community.  In other words, we are living the life we want.
Otherwise put and as some might say, we are living the American dream.
I credit my family for insisting that I receive a quality education
and insisting that I receive the adaptive skills of blindness.  Then,
the NFB entered my life and provided the philosophy and positive blind
role models which gave me the belief and self-confidence that I need
to live the life I want.  However, this amazing system of support and
belief could have only translate into success if I had the ability to
receive the training, education, and other resources necessary.  These
were provided for me largely by Minnesota State Services for the
Blind.  Minnesota is in fact one of the twenty-four states with a
separate agency for the blind with highly focused programs and well
trained staff.  Without the services I received in Minnesota, I don’t
know that I would be before you with the track record of success and
accomplishment that I fortunately possess.

DISCUSSION OF AGENCY STRUCTURES AND CORRESPONDING RESEARCH
In the National Federation of the Blind we believe in the capacity of
blind people, but we know that the blind require a unique set of
Vocational Rehabilitation services to be successful.  In Colorado
blind clients are often served by vocational rehabilitation (VR)
Counselors who, though otherwise qualified in serving general
rehabilitation clients, may only have one or two blind clients and no
specific training in how to serve them.  Thus, they may never gain the
necessary skill set to provide the high quality of specific services
their clients require for success.  They may not receive the support
they need from their supervisors either, because there is no
supervisor in Colorado's DVR who is tasked with coordinating and
supervising VR Counselors who are serving blind clients.  We learned
on the 12th that there are only fifteen counselors statewide who have
a caseload including blind clients, only one having a caseload
comprised entirely of blind clients.  DVR has a “statewide
coordinator” for blind service, but that individual is not at the
supervisory level nor involved in senior management of DVR.
We know that separate agencies for the blind perform better than
combined agencies.  The data suggests that separate agencies serve
more significantly disabled clients, achieve more successful closures
into competitive employment, acquire fewer “homemaker” closures, and
possess fewer placements in sheltered, segregated, subminimum wage,
employment.
Within the list of general/combined agencies there is a continuum of
organization and dedication of highly trained personnel to providing
services for the blind.  Colorado's current lack of structure is at
the lower end of that spectrum, with essentially no specialized
services inherent in the structure.  Other states with general
agencies have separate units or offices dedicated specifically to
blindness services which have senior management and identifiable
budgets.  We believe that this level of specification leads to better,
more effective service.  This in turn leads to a higher success rate
of placing the blind into competitive employment, the end result of
which is more blind tax payers and fewer relying on government
benefits.  On the 12th, Interim Director Anton of DVR agreed that
higher levels of specification and focus lead to better results.
We believe that services for the blind in this state must become more
highly focused and delivered with greater specificity.  The lack of
focus and specification is impairing the ability to move blind
vocational rehabilitation clients out of unemployment, often poverty,
into meaningful employment.  This can be achieved in a number of ways,
at least three.  First, Colorado could create an entirely separate
agency for the blind which would report directly to the Governor.
Second, a division could be created under the CDLE reporting directly
to the Executive Director of that Department.  Third, a separate
office or unit could be established within DVR with its own
specialized staff and senior management along with a separate,
identifiable budget.

