[nfbmi-talk] mcb rsa final monitoring as text
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Wed Nov 10 23:10:04 UTC 2010
Chapter 4: MCB Vocational Rehabilitation and Supported Employment Programs
The following table provides data on MCB’s VR and SE programs performance in key areas from FY 2003 through FY 2007.
Table 4.1
MCB Program Highlights for VR and SE Program for FY 2003 through FY 2007
Program Highlights
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Total funds expended on VR and SE
$14,229,557
$15,448,367
$16,237,219
$17,163,830
$17,503,634
Individuals whose cases were closed with employment outcomes
283
253
295
272
285
Individuals whose cases were closed without employment outcomes
179
230
188
184
146
Total number of individuals whose cases were closed after receiving services
462
483
483
456
431
Employment rate
61.26%
52.38%
61.08%
59.65%
66.13%
Individuals whose cases were closed with SE outcomes
20
12
15
12
20
New applicants per million state population
63.59
59.25
60.38
28.22
51.84
Average cost per employment outcome
$6,645.83
$7,910.60
$6,172.53
$9,482.62
$6,567.46
Average cost per unsuccessful employment outcome
$3,952.74
$4,272.13
$5,077.09
$4,051.48
$5,581.54
Average hourly earnings for competitive employment outcomes
$11.37
$12.50
$11.97
$12.51
$12.98
Average state hourly earnings
$18.91
$19.24
$19.81
$20.16
$20.72
Percent average hourly earnings for competitive employment outcomes to state average hourly earnings
60.13%
64.97%
60.42%
62.05%
62.64%
Average hours worked per week for competitive employment outcomes
30.82
29.59
31.4
30.62
29.75
Percent of transition age served to total served
14.94%
17.60%
13.46%
16.89%
13.23%
Employment rate for transition population served
42.03%
41.18%
44.62%
53.25%
49.12%
Average time between application and closure (in months) for individuals with competitive employment outcomes
31.9
35.1
33.5
36
34.2
Performance on Standard 1
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Performance on Standard 2
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
VR and SE Service Delivery
MCB is an independent commission led by five commissioners from various geographic areas of the state who are appointed by the governor for three-year terms. MCB is comprised of eight regional offices and a training center based in Kalamazoo. Services are provided by staff from these offices to individuals and businesses throughout the state. At the time of the review, MCB was not operating on an OOS.
>From FY 2003 to FY 2007, the total number of VR applicants decreased by 25.4 percent while the state population remained stable. There has been an increasing trend of VR consumers served having a job at application, from 18.8 percent in FY 2003 to 24.6 percent in FY 2007. During the same period, the homemaker and unpaid family worker category has been experiencing a decreasing trend, with 43.5 percent in FY 2003 to 36.1 percent in FY 2007. However, this percentage is still more than twice higher than the median percent of blind agencies nationwide (14.5 percent, FY 2007).
MCB operates MCBTC based in Kalamazoo, MI. Beyond helping blind and visually-impaired individuals to acquire the skills, strategies and attitudes to overcome challenges presented by blindness, the center recently integrated a career focus program to help better prepare individuals for the workforce. In FY 2008, 208 program participants received services and stayed an average of five weeks at the center. MCTBC established outreach efforts throughout the state with the mini-adjustment program, a week-long program that occurs four times a year, to help individuals adjust to blindness. In FY 2008, 29 VR and 59 IL customers participated and MCBTC received an additional $100,000 to expand this program in FY 2009. MCBTC collaborates with MCTI in implementing this program.
MCB is seeking to expand its outreach to transition-age youths. MCB developed cooperative agreements with ISDs, and has continued its ten summer youth programs that are held throughout the state for blind and visually-impaired students. Transition-age youths also participate in the one-day employment readiness seminar, to help build employability skills, held on one day of the week long mini-adjustment program.
MCB’s policy on SE targets individuals with the most significant disabilities who must have three or more functional limitations to be considered eligible. MCB successfully closed 20 individuals who exited the VR program with an SE employment status during FY 2007, representing 7.1 percent of MCB’s employment outcomes. MCB has limited extended service providers available and uses natural supports, including the “buddy system,” whenever feasible.
Personnel
In FY 2008, MCB had a total of 95 FTEs with 12 administrative staff, 36 VR counselors, 39 support staff, and eight individuals categorized within other staff category. MCB has been challenged to fill highly specialized positions. The staff shortage has made it necessary for staff to fill multiple roles in different programmatic areas. In order to maintain level of services, MCB contracts with nine rehabilitation teachers in Gaylord (1), Escanada (1), Grand Rapids (1), Saginaw (3), Detroit (2), and Flint (1), to provide services to consumers throughout the state. In the personnel classification system rehabilitation teachers are a higher pay grade than VR counselors. This has resulted in pay disparity issues between MCB rehabilitation teachers and VR counselors.
MCB does not require VR counselors to hold the CRC certification, but be CRC-eligible, involving completion of graduate coursework. All new VR counselors participate in a four-week orientation, which includes a two-week stay at the MCBTC. The training of new staff is also carried out by the local manager and a designated senior VR counselor who is assigned as a mentor for the new hire.
Data Management
MCB has been using a tailored commercial data management system for its data and service records management since 1993. The latest version is System 7. It is a stand-alone, form-driven system that also has the capacity to automatically generate many reports. MCB data are stored in a vendor’s server instead of in-house and are backed up daily. Maintenance and on-site services are provided by an IT personnel who is not a MCB employee.
The system has five modules serving the VR, IL, SE, Transition Low Vision, and OIB service records, respectively. IL and OIB modules operate similarly to that of VR. TLV and MCBTC modules were still in the development stage at the time of the on-site review.
The system’s database is web-based, and, therefore, provides easy access for agency staff. Each consumer profile is linked to consumer’s service vendors and costs. The data accuracy check includes flags for data element control. MCB will add a tickler function in its next version to remind counselors of the key dates. Currently, the system has the capacity to generate many standardized reports and can be exported into multiple formats such as Word, Excel, and PDF. Managers and administrators use the caseload productivity report for their monthly management meeting. All managers and counselors can run their own queries as well.
The system vendor provides training to the MCB staff whenever there is an upgrade between two systems, which usually is two days. Training of new and existing counselors and supervisors on daily operation is provided by the IT personnel. Supervisors of new counselors provide training on application details.
Quality Assurance
Although MCB has a QA system, the processes of that system are not integrated sufficiently to evaluate program or fiscal performance effectively or efficiently. As a result, MCB cannot assess service delivery provided internally, including services provided at MCBTC, or externally through the CRPs, independent contractors, and “cash match” agreements. MCB relies almost exclusively on anecdotal information received from discussions with consumers and staff rather than balancing this input with quantitative data.
Planning
In 2008, MCB updated its CSNA through its collaboration with PE at MSU. For strategic planning, MCB established four teams to achieve the agency’s goals and priorities that integrate feedback among staff, community partners, stakeholders, and consumers with planning and policy development.
Succession planning for staff is guided through the Vision 20/20 initiative, which gives employees an opportunity to demonstrate leadership by working closely with managers, supervisors, stakeholders, and consumers to implement new ideas into action.
