[Colorado-talk] Update on Interim Study Committee

[Scott C. LaBarre]

Greetings folks, as some of you may have heard, the Interim Study Committee
of the General Assembly tasked with the job of studying vocational
rehabilitation services for the blind voted to authorize the drafting of
bills to create a separate division of blindness services within our voc
rehab system and to expand opportunities on state properties for our
Randolph-Sheppard program.  I want to thank everyone who has been attending
and otherwise contacting their legislators!  The Committee meets again on
October 28th at the State Capitol where they will vote on the bills which
have been drafted and then would be sent onto the entire General Assembly in
January.  We need folks in attendance on the 28th and we will circulate
information as we get it.  We will likely also be asking you to make calls
and send emails.  Thanks in advance for the work that you will be doing.
Below you will find a copy of the testimony that I gave to the committee
last week.

 

Best,

Scott

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMORANDUM

 

To:       Members of Vocational Rehabilitation Services for the Blind
Interim Study      

Committee

 

From:  Scott C. LaBarre, President, NFB of Colorado

 

Date:  September 16, 2015

 

Re:       Thoughts and Recommendations on Next Steps for the Interim
Committee

Chair Danielson and Members:

 

First, the members of the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado
(NFBCO) would like to extend our heart-felt thanks for your willingness to
consider the significant issues facing services for the blind in our state.
We believe the undertaking of this process will lead to better services for
our community and allow Colorado to establish itself as a leader in this
field.

We have essentially three areas of recommendation.  First, NFB Colorado
strongly believes that a separate agency for the blind under Title I of the
federal Rehabilitation Act is the ideal structure through which optimum
services can be delivered.  Therefore, a bill to accomplish exactly that
should be on the table for discussion.  At the very least, a bill or strong
recommendation from this Committee should encourage and direct the Colorado
Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) through the Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation (DVR) to establish a separate unit of blindness services
within the CDLE/DVR structure.

Second, we highly recommend that this Committee propose legislation that
would encourage and fund grants targeting innovation in the areas of
employment, youth/transition services, senior services, assistive
technology, and health and wellness.

Third, much has been reported on DVR's inability to capture all federal
rehabilitation dollars available to it.  This Committee should recommend and
encourage DVR to work with JBC and CDLE to find all possible ways to
maximize the capture of federal dollars both in this fiscal year and those
to come.

SEPARATE AGENCY FOR THE BLIND

NFBCO believes that vocational rehabilitation services for the blind
delivered through a separate designated state unit for the blind under Title
I of the Rehabilitation Act is the ideal structure through which to deliver
services.  This is so because specification and focus combined with
expertise in blindness lead to better results.  It is also true that the
medical and rehabilitation system treat blindness differently than most
other disabilities.  As Dr. Edward Bell testified before you, those with
other types of disabilities often receive a great deal of compensatory
services through the medical and insurance systems.  Thus they come to DVR
in a position of greater readiness for placement into employment.  With
respect to blindness, it has been the vocational rehabilitation (VR) system
that has been largely responsible for providing the compensatory skills in
the area of adjustment to blindness services.

Long term data demonstrates that separate agencies for the blind outperform
general and combined agencies by a significant amount.  Previously, we have
provided the Mississippi State study to you which examined the most recent
data available through 2010.  For example, in 2008, separate agencies for
the blind placed 82.8 percent of legally blind consumers into competitive
employment at time of closure as compared to a 57.4 percent placement rate
for general/combined agencies.  See Figure 7 at P. 22 of the Mississippi
State Study.  Granted, it appears that 2008 was a particularly successful
year for separate agencies but the rest of the data from other years clearly
demonstrate that separate agencies perform markedly better.  Attached to the
end of this memo is a summary from the Mississippi State Study regarding all
categories of employment outcomes, contained at p. 25 of that study.

A general assumption is that providing service to the blind through a
separate agency results in higher cost.  This does not turn out to be true,
however.  In 2008, for example, the median cost of services to those served
in separate agencies was $3,527 as compared to $3,600 for general/combined
agencies.  See Table 5 of the Mississippi State Study at P. 19.      

Additionally, separate agencies serve their clients over a shorter time
period which leads to savings of staff resources expended.  For example, in
2008, the median number of days from development of the individual plan for
employment (IPE) to closure for separate agencies was 511 as compared to 605
days for general/combined agencies.  See again Table 5 of the Mississippi
State Study at P. 19.

