[nfbmi-talk] state plan comments june 27 2011 clean.docx

[Fred Wurtzel]

Hello,

 

Attached and pasted in below please find a document containing some comments
from myself and others concerned about quality services to blind people.  I
respectfully request that these comments be forwarded as-is and in their
entirety to RSA as part of the comment process for state plans under the
Rehabilitation Act.

 

Thank you for this opportunity to be part of the process.

 

Sincerely,

 

Fred Wurtzel

 

 

Comments on the July, 2011 Michigan Commission for the Blind State Plan
Submission

 

June 27, 2011

 

MCB, through its collaboration with community partners and employers, has
established a goal to rehabilitate 170 consumers with competitive outcomes.

 

The above figure is a reduction of 15% from the 2000 state plan.    This is
inexplicable and scandalous to the average observer.  During the past year,
there were as many as 15 openings for blind people in the Business
Enterprise program and the BEP still illegally employs sighted people to
operate businesses legally mandated for blind people.  The available budget
is significantly higher; the numbers of blind people wanting work is
relatively similar.  Why is the goal for placements declining?  This is
further support for more and better training and a serious review of
administrative goals within MCB.

 

 

MCB was successful in assisting 166 consumers in obtaining gainful
employment in a variety of occupations.

 

If MCB had simply placed 4 more people in a Business Enterprise facility
they would have made their very modest employment goal.

 

Following is a cursory review of the Michigan Commission for the Blind State
Plan submission for July 2011.  If there are factual errors they are
primarily due to the sever lack of time provided for consumers to review
this long, arcane and complex document.  Many hours were devoted to drafting
this document and efforts were made to be accurate.  One may conclude that
this small window of opportunity afforded by MCB to comment reflects a
cavalier lack of concern for consumer input: it certainly does show a
defacto lack of consumer respect and a dismissive attitude toward federal
law and the state plan as an anchor document for the design and delivery of
rehabilitation services to blind Michiganders.  Given the illegal firing of
2 employees of MCB and their subsequent reinstatement by 2 separate judges
due to the fact that they were fired for membership in the National
Federation of the Blind, a consumer organization, it is understandable that
some could come to the first conclusion.  

 

It is felt by most consumers that the Michigan and Federal laws which govern
the Michigan Commission for the Blind are adequate and, if properly
implemented, will lead to high-quality and exemplary consumer outcomes.  It
is felt by many, that the Michigan agency is severely mismanaged and the
staff is undertrained and less than fully prepared to achieve the quality
outcomes envisioned by the laws. 

 

Regarding other fundamentals of the Michigan agency, most consumers will
agree that the staff is a generally good group of people who wish to do a
good job.  They are reasonably compensated and well-educated.  In sworn
testimony one staff member said she had received a total of 4 weeks of
training in blindness rehabilitation.  Another staff member stated when
discussing the lack of blindness training of staff that "rehab is rehab."
These 2 examples are from different regional offices and are demonstrative
of the challenges faced in providing quality rehabilitation services.

 

The Michigan infrastructure is adequate for the provision of quality
services.  Office space is ample, clean, well-located, and up-to-date.  The
Michigan commission for the Blind Training Center (MCBTC), when it reopens,
following its major renovations, will presumably be state-of-the-art.  It
would be preferable to have off-site housing for MCBTC students, but the
present facility was built in 1969, before the more enlightened views of the
inadvisability of such arrangements.

 

Finally, it is certainly not the budget that contributes to the dissent and
dissatisfaction.  During 2010, though the agency was attempting to illegally
charge blind SSI and SSDI recipients for their rehabilitation services, MCB
only spent 71% of available funds.  All categories of client services were
severely underspent while administrative categories such as rent for space,
wages and salaries, travel and so on, were virtually fully spent and in 1
case even exceeded the budget.  Such a cynical approach to rehabilitation
service is unconscionable and ought to be illegal.