VR and SE Programs Technical Assistance Provided to MCB During the Review Process
RSA provided TA to MCB’s VR and SE programs during the review process regarding:
· the appropriate use of I&E including activities that have a direct link to employment or support the SRC and SILC;
· MCB’s policy of three functional limitations to define the minimum standard for a consumer to participate in SE;
· the financial needs policy that that requires individuals seeking post-secondary education maintenance assistance to apply for SSI/SSDI;
· RSA-722 requirements with respect to MCB’s inaccurate reporting of BEP arbitrations going before an ALJ;
· MCB’s practice of soliciting public input delaying the development and implementation of policy;
· the development of a homemaker closure policy; and
Observations of MCB and Its Stakeholders about the Performance of the VR and SE Programs
RSA solicited input from MCB and a wide range of its stakeholders about the performance of the VR and SE programs. The MCB and its stakeholders shared their observations, as outlined below.
· MCB’s portion of MI’s federal appropriation for the VR program has increased from 12 percent to 15 percent.
· Since 2004, MCB has developed “cash match” agreements to secure additional funding to serve individuals in the program.
· A significant number of new MCB staff members lack expertise and are pursuing training in order to meet the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) standard.
· MCB has difficulty hiring qualified individuals that meet the CSPD requirements for the VR counselor and rehabilitation teacher positions.
· MCB is trying to resolve pay disparities between MCB VR counselors, rehabilitation teachers, and the private sector.
· MCB has developed “cash match” agreements with providers to better serve transition-age youths under the age of 18 who do not meet MCTI’s minimum age requirement.
· MCB does not have a mechanism in place to evaluate the “cash match” agreements state-wide.
· MCB has been working with ophthalmology and optometry associations to increase outreach.
· MCB has collaborative relationships with MRS and the SILC that yield positive results.
· The Michigan Works! Service Center in Kalamazoo has a MCB training site that results in more blind or visually-impaired individuals receiving services there than at other centers.
· Individuals who are blind or visually-impaired experience varying levels of services at other Michigan Works! Service Centers.
· The MDE – Low Incidence Outreach (MDE-LIO) program provides outreach services to the ISDs.
RSA discussed the observations of its stakeholders with MCB and addressed as many of them as possible either directly or by consolidating them into a broader issue area.
Continuing Education Needs of MCB Staff
RSA solicited input from MCB to identify the following continuing education needs of its staff:
a.. developing and implementing service delivery evaluation processes;
b.. skill-building to improve the achievement of competitive employment outcomes;
c.. strategies to decrease recidivism; and
d.. developing and implementing effective strategies to improve internal and external communication.
VR and SE Performance Observations and RSA Recommendations
RSA identified the following performance observations and made recommendations to MCB about those observations. MCB responded to each of the recommendations and in those instances when RSA and MCB agreed upon a recommendation, RSA and MCB identified the TA that RSA would provide to MCB to successfully implement the recommendation.
1. Quality Assurance
Observations: MCB does not have comprehensive and integrated QA processes and, therefore, cannot evaluate the agency’s financial and programmatic performance on a continuing basis.
a.. MCB monitors service records and provides the results of these reviews to VR counselors.
b.. VR counselors are not evaluated on the quality of the employment outcomes achieved by individuals on their caseloads.
c.. MCB does not have standards for measuring the performance of vendors, nor does it have a system for ensuring the accountability of, and the consumer satisfaction with, vendor performance.
d.. MCB and its commission spend extensive time soliciting consumer input, but do not have a systematic method to incorporate this input into QA processes.
Recommendations: RSA recommends that MCB:
1.1 develop and implement an agency QA system that promotes accountability, evaluates MCB and vendor performance, and serves as a baseline for measuring agency progress in achieving strategic goals;
1.2 integrate into the QA process activities and input identified through the Vision 20/20 initiative, the findings contained in the CSNA, agency performance and financial data, the results of consumer and employee satisfaction surveys and the service record reviews, and other information necessary to align resource allocation with agency needs; and
1.3 modify the employee performance appraisal system to align with the tenets of the new QA system.
Agency Response: MCB’s electronic CMS (System 7) collects data regarding the quality of rehabilitation closures based on the types of services provided, the successful completion of the training, as well as the types of employment outcomes. Counselors are able to assist consumers in obtaining training that will lead to quality employment outcomes. This process encourages consumers to aspire to one’s maximum potential.
1.1 MCB’s CMS has the ability to evaluate vendor’s performance through surveying the satisfaction of services provided to consumers. The survey will provide MCB with data regarding delivery of goods and services as well as the success or inability to elevate the performance of the consumers. The system will periodically submit surveys quarterly.
In addition, MCB was scheduled to receive an upgrade to the current CMS in December 2009. That upgrade would include assessment tools integrated into the work flow of the existing systems eligibility, plan, authorizations, and reports. These assessment tools will provide MCB staff the ability to provide a quantitative assessment or assessments as part of the determination of eligibility. These assessments would identify the vocational limitations as related to the client’s disability which could be overcome by the provision of services. As the services, which are meant to address and overcome the identified limitations, are delivered, the counselor staff can review and quantify the success or failure of the service by re-assessing the client with the same tools and again determining if the vocational impediment has been reduced and/or eliminated. This process then provides the agency with the ability to provide and track performance based monitoring for both staff and vendors by documenting how vocational impediments have been reduced and/or eliminated.
1.2 MCB understands the value of integrating process activities and input identified through the Vision 20/20 initiative, the findings contained in the CSNA, agency performance and financial data, the results of consumer and employee satisfaction surveys and the service record reviews, and other information necessary to align resource allocation with agency needs into a QA system. MCB will consider the feasibility of this recommendation as resources become available.
1.3 While not a requirement of the Act, MCB understands the value of aligning employee performance with a QA system and will consider the feasibility of this recommendation as resources become available.
RSA Response: With regard to MCB’s comment to Recommendation 1.2, at the time of the onsite MCB was not utilizing the full capability of its CMS to evaluate vendor performance. The recommendation identifies a QA system, which would include all the agency’s QA activities into a comprehensive, coordinated approach regarding the agency’s performance. While a customer satisfaction survey may be one component, it is not by itself a QA system. The QA activities described as part of the system upgrade occurred subsequent to the monitoring review, and indicate the previous CMS version did not have the capability to conduct these activities.
Technical Assistance: MCB would appreciate any TA available by examples or further documentation of how other states are incorporating QA Systems in their VR Process. MCB would like to see a model of what RSA is looking for in a QA System.
2. Internal and External Agency Communications
Observations: While MCB implemented the Vision 20/20 initiative to promote leadership and input into policy through four teams, and improve internal communication throughout the organization, including between the agency and MCBTC, discussions with MCB field staff and management indicated that management level communication is not conveyed throughout the organization. Some agency staff throughout the state indicated the need to increase communication from MCB management about agency initiatives and activities. Key stakeholders also indicated concerns about the length of time involved in soliciting consumer input into policy development.
a.. Staff indicated the need to improve communication between MCBTC and MCB. MCBTC has limited access to financial and performance information maintained on MCB’s data management system modules, and limited control over its budget.
b.. Despite the extensive time MCB and its commission have spent soliciting constituent and consumer input on policy development and agency operations, they have not developed a systematic method of incorporating consumer input in a timely manner. For example, stakeholders indicated the hearing aid policy took three years to develop and implement due to disagreements among the various constituent groups.
