[Colorado-talk] Update on Interim Study Committee

[Dan Burke]

President LaBarre did an excellent wrap-up before the committee.  His
written testimony will shortly appear on the Blind Coloradan.
Meanwhile, here is a Blind Coloradan blog post summarizing the process
thus far:

Blind Coloradan: Interim Study Committee Requests Bill Draft to Create
Division to Serve Blind within DVR

http://bit.ly/1FyU2xU

On 9/23/15, Scott C. LaBarre via Colorado-talk <colorado-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Colorado-talk mailing list
> Colorado-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Colorado-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/burke.dall%40gmail.com
> List archives can be found at
> <http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org>
>


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