 

The only conclusion for the significant lack of confidence and satisfaction
with Blindness Rehabilitation services from MCB is the inept and
anti-consumer top management of the agency.  Below is our best effort to
provide meaningful comments on the state plan.  Again, time was not nearly
sufficient to fully research the best practices and any gaps within MCB



Some general comments to start with:

 

No plan on website since 2004

 

Consumers marvel at the cavalier lackadaisical attitude of MCB
administrators toward the state plan.  It is simply a hoop for them to jump
through and only seems to be of concern when it is due or someone raises a
serious question about it.  This writer has been in numerous and seemingly
endless meetings on various policy matters and little or no mention is made
of how a service or policy fits into the state plan.  Such requirements are
used to prevent consumers from receiving services rather than as a means of
providing clear, efficient and effective service.

 

No public hearings since 1998

 

What more needs to be said about the value placed on input on the plan.  If
the plan is being used to drive services, then administration would make it
a centerpiece of all activities and focus consumer attention on it by having
regular hearings with lots of notice, lots of technical information and a
segmented set of hearings focusing on portions of the plan rather than 1
mega hearing with just a few days notice to absorb nearly a hundred pages of
uncommonly presented information.

 

People not legally blind being served and vice versa 

 

There are persistent stories of ineligible people being served by MCB and
documented stories of eligible blind persons being denied service.  It is
certainly easier to serve sighted people.  More information can be provided
to RSA if requested.

 

Relevancy of comments  

 

Potential commenters on the state plan were told that only relevant comments
will be forwarded to RSA.  There were no guidelines regarding relevancy.  It
is difficult to imagine, since the plan encompasses everything the MCB does
that any comment on services would be irrelevant.  There was no outline that
this writer is aware of that helped guide consumers through the process.
Hearings were held on a day when the Commission was meeting and in a city
where one of the consumer group presidents lives.  This was on a day where
this president was a scheduled speaker at the Commission meeting.

 

 

Preprint - Section 2: Public Comment on State Plan Policies and Procedures

 

While it is likely that MCB followed the letter of the law with regard to
public comment on the state plan, it certainly did not provide adequate time
to fully read, comprehend, check out and comment on this 93 page document
written in government speak.

 

(c) Special consultation requirements.

The state agency actively consults with the director of the Client
Assistance Program,

The State Rehabilitation Council, if the agency has a council and, as
appropriate,

 

The MCB Board serves as an alternative to the SRC.  The Board was consulted
in a phone meeting which was cursory at best given the short timelines
available.  The Commission Board has not had adequate nor substantive input
into the plan.

 

2.  Is consumer controlled by persons who:

A.  are individuals with physical or mental impairments that

Substantially limit major life activities; and . . . . 4. Undertakes the
functions set forth in Section 105(c) (4) of the Rehabilitation

Act and 34 CFR 361.17(h) (4).

 

It is strongly felt by many consumers that the MCB Director has usurped the
power of the MCB Board and is inappropriately encroaching on the authority
and duties of the Board with regard to this state plan and other related
affairs.  For example, the commission Board has not, to our knowledge,
submitted an annual report following the close of each fiscal year.  Below
are some of the requirements to be followed as stated in the state plan.
Comments follow each section.

 

(4) The Council shall, consistent with State law, supervise and evaluate the
staff and personnel that are necessary to carry out its functions.

 

The only staff evaluation conducted by the MCB board is an annual evaluation
of the Director.  

 

(5) Those staff and personnel that are assisting the Council in carrying out
its functions may not be assigned duties by the designated State unit or any
other agency or office of the State that would create a conflict of
interest.

 

We believe the Commission's staff support does not meet these standards.

 

(j) Meetings. The Council shall--

(1) Convene at least four meetings a year to conduct Council

Business that are publicly announced, open and accessible to the public,

Including individuals with disabilities, unless there is a valid reason

For an executive session; and

(2) Conduct forums or hearings, as appropriate that are publicly

announced, open and accessible to the public, including individuals with

Disabilities. . .