Recommendations: RSA recommends that MCB:
2.1 revise Vision 20/20 strategies to address improving communication between management and field staff regarding the agency’s priorities, strategic plans, and goals;
2.2 increase MCBTC’s access to pertinent data and financial information in the data management system to more effectively manage its budget and consumer cases; and
2.3 develop a timeline for soliciting constituent input to expedite policy development and implementation.
Agency Response:
2.1 Through quarterly meetings of MCB’s Vision 2020 Planning and Quality Team, comprised of commission, management and staff representatives, consumers and stakeholders, MCB’s Action Plan priorities and strategies are regularly reviewed, updated and adjusted and shared with all commissioners, staff and partners. Examples of communication tools being employed include distribution of the newsletter “MCB Insight,” the Vision 2020 Listserve, quarterly distribution of the MCB Report, MCB Activity List, an internal Communications Committee comprised of representatives from all agency programs and offices, periodic “Update and News” messages from the director and almost daily updates to the agency’s excellent website. Further, the agency regularly supports participation and involvement of consumers and stakeholders as members of the Consumer Involvement Council, the Service Delivery Team, Image and Identity Team, Technology Team and the Diversity Committee. The Commission also makes its quarterly Commission meetings available to consumers throughout the state through the utilization of audio-streaming and teleconferencing, enabling consumers and others to participate remotely. MCB will continue these activities.
2.2 The Commission’s Executive Management Team (EMT) will continue to meet at least monthly and continuously strive to ensure that EMT deliberations remain inclusive and equitable.
2.3 Upgrades to MCB’s management and data system will help increase access to pertinent data and financial information for all managers and EMT members.
2.4 Commissioners, staff, consumers, and stakeholders have been significantly engaged in MCB’s well-defined policy development process for several years as part of the MCB Vision 2020 Initiative. While this inclusive process has been helpful in strengthening relationships between the commissioners, staff, consumers, and stakeholders, a noteworthy byproduct of MCB’s commitment to inclusiveness has been the amount of time it takes to complete the process, as compared to a simple, top-down approach to policy making. In response to this recommendation, MCB will attempt to develop a timeline mechanism for soliciting constituent participation in order to expedite policy development and will attempt to do so in a manner which does not diminish broad participation.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
3. Transition
Observations: The number of transition-age youths served at MCB is low in relation to the general population served. The employment rate for all individuals served by MCB was 66 percent in 2007. However, the transition-age youth employment rate is below 50 percent, and has been lower historically. MCB operates nine transition-age summer youth programs throughout the state.
Table 4.2
MCB Employment Rate for Transition Youths for FY 2003 through FY 2007
Employment Outcomes
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Changes from 2003
MCB Employment outcomes
29
35
29
41
28
-1
All blind agencies employment outcomes
672
639
663
714
781
109
MCB Employment rate
42.0%
41.2%
44.6%
53.2%
49.1%
7.1%
All blind agencies employment rate
48.3%
49.5%
48.0%
52.5%
55.9%
7.6%
a.. The Detroit Summer Youth Program is open to blind and visually-impaired high school youths from the ages of 14 to 26 to provide them with the opportunity to gain practical work experience in a variety of settings. The program also provides some technical training, daily living activities, and recreational experiences. However, MCB was not able to demonstrate how these activities contributed to competitive employment outcomes.
b.. While MCB transition-age youths have access to career training programs offered at MCTI, less than one percent of individuals served at MCTI are blind or visually-impaired. MCTI staff indicated they have limited experience working with individuals who are blind or visually-impaired.
Recommendations: RSA recommends that MCB:
3.1 restructure the summer youth programs to emphasize employment-related activities in support of vocational goals;
3.2 develop and implement methods to evaluate the effectiveness of the summer youth program outcomes;
3.3 develop agency goals with broad stakeholder input for improving the achievement of employment outcomes for transition-age youths;
3.4 conduct training with MCTI staff to ensure that they are provided with the skills necessary to work effectively with MCB consumers; and
3.5 utilize MCTI as a resource for improving the achievement of competitive employment for MCB transition-age youths.
Agency Response:
3.1 MCB’s summer youth programs already focus on the development of vocational goals and do not need to be significantly restructured, although the agency will always pursue enhancements in these programs, consistent with our dedication to continuous improvement. MCB’s transition summer programs are designed to provide consumers with an opportunity to receive vocational information, pre-employment assessments, job shadowing experiences, mentoring, as well as employment opportunities. Each of the summer programs have incorporated these components for transitioning students, i.e., one summer youth program provides transition youths with technology training, vocational assessments and job placement in integrated setting within the community. Another summer program, introduced transition students to independent living skills, entrepreneurial training, team approaches to producing artistic items, and other summer programs provided youths with the opportunity to gain work experience in the food service industry. All of the summer programs emphasized the importance of learning and employing soft skills in their daily work.
3.2 MCB’s summer programs target specific goals for the consumers to obtain. These goals are developed with the individual’s progress relating to their growth and development. Collectively, the program evaluates the achieved outcome of each individual and the over all success of the summer program. At the conclusion of each summer program an evaluation report is provided that details their achievement of the individual goal as they relate to the overall goal of the program.
3.3 MCB utilizes community rehabilitation agencies, Michigan Works! and the ISDs in the implementation of its transition program. By utilizing these resources, MCB transition students are informed of the latest labor market trends regarding emerging careers for the transition age youths in the 21st century.
3.4 MCB does not believe that a comprehensive program to provide blindness training to the entire MCTI staff would be practical for either agency. Because the number of blind and visually-impaired consumers who attend MCTI is likely to remain small, long periods of time might elapse between the times when a customer who is blind or visually-impaired is receiving training at that facility.
It is extremely difficult for any individual to retain learned information if a significant time lapse occurs between the learning of that information and the occasion when that individual is called upon to put the information to use in an applicable situation. Therefore, it will be far more effective for the MCB to provide targeted training for MCTI staff immediately prior to the entry of a customer who is blind or visually-impaired into an MCTI program. This agency has provided this kind of “just in time” training in the past, with excellent results.
With information flowing freely between the staff of MCBTC and MCTI, as is presently the case, we are confident that customers who are blind and visually-impaired will be able to make informed choices about whether they will attend an MCTI training program. Whenever an MCB customer makes this choice, MCB counselors and rehabilitation teachers will provide the appropriate type and amount of training to any MCTI staff who will interact with that customer.
3.5: For the reasons set forth in 3.4 above, MCB does not find this recommendation to be in the best interest of its transition-age youths. It is impractical because of the vital importance of blindness skills to this population in obtaining successful, gainful employment in integrated settings. In many cases, today’s blind youth reach their high school years lacking the most basic skills of daily life. As explained in bullet 2 above, if an individual is not able to care for himself or herself with a significant degree of independence and competence, that individual may struggle to secure employment.
