[DSM-Iowa] IDB Update

Sat Sep 12 03:21:47 UTC 2026

Good evening NFBI,

Because of how quickly this came up, I am aware that some members are more familiar with this issue than others. Here is some background information for what is going on and what we are doing.
In the board packet of materials for the September 8 commission meeting, the agency put forth a budget request that was quite different from any that I have seen during my time in Iowa. Note that the budget was put together by Director Cervenka. The agency was initially asking for a 43% increase in the state appropriation, later increased to 49%. Regardless of the merit of the items in the request, that is an unrealistic request that even the most friendly legislature would never agree to.
Alas, there were also issues with the items in the request, including the hiring of two mental health counselors, a new deputy director when IDB already has a perfectly competent one, and little to no justification for how the requested funds would benefit blind Iowans.
Below is a letter I sent to the commissioners in advance of the board meeting. A number of us also spoke regarding this issue during public comment.
The commissioners did a great job asking questions to try and better understand the proposal. It became increasingly apparent that this proposal was not backed by the kind of evidence that would be necessary to gain the support of legislators. For example, when asked, the director reported that she did not utilize the recently completed statewide needs assessment, which specifically exists to evaluate what is needed for the agency to serve clients better, when deciding the positions she would like to add. 
At the end of a more than 4 hour meeting, the commission instructed Director Cervenka to submit a new budget request that will be considered at the new commission meeting scheduled for this coming Tuesday at 1:00. 
We have been waiting for the new proposed budget to come out. While we had been given the impression at the meeting Tuesday that it would come out today, it has not yet been released. When it comes out, we will need to evaluate it closely and provide our feedback to the commissioners.
NFBI has a history of advocating for IDB funding at the legislature, for example to obtain crucial funding for the Independent Living program. TO maintain both NFBI’s and IDB’s credibility and solid reputation, we can only advocate for something that is realistic, and that is truly beneficial to blind Iowans. That was not the case with this last proposal. For example, I have yet to find anyone other than the director who thinks IDB needs a new deputy director position in order to better serve blind Iowans. Additionally, while seven new instructors sounds wonderful, as all of us would love to have more instructors to help blind people learn the skills they need, with all the shifting of positions IDB has had over the last two years, and the lack of data around client services, it is impossible to know if these seven positions would actually be in the most needed areas. On top of that, even if adding these seven instructors truly would benefit clients, we still have the legislature to contend with, and there isn’t likely to be much extra money floating around this year. 
Now is our chance to support the commission with our input to help IDB put forth a proposed budget that responsibly enhances programs and services for blind Iowans for next year.
Stay tuned for more info once we have that new proposal, and plan to attend Tuesday’s meeting.

Thanks!
Helen

—

Dear Commissioners,

I am writing on behalf of the National Federation of the blind of Iowa in opposition to the proposed fiscal year 2028 budget submitted as part of the September 8 board packet. We have two major concerns.
1. The extreme nature of the overall request, which appears to be a 49% increase in the state appropriation.
2. The hiring of mental health counselors by the agency.

First, looking at the overall nature of the request, asking for such a large percentage increase is harmful to the agency rather than helpful. Of course there are always ways that IDB, and through it blind Iowans, could benefit from more financial resources, and inflation means that a status quo budget is effectively a cut, so a request for an increase in general appears very reasonable. However, requesting an increase beyond the scope of possibility rather than a realistic request is more likely to lead to the department receiving no increase, or even additional scrutiny regarding the funding it has.

As of the March 2026 revenue estimating committee meeting, growth for FY 2027 was predicted at 4.4%. While the formal estimate for 2028 has not been set yet, it is unlikely to be much higher if at all. Note also that the state is currently drawing on reserves to maintain a balanced budget. While the exact state of the state’s budget is up for partisan interpretation, the numbers mean that while the state may have some additional funds to distribute, the amount is unlikely to be so significant as to allow for 50% budget increases. 

IDB has long presented the image of a low-cost, high-impact, agency. For a relatively small amount of state funding IDB keeps older Iowans living in their homes instead of in nursing facilities, and helps Iowans obtain and maintain employment to contribute to the economy. The fact that many dollars invested by the state in IDB draw down almost four dollars each in federal funding also presents IDB services as a good investment for the state. IDB has thus managed economic and political challenges reasonably well, and has maintained allies across the political spectrum. 