 

Presently, the Commission Board does not have control over meeting times,
places and frequency.  This seems contradictory to the spirit, if not the
letter of the Rehabilitation 
Act.  Furthermore, according to existing bylaws, the Commission Director has
a role in determining meetings and agendas of the Board.  We certainly feel
the Director ought to have significant input in these matters, but the final
authority and the decision to have a meeting is an autonomous decision of
the Board.

 

MCB meetings are continually held in facilities which do not meet ADA
requirements for signage and many other such requirements.  The MCB Director
has been repeatedly and vociferously reminded, both politely and stridently,
yet the behavior persists.

 

B.  all policies and information on all practices and procedures of general
applicability provided to or used by rehabilitation personnel in carrying
out this State Plan and its supplement; and

C.  copies of due process hearing decisions issued under

34 CFR 361.57, which are transmitted in such a manner as to ensure that the
identity of the participants in the hearings is kept confidential.

(c) If the designated state unit has a State Rehabilitation Council,
Attachment 4.2(c)

Provides a summary of the input provided by the council consistent with the
provisions identified in subparagraph (b) (3) of this section; the response
of the designated state unit to the input and recommendations; and,
explanations for the rejection of any input or any recommendation.

4.3 Consultations regarding the administration of the State Plan. (Section
101(a) (16) (B)

of the Rehabilitation Act; 34 CFR 361.21)

The designated state agency takes into account, in connection with matters
of general policy arising in the administration of the plan and its
supplement, the views of:

(a)   individuals and groups of individuals who are recipients of vocational
rehabilitation

 

Where are these documents?  Where are the summaries of hearings?  Certainly,
consumers have not had adequate time to provide input and have not even had
access to relevant information upon which to make comments.  We feel that
all of the above ought to be posted on the MCB website and provided, upon
request, in accessible formats suitable to the requestors.

 

4.4 Nonfederal share. (Sections 7(14) and 101(a) (3) of the Rehabilitation
Act; 34

CFR 80.24 and 361.60)

The nonfederal share of the cost of carrying out this State Plan is 21.3
percent and is provided through the financial participation by the state or,
if the state elects, by the state and local agencies.

 

Based on the FY 2010 budget the state is using federal funds and under
serving blind people All state cost related budget items were fully spent
while categories of case Services, services to older blind, Business
enterprise, etc. were significantly under spent.  For instance, rent for
Randolph-Sheppard facilities reduced the Commission matching money which
supported space in buildings while reducing services to blind persons.

 

Here is a case from the 2010 final budget report where the State of Michigan
is using MCB as an ATM:

 

COST ALLOCATIONS

$242,139

$356,682

147 percent

 

Some of this money went to pay legal costs of firing blind staff who were
reinstated after showing they were illegally discriminated against for being
members of a consumer organization of the blind.  Remember, this over
expenditure took place at the same time as a drastic under expenditure of
case service funds and the agency is reducing the number of projected
competitive placements.  Who is watching?

 

5.4 Availability of comparable services and benefits. (Sections 101(a) (8)
and 103(a) of the Rehabilitation Act; 34 CFR 361.53)

(A) Prior to providing any vocational rehabilitation services, except those
services identified in paragraph (b), to an eligible individual or to
members of the individual's family, the state unit determines whether
comparable services and benefits exist under any other program and whether
those services and benefits are available to the individual.

 

We believe it is inappropriate to ask family members for funds for
rehabilitation services.  This has been and, possibly, still remains in the
small business and college policies.  Provision of services should not be
based on the ability or willingness of a family member to contribute.

 

 

(b) The following services are exempt from a determination of the
availability of

Comparable services and benefits:

4.  Job-related services, including job search and placement assistance,

Job retention services, follow-up services, and follow-along services;

5.  Rehabilitation technology, including telecommunications, sensory and
other technological aids and devices; and

6.   Post-employment services consisting of the services listed under
subparagraphs

(1) through (5) of this paragraph.