MCTI is not equipped to provide a training program that includes a combination of intensive blindness skill training and work experience. Its secluded location, far from any kind of public transportation or even para-transit services, makes it an impractical setting for this kind of training.
In the summer of 2009, MCBTC initiated a summer training program for transition-age youths. The program included a significant employment component along with the intensive training in the skills that enable blind persons to succeed in competitive employment and to participate fully as contributing members of family and community life. Through this program, internship positions are available in four different areas inside MCBTC. Several additional opportunities are being established throughout the community where MCBTC is located.
The demands of school limit the amount of blindness skill training that can be provided to transition- age youths during the school year. Summer then becomes the only time during which these essential skills can be delivered to the majority of customers in transition. MCB will continue to collaborate with MCTI at every opportunity, beginning with its inclusion as a potential work experience site for the summer youth training program.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
4. Homemaker Outcomes
Observations: Table 4.3 indicates that the percentage of individuals who achieved a homemaker outcome represents a significant portion of all individuals who achieved an employment outcome. MCB homemakers represent more than twice the percentage of all blind agencies nationwide. MCB’s homemaker policy focuses on the skills that the individual must personally perform in each of four core areas in order to be considered successfully rehabilitated: kitchen skills, travel skills, home management, and communication skills.
Table 4.3
MCB Employment Status at Closure for Homemakers for FY 2003 through FY 2007
Employment status
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Changes from 2003
Blind agencies total in 2007
Homemakers
123
93
115
85
103
-16.3%
1,036
Percent of all Employment outcomes
43.5%
36.8%
39.0%
31.3%
36.1%
-7.3%
15.0%
a.. MCB stated that individuals who are blind or visually-impaired often come to the agency first to learn to live independently and are closed with a homemaker employment outcome. Later, they may return to MCB to pursue competitive employment. However, MCB does not track this trend of individuals moving from homemaker status to competitive employment status.
b.. Although MCB has the electronic capability to track applicants that change from one employment outcome to another during the VR process, MCB does not track whether homemaker was the initial employment goal chosen by the applicant or whether it was later chosen during an IPE amendment process.
c.. MCB has made efforts to reduce homemakers by referring individuals 55 or older without a competitive vocational goal to the OIB program. However, MCB does not track the numbers of referrals it makes to the OIB program for this population.
d.. While MCB has established criteria and standards for homemaker closures, MCB has discussed developing more stringent guidelines on these closures.
e.. Table 4.4 indicates that MCB’s total competitive employment outcomes are 28.7 percentage points lower than blind agencies nationally, despite meeting the indicator threshold of 35.4 percent.
Table 4.4
MCB Competitive Employment Outcomes for FY 2003 through FY 2007
Employment
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Changes from 2003
MCB Employment outcomes
283
253
295
272
285
0.7%
All blind agencies employment outcomes
8,218
7,462
7,088
6,870
6,922
-15.8%
MCB percent with competitive employment
56.2%
57.3%
60.3%
68.0%
53.0%
-3.2%
All blind agencies percent with competitive employment
65.0%
71.8%
76.6%
81.1%
82.3%
17.4%
Recommendations: RSA recommends that MCB:
4.1 develop and implement strategies to reduce the rate of homemaker closures;
4.2 develop a tracking system to measure the effectiveness of these strategies so that individuals, especially those age 55 and older, who do not seek a competitive employment outcome and are referred to the OIB program can be tracked;
4.3 revise the agency policy for homemaker outcomes by providing more stringent guidelines than those currently in the policy manual; and
4.4 promote the renewed focus on competitive employment outcomes with constituents and other key stakeholders.
Agency Response:
4.1 MCB has implemented a process with its rehabilitation teachers that focuses on providing services to individuals who are 55 years and older to become participants in the OIB program. Through this initiative, MCB will reduce the number of homemakers through a progression. As a result, MCB counselors will place greater emphasis on working with consumers to involve them in vocational training resulting in employment outcomes.
4.2 MCB will monitor the progress of this initiative each year by reviewing the number of referrals to the rehabilitation teachers program quarterly to determine the number that will be referred to the VR program for competitive employment.
4.3 MCB already has criteria and standards for those who wish to become homemakers. These standards are a part of MCB’s procedures in the policy manual. Further, MCB follows the guidelines that all homemakers must support the primary wage earner or minor children living in the home.
4.4 MCB believes that its primary focus has continuously centered on assisting its customers to achieve successful employment outcomes. Our offices have routinely sponsored and/or participated in job fairs, assisted customers to attend those fairs and promoted those customers to participating employers. This agency’s focus on entrepreneurs is a strong and continuously expanding element of our tool kit. MCB customers have started businesses across the state during the review period, resulting in many successful outcomes. MCB’s partnerships with businesses throughout MI continue to expand, and those partnerships offer employment opportunities at all levels to MCB’s consumers. The value that this agency places on employment is reflected in its outreach efforts to individuals who are in jeopardy of losing their jobs because of blindness. In keeping with its commitment to continuous improvement, MCB will strive to increase its outreach to potential employers, and expose its consumers to work experience at every opportunity.
This report notes that MCBTC “recently integrated a career focus program to help better prepare individuals for the workforce.” The primary obstacle to employment for people who are blind is lack of experience. Consumers who become blind adventitiously usually possess a significant work history, but their experience accrued prior to the onset of blindness is often disregarded. Consequently, they are not proven in the workplace as qualified blind workers when they begin the vocational rehabilitation process. Congenitally blind consumers rarely find employment during their teenage years, and as a result, they generally lack work experience of any kind upon entering the public VR program.
In fact, this program includes an expanded work experience component to give consumers the opportunity to gain real world employment experience as blind people, in the community of Kalamazoo, as an integral part of their comprehensive blindness skill training program. The four elements of the Center’s career focus program include: 1) exploration and assessment of skills, interests, abilities, capabilities, and work experience if any; leading to a career choice. (Note: if this career selection differs from that which is recorded in their IPE, that document is appropriately amended by their VR counselor); 2) development of a resume, cover letter, interview skills and strategies for finding job leads; 3) informal work experience inside the Training Center, in an area that relates as closely as possible to the consumer’s vocational goal; and 4) work experience in the community of Kalamazoo, in the form of an internship, volunteer job or paid employment. Making career focus an integral part of MCBTC’s blindness skills training program has already begun to keep training Center students much more focused on employment than was previously the case. As consumers begin to leave the Center with work experience that was acquired when they were blind, they have references to provide to prospective employers. These references, whether they are staff from inside the Center or business people in the community, are nearly always positive, enthusiastic supporters of consumers as highly qualified, motivated employees.
As MCB administrators and staff speak about the career building program, through articles in the MCB newsletter, presentations to blindness consumer organizations, and word-of-mouth advertisement from consumers who have completed their Center training and have participated in the program, both current and future consumers of MCB services (constituents and key stakeholders) will benefit from this renewed focus on successful employment outcomes.