Of course, one of the questions that always rises when these
alternatives are considered is that of higher cost.  The data
referenced below suggests that separate agencies for the blind provide
services at a similar cost as compared to those same services provided
by a general agency.  In the long run, investment in separate services
lead to tax savings because of the higher rates of employment and
independence.
We believe that DVR has been doing its best in recent times to serve
its blind clients, but its current structure and level of staffing do
not come close to providing optimal and more effective services.  Only
one person is responsible for training all other counselors in the
state regarding the special needs and barriers faced by the blind.
That person is Laverne Dell who testified before you on the 12th, and
we know she does an excellent job.  Her task, however, is overwhelming
and unfairly placed on one individual.
Additionally, studies suggest that one of the barriers faced by blind
clients who are on a general caseload is that the general counselor is
so overwhelmed by the size of the caseload and thus do not give enough
attention to the blind clients.  Oftentimes decisions by general
counselors are fueled by lower expectations for blind clients.  We
expect that you will hear public testimony from blind individuals here
in Colorado who have encountered these low expectations from DVR
staff.  This is not a design calculated to lead to higher levels of
success in placing blind people into competitive employment or
otherwise allowing the blind to lead independent lives.
Immediately below are excerpts and a synopsis from research that has
been conducted by the National Council of State Agencies Serving the
Blind (NCSAB).  We believe same is instructive.
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind (NCSAB)
NCSAB Position Paper: Why Separate Agencies for the Blind?
http://www.afb.org/info/justification-of-separate-state-agencies/ncsab-position-paper-why-separate-agencies-for-the-blind/25.
THE PROBLEM
Because of the myths and stereotypes of blindness, rehabilitation
agencies for blind persons must take a different approach than
agencies that serve persons with other disabilities. Agencies serving
the blind must deal with two problems. Of course, they must address
the physical loss of vision by teaching specialized skills and
techniques. But, they must also address the misconceptions. The second
aspect involves creating attitudinal changes in their clientele and in
society. This requires that rehabilitation professionals working with
blind persons possess in- depth knowledge about the abilities of blind
people. In addition, they must possess the ability to teach blind
persons how to deal positively with public attitudes, and must be
prepared to deal with those attitudes themselves.
Here is a report from NCSAB on separate services for the blind,
updated March 2010.  It was conducted using RSA 911 reporting form
data from 2007 and 2008, and is a study that has been periodically
updated since 1971.  Thus, it gives something of a longitudinal look
at specialized services for the blind.
www.ncsab.org/Docs/final-report-replication-study.doc.
First, at the time of the study in 2010, there were 24 states that
have separate agencies for the blind.  This does not include a model
like Montana’s, which has a separate division for services to blind
citizens under the VR umbrella, making it a “combined agency” and
which is a higher level of organization than we have in Colorado
currently.
The conclusions are summarized in the bullet-points below:
  Separate blindness agencies continue to serve a higher percentage
of consumers with         demographic/disability characteristics
associated with lower labor force participation rates.
o	Applicants have more severe visual impairments (blindness vs. other
visual impairments).
o	Blind and visually impaired applicants have lower educational levels
(not high school graduates).
o	Visually impaired applicants are more likely to have secondary disabilities.
  Separate and General/Combined agencies provide similar number of
services to blind and VI consumers at similar costs (suggesting that
separate agencies for the blind do not lead to greater expense).
  Separate blindness agencies continue to close a higher percentage
of legally blind consumers into competitive employment.
o	Separate blindness agencies close a higher percentage of legally
blind consumers into employment without supports in integrated work
settings.
o	Separate blindness agencies close a higher percentage of legally
blind consumers into self-employment.
o	Separate blindness agencies close a lower percentage of legally
blind consumers as homemakers.
Findings are based on analyses of two RSA-911 databases: FY 2007 and
FY 2008 RSA-911. Comparisons are made with findings from analyses of
1996, 1994, 1989, 1977, and 1971 RSA data. Our conclusions are
corroborated with previous studies which also reported that Separate
blindness agencies serve consumers who are more likely to be legally
blind and to have less education (Cavenaugh & Pierce, 1998; Cavenaugh,
1999; Cavenaugh et al., 2000; Kirchner & Peterson, 1982).Findings are
also consistent with earlier studies indicating that consumers in
Separate agencies with less severe visual impairments (visually
impaired  but not legally blind) are more likely than those in
General/Combined agencies to have secondary disabilities (Cavenaugh &
Pierce; Cavenaugh et al.; NAC, 1997).
**
(Cavenaugh, 2010, found at
http://www.ncsab.org/Docs/final-report-replication-study.doc)
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind, “An Update on
Services and Outcomes of Blind and Visually Impaired Consumers Served
in Separate and General/Combined VR Agencies, Prepared by Brenda
Cavenaugh, Ph.D., CRC
March 2010
This research was conducted by the Rehabilitation Research and
Training Center (RRTC) on Blindness and Low Vision under a contract
from the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind, Inc., 4733
Bethesda Avenue, Suite 330, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Mississippi State University
Interim Study Final doc of request in 2015 Leg.
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/2015-3ServicesforBlindFINALRequest.pdf
So, there you have some data from the national association
representing state agencies for the blind and from Mississippi State.
There is also data from Louisiana Tech which suggests that specialized
training in comprehensive blindness skills leads to an employment rate
of seventy-five percent for the blind, entirely reversing the tragic
numbers I shared with you earlier.  An employment rate of seventy-five
percent is still unacceptable but a trend in the right direction.
Over the next couple of months, we hope to provide to you an overview
of services to the blind over the last few decades.  There was a time,
for example, when Colorado DVR had a separate unit for the blind with
a separate budget.  Witnesses from whom you will hear will tell you
how this system led to better outcomes.  We intend upon providing to
you information about access technology for the blind, youth
transition services, services to the elder blind, employment programs
for the blind, and adjustment to blindness training.  We will suggest
how these programs can best be delivered and thereby allow Colorado to
start leading the way.
I also want to take a moment to reflect upon some very insightful
questions and comments posed by the Committee on the 12th.  We agree
that we must find ways to encourage blind Coloradans to establish and
operate their own businesses.  Some work is being done on this front
but not nearly enough.  This issue of entrepreneurial opportunity for
the blind touches in part the Business Enterprise Program operated by
DVR.  Although blind business managers under this program are
realizing their highest level of average salary ever, many more blind
people could be placed in this program and enjoy the same level of
success.
We also appreciate comments about the independent living program.  The
Older Individuals for the Blind Program under Title VII of the
Rehabilitation Act provides critical funding for blind seniors all
over the state.  Although this program is administered through
independent living centers, the experts in blindness and thus
independent living for the blind, reside or should reside within DVR.
Consequently, we believe it is imperative that the OIB program be
housed with blindness services, however they are structured.
Everyone knows that information technology continues to change our
world radically.  It provides great opportunity to the blind but
significant barriers as well.  The provision of access technology and
creating the proper environment for same is critical to placing the
blind into competitive employment.  We must bolster our ability to
provide such technology and target same in the employment setting.
The issue of services for blind veterans was addressed.  We agree that
this is another area of critical importance.  Although DVR appears to
work with the federal Veterans Administration to some degree, we think
there must be a higher level of coordination.  We are not satisfied
that we are doing enough for blind individuals who have served their
country.
We believe that Committee members were correct to raise the issue of
transition services for blind youth.  The handoff from the special
education system for blind children to the VR system is a critical
one.  In several states, that transition starts at age fourteen but
not here.  We must find a way to transition our blind youth much more
effectively.  Long term this leads to higher rates of success in
placing younger blind people into employment and less time spent as
clients of VR.