Dr. Bell reported to this Committee that the most recent numbers available
for Colorado indicate that closures in 2010 (most recent data available) for
blind consumers into competitive employment hover around twenty percent.  It
is true that Dr. Bell was looking at all cases opened and not just those
with an IPE.  With respect to legally blind consumers who developed an IPE,
placement into competitive employment ends up at forty to fifty percent, far
below the average maintained by separate agencies for the blind or even
other general agencies nationwide.  Dr. Bell also testified that in 2010,
approximately fifty percent of the legally blind consumers in Colorado were
closed as homemakers.  Although this may be an appropriate placement for
some, it is hard to imagine that fifty percent of the legally blind seeking
services from DVR truly wanted to remain at home as opposed to finding
competitive employment.

NFB Colorado understands that some might think we are using this data in an
argumentative fashion.  However, this data comes from the federal government
and can be accessed by all.  Each year, every VR agency, whether separate or
general/combined, must report to the Rehabilitation Services Administration
regarding its cases on something called Form 911.  We are using the data
from those reports and nothing else.

We also wish to address comments regarding the small number of blind
consumers currently with DVR.  Presently, the number of consumers of all
disability types for DVR is drastically down.  This is due to the two years
plus where a giant wait list existed and applicants were being turned away.
In the past, there have been in excess of one-thousand consumers who were
blind and receiving services from DVR.  We expect that these numbers will be
achieved again once DVR does the appropriate level of marketing and it is
widely known that there is no longer any wait list.

In our view, there is no doubt that services for the blind must improve
dramatically in our state.  We believe that a separate agency for the blind
is the structure which allows for the best possible performance.  This
agency could be housed in CDLE and therefore share certain services with VR
such as accounting, IT, outside vendors, and human resources.  This would
minimize any duplication.  The separate agency would have its own director
and therefore be much more accountable to the blind community and other
stakeholders.

It is our understanding that CDLE officials may believe that separate
services for the blind are warranted but perhaps offered through DVR.  In
our view, if this were to occur, two very important things must happen.
First, the separate unit must have its own identifiable leader who reports
to the Executive Director of CDLE.  This unit must also have its own,
identifiable budget.  These reporting and budgetary requirements are
essential to insure the highest level of accountability.  As the DVR audit
demonstrated, accountability has been a critical problem in recent times.

We strongly recommend that this Committee request a bill draft that would
establish a separate agency for the blind under Section 102 of the
Rehabilitation Act housed in CDLE.  This would allow a full discussion of
what the best approach for vocational rehabilitation services for the blind
in Colorado would be.  This does not mean that we are opposed to other
approaches.  However, we must feel comfortable that identifiable leadership
at the senior level and an identifiable budget are present.  Through
starting with a bill draft establishing a separate agency for the blind, we
can ultimately reach the solution best for Colorado.

INNOVATION GRANTS

 

Our second major area of recommendation is that the Committee, through
legislation or otherwise, find funding to fund grants to identify innovative
new programs and approaches in the areas of employment, youth transition
services, senior services, assistive technology, and health and wellness.
We have all heard the reports regarding the fact that it is likely that DVR
will be returning millions of federal dollars.  Perhaps, we can find ways to
match these funds with a small amount of state funds to secure funding for
these grants.

 

This Committee has heard the staggering and completely unacceptable
employment numbers.  At best, legally blind adults are employed at a rate of
thirty-seven percent.  This Committee heard about some new approaches like
those being offered by the Blind Institute of Technology.  There was
discussion of finding ways to incentivize large, national corporations to
work with the State to place qualified blind individuals in franchises.
This kind of creativity could be encouraged and rewarded with relatively
small grant programs.

 

This Committee heard about how critical it is to start providing transition
services to blind youth so that they are ready to enter the workforce at the
appropriate time.  The most recent amendment to the Rehabilitation Act calls
upon state VR agencies to dedicate fifteen percent of their funding to
transition services.  Now is the best time to encourage new and innovate
approaches allowing blind youth to be much more job ready and life ready.

 

The senior blind are the fastest growing segment of the blindness
population.  As our society lives longer and longer, the number of folks
encountering age related blindness steadily increases.  Current programs
serving the senior blind are effective but cannot meet the demand.  There
must be a way to identify and secure funding for this important population.