RSA Response: RSA recognizes that MCB has consistently “passed” the relevant standards and indicators for the issue raised here, but Table 4.4 indicates MCB consistently ranks lower than other blind agencies. In particular, rows 3 and 4 of Table 4.4 show MCB’s percent with competitive employment outcomes has ranged from 8.8 to 28.7 percentage points below all blind agencies’ percent with competitive employment outcomes.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
5. Innovation and Expansion (I&E) Projects
Observation: MCB funds I&E projects that are primarily recreational in nature, as opposed to directly linked to employment. I&E funds are for the development and implementation of innovative approaches to expand and improve the provision of VR services to individuals with disabilities. An example of an I&E project could be a pilot work readiness and job coaching program for transition-age youths.
MCB has been using I&E funds to cover expenditures related to the Newsline for the Blind, which provides access to a variety of news media for persons who are blind or visually-impaired, including vacancy announcements and employment related classified advertisements. This service would be better provided as a service to groups pursuant to 34 CFR 361.49.
Recommendations: RSA recommends that MCB:
5.1 transfer funding of Newsline from an I&E project to services for groups under 34 CFR 361.49; and
5.2 ensure any projects funded under I&E are employment-focused, consistent with 34 CFR 361.35.
Agency Response:
5.1 MCB will identify any funding of Newsline as services for groups consistent with 34 CFR 361.49.
5.2 MCB will ensure any projects funded under I&E are employment-focused, consistent with 34 CFR 361.35.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
6. Data Management
Observations: RSA’s review of the MCB data management system disclosed limitations in the system, including the lack of a comprehensive tickler function for counselors, an inability to match authorizations with the respective consumer services, and an outdated list of services.
· MCB had 321 service records that were overdue in different case management statuses, varying from four to over 3,000 days because the system does not include a comprehensive tickler system to remind counselors of key dates related to service record status updates.
· Thirty-two service records were open anywhere from 10 to 17 years.
· Currently, MCB has a list of 85 service items that counselors can enter into the system to document services provided to consumers. Some of the items on the list are out of date and some other services are not included in it, resulting in coding errors.
Recommendations: RSA recommends that MCB:
6.1 implement a comprehensive tickler function to assist VR counselors to keep track of consumer progress in moving through the VR system, and to assist supervisors in monitoring employee performance; and
6.2 update the service item list according to the RSA instructions for completing the RSA-911 report contained in RSA PD-07-01.
Agency Response:
6.1 MCB has been working with its CMS vendor to provide tickler functionality to the current tracking system. In December 2009, the vendor was scheduled to deliver an update to our current system that would provide a “next Actions” function. This functionality would show each staff member tickler items that need attention across their caseload. This could further be enhanced to produce automated e-mail notifications to counselors and their supervisors. In January-February 2010, MCB was scheduled to train staff on all features of the new updates to the CMS, including the tickler feature.
6.2 MCB has already updated the services and their appropriate RSA-911 service type codes.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
7. Jobs in Jeopardy
Observations: MCB promotes the Jobs in Jeopardy priority through a PR initiative focused on employers, the medical community, and employed individuals. As a result of the initiative, 24.6 percent of VR applicants were employed at the time of application in FY 2007. MCB has not conducted widespread outreach designed to target a broader population of individuals who are blind or visually-impaired and not working.
Recommendation: RSA recommends that MCB’s PR campaign initiative promote equitable access to all individuals who are blind or visually-impaired who may benefit from VR services.
Agency Response: Although MCB has not singled out the population of employed individuals for the provision of services, the agency conducted an outreach campaign to this population because these individuals and their employers are generally unaware of the availability of VR services. This population is clearly intended to benefit from the provision of rehabilitation services, as section 102(a)(1)(B) states that an eligible individual “requires vocational rehabilitation services to prepare for, secure, retain, or regain employment.”
MCB engages in multiple efforts to reach individuals who are not employed at the time of application for services. Representation on stakeholder groups is often confined to those who are unemployed, largely because of the time required to participate fully in conference calls and committee work, and the prevalence of meetings that take place during the day. Transition efforts, including outreach to secondary and post-secondary educational institutions; and partnerships with various social service, vocational training and workforce investment agencies tend to target the population of unemployed individuals. These outreach efforts account for the fact that over 75 percent of individuals served during the time of this review were not employed at the time they were declared eligible to receive VR services. The agency is already broadening its media outreach campaign to reach a greater number of blind persons who are not employed, while continuing its outreach to physicians and employers. In so doing, MCB hopes to maximize the number of persons reached who will be able to benefit from the provision of VR services to MI residents who are blind.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
VR and SE Compliance Findings and Corrective Actions
RSA identified the following compliance findings and corrective actions that MCB is required to undertake. MCB must develop a corrective action plan for RSA’s review and approval that includes specific steps the agency will take to complete the corrective action, the timetable for completing those steps, and the methods the agency will use to evaluate whether the compliance finding has been resolved. RSA anticipates that the corrective action plan can be developed within 45 days and is available to provide TA to assist MCB. RSA reserves the right to pursue enforcement action as it deems appropriate, including the recovery of Title I VR funds and Title VI SE funds, pursuant to 34 CFR 80.43 and 34 CFR Part 81 of EDGAR.
1. Cooperative Agreements with Grants to American Indian VR Programs
Legal Requirement:
Section 101(a)(11)(F):
Cooperative agreement with recipients of grants for services to American Indians.--
In applicable cases, the State plan shall include an assurance that the State has entered into a formal cooperative agreement with each grant recipient in the State that receives funds under part C. The agreement shall describe strategies for collaboration and coordination in providing vocational rehabilitation services to American Indians who are individuals with disabilities, including--
(i) strategies for interagency referral and information sharing that will assist in eligibility determinations and the development of individualized plans for employment;
(ii) procedures for ensuring that American Indians who are individuals with disabilities and are living near a reservation or tribal service area are provided vocational rehabilitation services; and
(iii) provisions for sharing resources in cooperative studies and assessments, joint training activities, and other collaborative activities designed to improve the provision of services to American Indians who are individuals with disabilities.
Finding 1: MCB is not in compliance with section 101(a)(11)(F) of the Rehabilitation Act because it does not have a formal mechanism for ensuring collaboration between MCB and the Hannahville Tribe, the section 121 grant recipient in MI. While there has been some communication between the two programs, a formal cooperative agreement has not been developed and implemented.
Corrective Action 1: RSA requires that MCB complete a cooperative agreement meeting the requirements at section 101(a)(11)(F) of the Rehabilitation Act with the Hannahville Tribe, the section 121grantee in MI. MCB must submit the signed cooperative agreement to RSA as evidence of completion of this corrective action.
Agency Response: In response to the required corrective action, MCB has developed an agreement with the Hannahville Native American Indian Tribe (section 121 project). Currently, the agreement is being reviewed by the Hannahville Indian Tribe council for approval.
RSA Response: RSA appreciates the fact that MCB has initiated the development of a cooperative agreement with the Hannahville Tribe, as required. Once the agreement is finalized and implemented, MCB must submit a copy to RSA to demonstrate completion of this corrective action.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
2. Youth Low Vision Program
Legal Requirement:
34 CFR 361.42(a)(1) Eligibility Requirements
The designated State unit's determination of an applicant's eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services must be based only on the following requirements:
(i) A determination by qualified personnel that the applicant has a physical or mental impairment.