 

4, above, is not followed properly.  Customers are told that if they are
working they are not eligible for services, even if those services will
allow them to maintain a job and the denial of services may result in job
loss. 5 and 6 of this paragraph are not followed correctly.  Consumers are
told that employers are responsible for access technology and thus don't
assist in job maintenance.  It may be true that ADA requires an employer to
pay, but that ought to be settled with the employer while the blind person
keeps working.

 

(c) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section do not apply if the
determination of the availability of comparable services and benefits under
any other program would

Interrupt or delay:

1.  Progress of the individual toward achieving the employment outcome
identified

In the individualized plan for employment;

2.   An immediate job placement; or

3.   Provision of vocational rehabilitation services to any individual who
is determined to be at extreme medical risk, based on medical evidence
provided by an appropriate qualified medical professional.

 

Clients are not informed of this rule.  Even though -MCB has secured
memoranda of understanding with colleges and universities, these
institutions do not always keep up their end.  This results in delays in
class completions or threatens the ability of a student to successfully
complete their course of study.  It is not uncommon for systemic delays to
slow down progress toward an employment goal.

 

 

5.6 Opportunity to make informed choices regarding the selection of services
and providers. (Sections 101(a) (19) and 102(d) of the Rehabilitation Act;
34 CFR 361.52)

Applicants and eligible individuals or, as appropriate, their
representatives are provided information and support services to assist in
exercising informed choice

 

In a recent meeting of the Services Delivery Design Team meeting, a
representative of the Client Assistance Program was actively assisting the
MCB staff to develop procedures and strategies to limit consumers from
making informed choice to attend out of state rehabilitation programs.  This
is out of bounds on 2 counts, first, the agency ought to be doing all
possible to get the best services for every client and second, the Client
assistance Program has no business conspiring against clients in favor of
the agency.

 

Attachment 4.7(b) (3) Request for Waiver of Statewideness

Identify the types of services to be provided by the program for which the
waiver of statewideness is requested.

 

It seems that MCB has entered into a large number of agreements that, each,
serve very few people and militate against the development of larger more
robust programs that concentrate resources.  We recommend the Commission
focus on a few larger and proven programs rather than spreading things so
thin across the state.

 

MCB, through its collaborative agreements with a variety of state and local
agencies

Provides comprehensive rehabilitation services to individuals who are blind
and visually

Impaired. MCB has agreements with the Developmental Disability Council and
the Community

 

Many Commission staff has spent much time working on creating cooperative
agreements and other working relationships that benefit blind consumers.
The agency could leverage this effort by publicizing these agreements and
assisting more blind people to take advantage of these services.  Some of
the services will benefit blind people whether they are clients or not.  A
categorical list on the MCB web page highlighting such things as
transportation, food and housing services would be of great assistance to
many blind people who are unaware of these agreements.

 

Attachment 4.8(b) (2) Coordination with Education Officials

 

Though Michigan law is not primarily a concern of federal RSA officials, the
Commission Law as it pertains to education may be very complementary to
federal goals.  MCB is charged by law to coordinate all programs for blind
children in Michigan.  This provision has never been implemented, though the
consistency and availability of services to blind children varies greatly
across the state.

 

Despite the list of activities cited in the state plan, blind children in
Michigan are suffering.  Literacy rates are generally low, self esteem and
loneliness indicators continue to show up as problematic.  The delivery of
quality educational services to blind children is spotty.  Some blind
children flourish while others languish.  These students may be in adjoining
school districts.  MCB needs to focus on fewer and higher intensity
programs.  There are only 2 thousand blind children in the state according
to most estimates and spreading them over such a large area increases costs
and reduces effectiveness of service.