Reputations take significant time and effort to build, and can be destroyed all too easily. The commission should tread very lightly when considering a risk that could bring great harm to IDB’s reputation. Approving this budget could unintentionally give political leaders the impression that IDB is simply being greedy, is naive regarding the political and/or fiscal climate, or even is asking for this much money due to being unable to effectively manage the funds it already has. Any of these impressions are unlikely to result in IDB receiving the requested increase. At worst, this could cause the new governor’s administration or legislators to look more closely at IDB’s current funding. Given how frequently blindness services are misunderstood, no one wants to spend the time and effort that would be taken up by the distraction of such inquiries.

A more modest request with supporting evidence could continue to present the image that IDB is an effective entity doing good work that only asks for money when it really needs it. While there are of course no guarantees, this approach is more likely to continue building constructive relationships and hopefully actually get IDB some of the additional money it could use.

The board packet does not appear to contain documentation supporting this budget request. Of course supporting evidence may be presented at the meeting. Supporting evidence is essential to support any increase beyond one for inflation. Because programs always want more staff, it will be crucial to provide more detailed evidence to show the specific impact hiring the requested staff will have. Since the request for seven additional instructors accounts for roughly half of the request, we will focus on that part here. 

IDB has done a lot of restructuring over the past few years, such as by repurposing the positions held by the Young Adult Transition Program staff for youth counselors and retreat instructors and the combining of independent living and vocational rehabilitation teachers. It is unclear how these changes have impacted services to clients. Of course more instructors should lower caseloads and increase services, but that’s not enough to convince others that the additional instructors are needed and that IDB doesn’t have enough now. Here are some questions or data that could potentially help show the need for additional instructors. Since we do not have access to specific IDB information, these are only possibilities based on the information available to us.

What specific kinds of instructors does IDB intend to hire? (technology instructor, rehabilitation teacher, center instructor, etc.)
What is the current caseload for each instructor providing those services now?
What is the average number of services provided per quarter or per year per instructor now as compared to each of the past five years?
How many IL objectives were met in each of the past five years?
How many total VR and IL services have been provided to clients over each of the past five years?
In each of the past three years, how many of these services have been provided by outside contractors because IDB staff could not provide them? 

Highlighting the hard work of the current instructors and showing the extent to which they are stretched beyond what is effective for clients could potentially support the need for additional instructors. Given the current number of instructors and vacancies, the justification for seven in one year appears to be too much. Prioritizing a smaller number for this year, and then coming back with additional requests in future years as the positive effects of new positions can be shown will be a stronger strategy to support IDB over the longer term.

We strongly encourage the commission board to approve either a status quo budget, or a budget with a modest increase request of 5-10%, with the instruction that the department provide evidence to support the request in preparation for advocating for such a request with the new Governor’s administration and legislature.

The specific inclusion of mental health counselors in the proposed budget is a separate concern, and we strongly urge the commission to deny this item in whatever proposed budget is approved. The debate around mental health counselors in blindness rehabilitation goes back more than fifty years. In short, hiring mental health counselors promotes the medical model of disability and fails to empower IDB clients. Mental health services are a valuable service and can be just as important for blind Iowans as for any other segment of the population. Blind Iowans absolutely need to be connected with mental health providers whenever appropriate.

The key is that mental health counseling services can, and should, be provided by providers in the community and not IDB employees. Using providers in the community allows for individuals to find a provider that matches their individual needs for therapeutic treatment, religious preferences, and other aspects that can make a therapist a good fit for one person and not another. Connecting with providers in the community also helps blind Iowans integrate in their communities and learn to access resources they may need when they are no longer IDB clients. Providing mental health counseling services at IDB promotes the idea that blind people are broken and in need of counseling because of their blindness, that blindness mental health counseling is unique, and that mental health counseling is a necessary part of the rehabilitation process. Rehabilitation counselors and teachers can assist clients with locating providers and any blindness-related skills needed to access them.

In addition to the direct harm the hiring of mental health counselors would cause to clients, this is a poor use of tax dollars. State resources would be duplicating services already available. Lastly, it is unclear how two quality mental health counselors’ salaries and benefits could be covered by the $140,000 listed in the proposed budget..

The commission’s role in approving IDB’s budget request is an important one. While the new governor will ultimately decide what gets sent to the legislature, how IDB promotes itself matters. Now is the chance for IDB to present itself to the incoming administration as the small but vital department that blind iowans need.

Thank you for your consideration,
Helen Mejia, President
National Federation of the Blind of Iowa
hmejia at nfbi.org
(570) 983-7867

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/dsm-iowa_nfbnet.org/attachments/20260911/90c708a4/attachment.htm>