(ii) A determination by qualified personnel that the applicant's physical or mental impairment constitutes or results in a substantial impediment to employment for the applicant.
(iii) A determination by a qualified vocational rehabilitation counselor employed by the designated State unit that the applicant requires vocational rehabilitation services to prepare for, secure, retain, or regain employment consistent with the applicant's unique strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities, interests, and informed choice.
(iv) A presumption, in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section, that the applicant can benefit in terms of an employment outcome from the provision of vocational rehabilitation services.
Finding 2: MCB is not in compliance with 34 CFR 361.42(a)(1) to the extent that MCB uses Title I VR funds to serve individuals through its Youth Low Vision Program (YLVP) who do not meet the eligibility criteria for the VR program. MCB serves approximately 400 individuals every year through the YLVP, and counts expenditures incurred as part of the VR program.[1]
Individuals receiving YLVP services range in age from birth to 26 years old, do not necessarily meet MCB’s eligibility requirements for a blind or visually-impaired individual, and do not necessarily intend to achieve an employment outcome. Eligibility requirements for YLVP are not as stringent as those for MCB’s VR program. Services provided under the YLVP may include the purchase of low vision aids.
In order to be eligible for the VR program, 34 CFR 361.42(a) requires that an individual have a physical or mental impairment that constitutes a substantial impediment to employment and that the individual require VR services to achieve an employment outcome. VR funds must be expended solely for the provision of VR services or the administration of the VR program (34 CFR 361.3). Given the age range served by the YLVP, very few would meet the eligibility criteria for the VR program since most would not be old enough to be trying to achieve an employment outcome. To the extent that MCB has used VR funds to serve individuals receiving YLVP services who do not meet the VR eligibility criteria, MCB has failed to comply with 34 CFR 361.42(a). Furthermore, expenditure of VR funds to serve those individuals would not be allowable under the VR program, as will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 of this report.
Corrective Action 2: RSA requires that MCB discontinue VR services to youths in the YLVP who do not meet the VR program eligibility criteria set forth at 34 CFR 361.42(a).
Agency Response: MCB believes the YLVP services are consistent with section 103(b)(2)(B) of the Rehabilitation Act, which allows for the provision of VR services to groups of individuals, so long as those services promise to contribute substantially to the rehabilitation of a group of individuals. Services to groups of individuals are not related directly to the individualized plan for employment of any individual with a disability. MCB received documentation from RSA approving the utilization of these funds in the above mentioned activities.
MCB is aware that all individualized VR services must be provided only to those individuals who meet the eligibility criteria of 34 CFR 361.42(a)(1). YLVP services provided to individuals eligible for that program are designed to assist in the development of vocational exploration, with the ultimate intention of assisting those individuals to obtain further education and eventually achieve an employment outcome. MCB is evaluating its YLVP to make sure that individuals meet the criteria for services to groups, outreach activities and vocational services.
RSA Response: We disagree with MCB’s assertion that YLVP services are allowable under the VR program, pursuant to section 103(b)(2)(B) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.49(a)(6), as a service to groups. The services to groups provision in both the Rehabilitation Act and VR regulations pertains to those services that benefit a group of individuals as a whole – not individuals within a class or group of individuals. According to the facts outlined above, and which MCB did not dispute, the YLVP provides specialized low vision aids to individuals who fit within a group comprised of visually-impaired individuals aged infant to 26. These are clearly individualized services designed to improve the specific visual impairments of each of those individuals. These types of services are separate and distinct from those VR services that benefit groups, such as specialized telecommunications services that improve access to VR services for a group of consumers or the purchase of a bus to transport groups of consumers to a training center.
In separate communication, MCB claimed that the RSA Region 5 office had approved the use of YLVP expenditures for meeting MCB’s VR match requirements. We have reviewed an email exchange between MCB and the RSA Region 5 office, which existed at that time, dated April 26, 2004 and May 7, 2004. The MCB incoming communication simply stated that the State had appropriated $250,000 for the provision of low vision services to visually-impaired youth to assist them in transition and that MCB planned to use those funds towards satisfying its VR match requirement. MCB did not provide specifics as to the population to be served or whether these individuals were MCB consumers with approved IPEs in place that identified these as needed services. The RSA response was extremely short and provided no analysis as to how MCB’s proposal satisfied Federal requirements. While we do not know for certain, we presume that the then regional office staff indicated their concurrence with MCB’s proposal to the extent that the expenditures incurred would be for allowable services to individuals determined eligible for MCB VR services and were provided in accordance with approved IPEs. As we have stated throughout this finding and RSA response, to the extent that the YLVP services were provided to VR-eligible consumers in accordance with approved IPEs, those services would be allowable and could be used towards satisfying MCB’s VR match requirement. To the extent that the services were provided to individuals who had not been determined eligible for MCB VR services and did not have approved IPEs in place, those expenditures would not be allowable under the VR program. For all of these reasons, the finding stands and MCB must comply with the corrective action outlined above.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
3. Financial Needs Testing for SSI/SSDI recipients
Legal Requirement:
34 CFR 361.54(b)(3)(ii)
The designated state unit may not apply a financial needs test, or require the financial participation of the individual – (ii) as a condition for furnishing any vocational rehabilitation service if the individual in need of the service has been determine eligible for Social Security benefits under Titles II or XVI of the Social Security Act.
Finding 3: MCB is not in compliance with 34 CFR 361.54(b)(3)(ii) because it requires SSI/SSDI beneficiaries and recipients to provide a financial contribution equivalent to the maximum SSI monthly amount (according to the SSA Red Book for the current year) towards the cost of certain VR services, such as maintenance. This policy fails to comply with federal regulations at 34 CFR 361.54(b)(3)(ii) that prohibit MCB from requiring SSI/SSDI recipients to participate in the financial cost of their VR services.
Corrective Action 3: RSA requires that MCB to revise its policies to ensure that SSI/SSDI beneficiaries and recipients are not required to provide a contribution toward any VR service. Furthermore, MCB must cease requiring SSI/SSDI recipients to contribute towards the financial cost of their VR services. Once MCB implements the revised policies, MCB must submit a copy to RSA to ensure compliance.
Agency Response: MCB is revising its maintenance policy to eliminate the requirement that individuals must use their SSI/SSDI to contribute to their rehabilitation program. The revision will comply with the federal regulation at 34 CFR 361.54(b)(3)(ii).
RSA Response: RSA appreciates the fact that MCB has begun revising its maintenance policy to comply with 34 CFR 361.54(b)(3)(ii). Once MCB completes the revisions, MCB must submit a copy of the revised policy to ensure compliance. In the meantime, MCB must assure that it will cease requiring SSI/SSDI to contribute towards the cost of their VR program.
Chapter 5: Fiscal Management of MCB’s Vocational Rehabilitation, Supported Employment, Independent Living, and Older Individuals who are Blind Programs
RSA reviewed MCB’s fiscal management of the VR, SE, IL, and OIB programs. During the review process RSA provided TA to the state agency to improve its fiscal management and identified areas for improvement. RSA reviewed the general effectiveness of the agency’s cost and financial controls, internal processes for the expenditure of funds, use of appropriate accounting practices, and financial management systems.