 

Attachment 4.8(b) (3) Cooperative Agreements with Private Nonprofit
Organizations

 

There seems to be a major oversight problem with regard to Peckham
industries of Lansing.  This organization has a federal contract to provide
employment to persons with disabilities.  At last report, this year, this
program is inaccessible to blind consumers.  This seriously violates a
number of laws and puts MCB in jeopardy for spending money with a program
that discriminates against persons with disabilities.  This situation causes
one to wonder how accessible other programs are that MCB financially
supports.

 

Attachment 4.10 Comprehensive System of Personnel Development

 

Despite budget issues and changing attitudes towards public employees among
the public and legislature, MCB remains a great place to work.  It offers
great facilities, equipment, wages and benefits.  Rehabilitation work is
rewarding and satisfying with good possibilities for career improvement...

 

Given the data in the draft plan, on the numbers of various staff eligible
for retirement and the apparent high turnover among staff, staff training is
a very large and vital area of interest for consumers.  For instance,
according to studies, 90

% of working blind people use Braille.  Many of MCB's staff have not
graduated from or attended a program in blindness rehabilitation.  Transfers
from the general agency have a poor attitude about the importance of
blindness skills and resist immersing themselves in this training.

 

More emphasis needs to be placed on recruiting and hiring blind staff
persons and reaching out to those institutions for recruitment that provide
college level training in blindness rehabilitation.  Special emphasis needs
to be placed on those institutions that focus on emersion/discovery
learning.

 

Consumers are very concerned about the quality and quantity of training of
new and existing staff.  MCB puts a very low priority on this area.  In
sworn testimony one counselor reported that she had a total of 4 weeks of
blindness training.  Another counselor who transferred from Michigan Rehab
said blithely that "rehab is rehab," completely missing the point of such
areas of expertise as Braille, adaptive computer equipment and software,
cane travel and a myriad of other factors unique to blindness
rehabilitation, not to mention the overwhelmingly negative attitude of the
general public toward hiring blind people.

 

The 2010 spending on training supports our view that MCB is dismissive and
unconcerned about quality staff training.  The agency spent a very small
portion of a very small budget on training as follows:

 

STAFF TRAINING

$29,000

$9,214

32 percent

 

MCB failed to spend over 2/3 of its meager $29,000 training budget.  If one
wishes to discern the importance of an activity the budget is the most
illuminating factor to observe.  "Follow the money!" 

 

We advocate for an extended initial training in emersion in blindness and
structured discovery for all Commission employees no matter their job.
Everyone's job at MCB is getting jobs for blind people.  Counselors and
teachers need 600 hours of emersion/discovery learning training while
support staff and others not necessarily providing direct services to
consumers need 3-400 hours of training.  

 

In addition to new hires, existing staff need to have uniform training in
emersion and discovery learning, the Rehabilitation Act and related topics
which lead to fast, effective and quality job placements.

 

It is recommended that this training be provided from an outside party.
-MCB is entrenched in old-school thinking and needs a fresh vision of the
capabilities and needs of blind consumers.

 

MCB, through its collaboration with community partners and employers, has
established

A goal to rehabilitate 170 consumers with competitive outcomes.

 

The above figure is a reduction of 15% from the 2000 state plan.    This is
inexplicable to the average observer.  The available budget is significantly
higher; the numbers of blind people wanting work is relatively similar.  Why
is the goal for placements declining?  This is further support for more and
better training and a serious review of administrative goals within MCB.

 

MCB has initiated job clubs in major cities throughout the state for the
purpose

Of assisting job ready consumers in their efforts to obtain employment. MCB
provides Employment Readiness Seminars quarterly for all job ready
consumers. The seminar provides local employers opportunities to interview
job ready consumers.  It also provides information regarding work incentives
for employers and the consumers are provided with information regarding Work
Incentive Planning and Assistance (WIPA).  MCB  will continue to work with
the National Business Alliance, trade organizations and apprenticeship
programs through its Business Services program to expand employment
opportunities for the population that MCB serves.