QUESTIONS THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD CONSIDER
Some questions that we suggest you might consider are:
o	What is the best structure through which to deliver vocational
rehabilitation services to the blind in Colorado: through a separate
agency reporting directly to the Governor; through a separate agency
reporting directly to the Executive Director of CDLE; or through a
separate unit within DVR with its own staff and identifiable budget?
o	How many vocational rehabilitation counselors are there in total
working for Colorado DVR?
o	How many of these counselors have blind or visually impaired clients
on their caseload - a viewed through a snapshot of one day or some
period of time?
o	How many of DVR's Counselors have caseloads specifically dedicated
to serving blind or visually impaired clients?
o	How many caseloads are comprised of 50 percent or more, blind and
visually impaired clients?
o	How many counselors are serving blind and visually impaired clients
whose caseloads are under 50 percent blind/visually impaired cases?
o	Of these latter caseloads, what is the average on the snapshot day
of blind and visually impaired persons per caseload?
o	Are there supervisors to whom counselors serving blind and visually
impaired counselors report? For caseloads of 50 percent or more blind
cases, or dedicated caseloads?
o	How many management staff are dedicated to coordinating services and
counselors serving blind and visually impaired caseloads?
o	What specific training is there for working with blind and visually
impaired clients and what resources exist?
o	What new innovative services can be attempted to turn the blind and
low vision of this state into tax payers rather than the recipient of
tax dollars?
o	How can we promote greater opportunity for blind persons to
establish and own their own businesses: though tax credits; low cost
loans; more specialized training?
o	How can we better coordinate services for blind veterans and
maximize opportunities for those who have been blinded in service to
their country?
o	How can we integrate services for blind seniors leading to greater
independence and the ability to return to the workforce if desired?
Should services for older individuals who are blind remain within CDHS
or transfer also to CDLE?
o	Are we maximizing opportunities for blind Coloradans in the state’s
Randolph-Sheppard Program also known as the Business Enterprises
Program?
o	What can we do to augment transition services for blind youth
leaving the secondary education system transitioning into vocational
rehabilitation?  Should we lower the age at which VR serves blind
youth to fourteen as several other states have done?
o	How can we augment placement of blind VR clients into competitive
employment?  What new innovative approaches and strategies exist?
o	How do we provide the most meaningful and effective access
technology to blind persons and how can we work with employers to
create environments where that technology can be best put to use?
Certainly there are other questions that should be asked, and the
Committee process will undoubtedly unearth these.  However, we feel
the above is a good place to start.

CONCLUSION
Finally, I want to thank this Committee for an historic opportunity to
tackle the barriers faced by the blind.  We are emerging from a very
difficult period for vocational rehabilitation services in our state.
However, as often is true, periods of great struggle provide
opportunity for meaningful change.  Let us seize this moment and
fashion programs for the blind which all the world will wish to
replicate!  We look forward to working with you on this exciting
project and stand ready to provide whatever assistance we can.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott C. LaBarre
President, NFB Colorado

(find this also at the Blind Coloradan:
http://theblindcoloradan.blogspot.com/2015/08/blog-post.html)


-- 
Dan Burke
My Cell:  406.546.8546
Twitter:  @DallDonal