Fiscal Management
The data in the following table, taken from fiscal reports submitted by the state agencies, speak to the overall fiscal performance of the agency. The data related to matching requirements are taken from the fourth quarter of the respective fiscal year’s SF-269 report. The MOE requirement data are taken from the final SF-269 report of the fiscal year (two years prior to the fiscal year to which it is compared). Fiscal data related to administration, total expenditures, and administrative cost percentage are taken from the RSA-2.
Table 5.1
Fiscal Data for MCB for FY 2004 through FY 2008
Fiscal Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Grant Amount
10,500,562
11,329,806
12,413,785
13,571,736
14,602,124
Required Match
2,841,956
3,066,390
3,359,766
3,673,164
3,952,036
Federal Expenditures
10,500,562
11,329,806
12,413,785
13,571,736
**12,494,728
Actual Match
2,841,957
3,076,735
3,359,766
3,859,420
3,957,306
Over (Under) Match
1
10,345
0
186,256
5,270
Carryover at 9/30 (year one)
709,790
202,579
46,691
1,756,181
2,096,609
Program Income
765,941
105,664
564,196
437,290
32,582
MOE Requirement
2,911,391
2,823,889
2,841,957
3,076,735
3,359,766
Administrative Costs
5,242,347
4,481,027
4,076,910
4,885,285
3,998,617
*Total Expenditures
15,448,367
16,237,219
17,163,830
17,503,634
18,633,450
Percent Admin Costs to Total Expenditures
33.9%
27.6%
23.8%
27.9%
21.5%
*Includes SE Program Expenditures.
** Deadline for obligating FY 2008 federal grant funds – September 30, 2009.
Explanations Applicable to the Fiscal Profile Table
Grant Amount:
The amounts shown represent the final award for each fiscal year, and reflect any adjustments for MOE penalties, reductions for grant funds voluntarily relinquished through the reallotment process, or additional grant funds received through the reallotment process.
Match (Non-Federal Expenditures):
The non-Federal share of expenditures in the VR program, other than for the construction of a facility related to a community rehabilitation program, was established in the 1992 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act at 21.3 percent. As such, a minimum of 21.3 percent of the total allowable program costs charged to each year’s grant must come from non-federal expenditures from allowable sources as defined in program and administrative regulations governing the VR program (34 CFR 361.60(a) and (b); 34 CFR 80.24).
In reviewing compliance with this requirement, RSA examined the appropriateness of the sources of funds used as match in the VR program, the amount of funds used as match from appropriate sources, and the projected amount of state appropriated funds available for match in each federal fiscal year. The accuracy of expenditure information previously reported in financial and program reports submitted to RSA was also reviewed.
Carryover:
Federal funds appropriated for a fiscal year remain available for obligation in the succeeding fiscal year only to the extent that the VR agency met the matching requirement for those federal funds by September 30 of the year of appropriation (34 CFR 361.64(b)). Either expending or obligating the non-federal share of program expenditures by this deadline may meet this carryover requirement.
In reviewing compliance with the carryover requirement, RSA examined documentation supporting expenditure and unliquidated obligation information previously reported to RSA to substantiate the extent to which the state was entitled to use any federal funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated.
Program Income:
Program income means gross income received by the state that is directly generated by an activity supported under a federal grant program. Sources of state VR program income include, but are not limited to, payments from the SSA for rehabilitating Social Security beneficiaries, payments received from workers’ compensation funds, fees for services to defray part or all of the costs of services provided to particular individuals, and income generated by a state-operated CRP. Program income earned (received) in one fiscal year can be carried over and obligated in the following fiscal year regardless of whether the agency carries over federal grant funds. Grantees may also transfer program income received from SSA for rehabilitating Social Security disability beneficiaries to other formula programs funded under the Act to expand services under these programs.
In reviewing program income, RSA analyzed the total amount (as compared to the total percentage of income earned by all VR agencies and comparable/like VR agencies), sources and use of generated income.
Maintenance of Effort (MOE):
The 1992 amendments revised the requirements in section 111(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act with respect to MOE provisions. Effective federal FY 1993 and each federal fiscal year thereafter, the MOE level is based on state expenditures under the title I State Plan from non-federal sources for the federal fiscal year two years earlier. States must meet this prior year expenditure level to avoid monetary sanctions outlined in 34 CFR 361.62(a)(1). The match and MOE requirements are two separate requirements. Each must be met by the state.
In reviewing compliance with this requirement, RSA examined documentation supporting fiscal year-end and final non-Federal expenditures previously reported for each grant year.
Administrative Costs:
Administrative costs means expenditures incurred in the performance of administrative functions including expenses related to program planning, development, monitoring, and evaluation. More detail related to expenditures that should be classified as administrative costs is found in VR program regulations at 34 CFR 361.5(b)(2).
Fiscal Technical Assistance Provided to MCB During the Review Process
RSA provided the following VR, SE, IL, and OIB program TA to MCB during the review process regarding:
· a synopsis of each requirement and reviewed with staff RSA’s assessment of the agency’s compliance with specific financial requirements – match, MOE, carryover, reallotment, program income, liquidation of outstanding obligations, and grant closeout;
· the federal requirements related to the allowable sources of non-federal funds that can be used to meet the VR program matching requirement, unallowable sources, and prohibitions against accepting outside matching funds that would revert to the donor;
· the requirements for third-party cooperative arrangements falling under 34 CFR 361.28;
· the formalization of guidelines for the IL OIB program into a written policy and procedures manual;
· including a provision in MCB’s equipment transfer agreement that releases MCB from the maintenance, repair, or replacement responsibilities once an individual receives a device;
· the scope of I&E reporting including allowable activities and expenditures;
· OMB Circular A-87 semi-annual certification requirement applicable to staff charging 100 percent of their salary costs to one federal grant program;
· OMB Circular A-87 time distribution documentation requirements applicable to staff working on more than one program (federal and/or state);
· requirements applicable to the transfer of SSA reimbursement program income to IL programs to cover the cost of the salaries of individuals working in these programs when sufficient grant or matching funds are not available to pay these costs;
· accurately reporting SF-269 expenditures;
· strategies for reporting on the RSA-2 including the proper categorization of staff and vendors (public/private);
· reporting management services and supervision expenditures on the RSA-15 report submitted for BEP; and
· the agency’s approach to financial planning and strategies to strengthen this process by including both financial and program staff, and increasing the knowledge of financial staff in program areas and activities that have financial implications.
Observations of MCB about the Fiscal Management Performance of the VR, SE, IL, and OIB Programs
RSA solicited input from MCB about the performance of the VR, SE, IL, and OIB programs. The MCB shared the observations below.
· Approximately half of MCB’s state appropriation is utilized for the BEP program, forcing MCB to seek out alternative sources of match to fully match the federal VR program allotment.
· MCB does not have the opportunity to review the quarterly SF-269 reports, prepared by DELEG financial staff, prior to submission to RSA.
RSA discussed the observations of its stakeholders with MCB and addressed as many of them as possible either directly or by consolidating them into a broader issue area.