 

While the above may be useful to trained and motivated job seekers, the real
work of placement is done 1 on 1 between MCB staff and blind consumers.  The
fundamental difficulty is the small amount of time that each counselor
spends with consumers on the caseload.  Another major factor is the short
time spent in Kalamazoo at the MCBTC gaining confidence, experience and a
belief in the ability of the average blind person to do the average job in
the average place of work with training and opportunity.

 

MCB makes available to counseling staff the opportunity to participate in
job placement training through the Michigan Rehabilitation Counseling
Educators Association and the Job Placement Division of the Michigan
Rehabilitation Association, along with private trainers emphasizing job
placement techniques as well as TACE supported employment programs that
equips the staff with tools to compete in the competitive labor market.

 

Again, this training is not blindness-specific.  It takes 1 counselor
working with 1 client and 1 employer to create a success.  The blind person
and the counselor need to form a seamless campaign to convince the employer
to hire the consumer.  Fundamental to this success is a highly trained
counselor along with a highly trained consumer.

 

As a result of the economy and consumers desire to work part-time, MCB was
not successful in assisting consumers to obtain full time employment which
would elevate their income. A number of consumers are choosing to work
part-time so that full-time employment will not affect their benefits.

 

HOGWASH!  There are certainly people who live in fear of losing health
coverage, especially those with chronic conditions such as Diabetes.  This
agency response is primarily an example of blaming the victim and not taking
full responsibility for creating an environment where blind people are
gaining access to good-paying jobs with benefits.  This answer is the cheap
way out.

 

The agency continues to encourage consumers to work with the CWICS to
receive appropriate information regarding work incentives that will allow
them to make informed choices regarding full-time employment.

 

SORRY! The agency cannot farm out responsibility.  It ought to make full
advantage of all resources, but saying that someone else is to provide
motivation is, again, denying the responsibility which is placed upon it by
the 20 million dollars which the people of America have so generously
provided to help blind people get a job.

 

MCB's web based case management system (System 7) provides staff with
valuable data that enables

them to effectively manage their case loads which allows them to provide
timely services

 

The case management system was not working properly in 2000 in a report in
the state plan.  This state plan fails to mention the on-going and
unresolved problems with System 7.  In a recent Services Delivery Design
Team meeting much time was spent chronicling and discussing the many
problems in System 7.

 

The Michigan Commission for the Blind's priority is to provide staff with
professional training to enable them to be aware of current knowledge and
information regarding the rehabilitation process that will equip them to
meet the demands of its consumers in an ever changing labor market. MCB
continues to pursue additional learning opportunities for staff in the area
of job development and job placement. All new staff, along with current
staff, continues to be trained in the latest techniques in job development
and job placement as well as technology and accommodation assessments
necessary to assist consumers in obtaining and maintaining employment. The
staff participated in Motivational Interviewing, Case Management, Job
Placement and Ethics training. Each of these trainings provided

staff with specific skills relating to a particular function of their job.
The Ethics Training is a major component for rehabilitation counselors in
the provision of services.

 

This list of training is missing the most important topic, blindness.  This
is not to say that other training is not useful, but until IPE's are
properly written, and calls are returned on time, a real positive
relationship is developed between the counselor and consumer placements will
continue to be difficult.  Belief in blind people, belief in skills of
blindness, willingness to provide the best, not the least, training to
consumers are all the keys to making a change.

 

Regarding ethics, it seems that the MCB director needs this training to help
him determine when to fire a person.

 

The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to
average 25 hours per response, including the time to review instructions,
search existing data sources, gather the data needed, and complete and
review the information collection.

 

According to the Feds, it is to take 3 or 4 days to complete this plan.  It
seems that given the known deadline of July 1 that this document could have
been out to the Commissioners and consumers by May 1.  This would have
afforded everyone time to review study and comment on the document.  

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: state plan comments june 27 2011 clean.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 33705 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20110627/7577cd1b/attachment.docx>