 

No one can deny the effect of technology on our society.  If one is not
technically literate to some degree, it is almost impossible to participate
in the mainstream of daily life.  Blind individuals face significant
barriers to participating in the technological revolution.  First, there is
not sufficient funding to provide access to assistive technology or to have
the ability to learn about the technology available.  New grants in this
area would be extremely helpful.

 

Second, other than the federal government, state governments are the next
largest purchasers of information technology.  Colorado already has a law
requiring the State to procure information technology which is compatible
with the assistive technology used by the blind.  However, compliance with
this law is spotty.  Perhaps, this Committee should call for an audit or
study of how well the State is performing in the area of purchasing
accessible, information technology.  Recommendations could then be made to
bring the state in compliance with its own law.

 

Finally, although the topic of health and wellness was not directly brought
up during the Committee's first four meetings, it is becoming a very
important issue within our community.  The blind face much higher obesity
rates and confront other health challenges at higher levels.  Little
emphasis has been put on the health and wellness of the blind because
general low expectations bring with them low expectations about the wellness
of the blindness population.  Perhaps, there is a way we can find some grant
funding to identify the parameters of the problem here in Colorado and then
suggest solutions to tackle it.

 

CAPTURING ALL FEDERAL FUNDING

 

This Committee has heard a great deal regarding the staggering level of
federal funding that is being returned due to DVR's inability to use it.
The Committee should know that when states like Colorado return funding,
that money is then reallocated to other states.  Those states have the
ability to apply for additional funding based on how much is returned.  We
must find a way to position Colorado so that in the future instead of
returning millions each year, we apply for additional funding for new
programs.  

 

We think this Committee should find a way to issue directives or
recommendations to DVR to make all efforts possible to retain its federal
dollars.  We should invest in new programs that are eligible for federal
matching dollars.  This Committee should request DVR's plan for the next
fiscal year and how it will capture all available federal funds.  It is our
understanding that even though DVR is not yet housed in CDLE, CDLE is
already working with DVR to identify ways in which to capture more federal
dollars and not return those already granted.  Those efforts should be
strongly encouraged and assisted by the General Assembly.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Again, we thank the Committee for its efforts and willingness to address the
issues raised.  We are confident by working together on all levels, we will
find a way to bring Colorado from the back of the pack to a state out front
leading all the others.

 

 

Consumer Outcomes 

 

Employment Status at Closure

*	Separate agencies close a higher percentage of legally blind
consumers in employment without supports in integrated settings.

*	FY 2007: 65.3% vs. 52.3%
*	FY 2008: 70.7% vs. 51.0%

 

*	Separate agencies close higher percentages of legally blind
consumers in self-employment.

*	FY 2007: 8.4% vs. 3.5%
*	FY 2008: 7.5% vs. 3.6%

 

*	Separate agencies close a lower percentage as homemakers.

*	FY 2007: 20.1% vs. 39.0%
*	FY 2008: 15.9% vs. 40.8%

 

Patterns/trends. Current findings are consistent with analyses of RSA-911
databases from the 1980s and 1990s indicating that Separate agencies,
compared with General/Combined agencies, close a higher percentage of
consumers in employment in integrated settings and in self-employment
(Cavenaugh & Pierce, 1998; Cavenaugh et al., 2000; NAC, 1997). Earlier
analyses of databases from the 1970s showed an opposite trend (Kirchner &
Peterson, 1982; JWK, 1981).    

 

            Competitive Employment

 

*	Separate agencies close a larger percent of legally blind consumers
in competitive employment.

*	FY 2007: 77.5% vs. 60.2%
*	FY 2008: 82.8% vs. 57.4%

 

*	Although differences are small, Separate agencies close a larger
percent of VI consumers in competitive employment.

*	FY 2007: 89.1% vs. 87.6%
*	FY 2008: 90.6% vs. 85.1% 

 

Patterns/trends. Current findings are consistent with previous
investigations indicating that Separate agencies, compared with
General/Combined agencies, close a higher percentage of consumers in
competitive employment (Cavenaugh & Pierce, 1998; Cavenaugh et al., 2000;
NAC, 1997). Note that the Competitive Employment variable is somewhat
different from competitive variables used in previous investigations in that
with the current variable, individuals must be compensated at or above the
minimum wage.