MCB Response: With regard to the first bullet, a large amount of MCB’s state appropriation is used to provide BEP rent in state buildings and operator retirement, which are not allowable Title I VR expenditures and, thus, must be paid for with state funds. To date, MCB is statutorily committed to the funding for the BEP expenditures. In the past, BEP rent in state buildings was fully funded by the State, but the funding was not increased as rent costs increased. In addition, the state funding that was earmarked for BEP rent was not transferred to MCB when the BEP program was moved to the Department of Labor in 2004, leaving MCB to foot the entire BEP rent bill.
With regard to the final bullet, MCB previously had not been able to review the quarterly SF-269 reports prepared by DELEG financial staff prior to submission. MCB staff raised this issue with DELEG financial staff and they have begun providing the reports to MCB staff for input prior to submitting the report to RSA.
VR, SE, IL, and OIB Programs’ Fiscal Management Performance Observations and RSA Recommendations
RSA identified the following fiscal performance observations and made recommendations to MCB about those observations. MCB responded to each of the recommendations and in those instances when RSA and MCB agreed upon a recommendation, RSA and MCB identified the TA that RSA would provide to MCB to successfully implement the recommendation.
1. Financial Planning
Observations: MCB does not have a structured financial planning process. The staff indicated that MCB has a comprehensive strategic plan developed by four specialized teams: Planning and Quality; Service Delivery and Design; Technology; and Image and Identity. Discussions revealed that the primary focus of planning is to address programmatic issues without the integration of a fiscal component, although the agency must address issues related to dwindling non-federal resources. The OIB staff also indicated this program is not incorporated into the agency’s strategic planning process.
>From information provided to RSA onsite, there was limited evidence that the agency has actually developed and implemented a structured, long-range financial planning process that takes into consideration the: 1) necessary resources to achieve State Plan and strategic plan goals; 2) I&E activities planned by the agency; 3) projected federal and state financial resources and funding reductions; 4) staffing plans; 5) number of consumers projected to be served each fiscal year; 6) the cost of serving these consumers; and 7) the projected cost and financial impact of prior year commitments for IPEs on the resources available in current and future fiscal years.
This becomes critical since the state of MI only appropriates approximately $4 million to MCB for programs administered by the agency. Due to a State law that requires MCB to provide the BEP vendors with retirement benefits, health benefits for retired vendors, and to pay for vendor rent in state buildings, MCB must utilize approximately $2 million of its appropriation to this program to fund costs that it cannot use as non-federal match. This significant loss of MCB’s primary source of match has placed the agency in a precarious position that has left them with the options of relinquishing federal funds it is unable to match through the reallotment process, or seeking and developing alternative sources of viable match. MCB has chosen the latter option.
MCB administers the VR program in an environment where:
· state funds appropriated for match are reduced due to statutory commitments to the BEP program;
· the remaining state appropriations are not sufficient to meet match requirements to fully utilize the federal funds made available to MI for the provision of services to individuals with disabilities seeking employment; and
· carryover balances have increased from FY 2004 (6.76 percent) to FY 2008 (14.36 percent), with a low of 0.38 percent in FY 2006.
As a result, developing and implementing a structured, realistic, long-term financial planning process is critical to the administration of MCB’s VR and IL programs.
Recommendation: RSA recommends that MCB:
1.1 formulate a financial planning team that incorporates both program and fiscal representatives from the VR, IL and OIB programs; and
1.2 develop and implement a multi-year financial planning process that, at a minimum, projects: 1) anticipated financial resources (federal and non-federal); 2) plans for the utilization of available resources, documents the need for additional resources and identifies excess resources; 3) administrative (including indirect) expenses; 4) staff salaries, fringe benefits and overhead costs; 5) I&E activities; 6) State Plan goals and strategies; and 7) costs related to providing services to program consumers. This plan should be updated on a regular basis and become a valuable program management tool.
Agency Response: With regard to the first bullet, MCB has continually addressed this with the department and provided recommended solutions. To date MCB is still statutorily committed to the funding for the BEP expenditures. As discussed earlier in this report, the State appropriation is for BEP rent in State buildings and operator retirement costs, neither of which is allowable under the Title I VR program, and, therefore, must be paid with State funds.
With regard to the second bullet, MCB and MRS have discussed and identified the need for increased State funding with the DSA, Department of Management and Budget and the MI legislature for more than six years. The current recession has severely impacted MI: unemployment rate is extremely high and there has been a substantial loss in State revenues. MCB believes RSA should consider the State’s economic conditions when stating that “the remaining state appropriations are not sufficient to meet match requirements.…” Nevertheless, MCB will continue to work with MRS to minimize reductions in State matching funds in FY 2010 and will compile documentation to pursue increased State funding once it is feasible to do so.
With regard to the third bullet, MCB is aware of this situation. This has been due, in part, to State limits on Federal funds authorized for MCB expenditure, but has been resolved in FY 2010 with a $5 million increase in authority. MCB has several projects in FY 2010 that should assist in spending Federal funds, thus reducing the need to carry over large sums. In addition, the RSA observation regarding carryover balances steadily increasing has very little value. An increase in carryover balances is not a violation of any Federal requirement.
With regard to the specific recommendations outlined above:
1.1 MCB’s Executive Management Team, which consists of program and fiscal representatives from the VR, IL and OIB programs, formulates annual financial planning and budgets; and
1.2 MCB and DELEG financial staff currently completes, compares, and updates annual financial plans that identify and incorporate financial resources; plans for the utilization of available resources and identifies excess resources; administrative (including indirect) expenses; staff salaries, fringe benefits and overhead costs; I&E activities if any; and costs related to providing services to program consumers. This plan is updated monthly. MCB believes that it would be beneficial to extend these plans to cover at least a three-year period. Any plans further than three years could not accurately project staffing cost (a major expenditure) as staffing contracts are negotiated for a three-year period as are vendor contracts.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
VR, SE, IL, and OIB Programs’ Fiscal Management Compliance Findings and Corrective Actions
RSA identified the following compliance findings and corrective actions that MCB is required to undertake. MCB must develop a corrective action plan for RSA’s review and approval that includes specific steps the agency will take to complete the corrective action, the timetable for completing those steps, and the methods the agency will use to evaluate whether the compliance finding has been resolved. RSA anticipates that the corrective action plan can be developed within 45 days and RSA is available to provide TA to assist MCB. RSA reserves the right to pursue enforcement action as it deems appropriate, including the recovery of Title I VR funds, Title VI SE funds, and Title VII IL Part B and OIB funds, pursuant to 34 CFR 80.43 and 34 CFR Part 81 of EDGAR.
1. SILC Providing Donated CIL Funds to MCB for Match
Legal Requirements:
Section 7(14) of the Rehabilitation Act establishes the Federal share for the VR program as 78.7 percent. Hence, the State must contribute 21.3 percent of non-Federal funds towards the cost of operating the VR program.
34 CFR 361.28 states:
(a) The designated State unit may enter into a third-party cooperative arrangement for providing or administering VR services with another State agency or a local public agency that is furnishing part or all of the non-Federal share, if the designated State Unit ensures that--
(1) The services provided by the cooperating agency are not the customary or typical services provided by that agency but are new services that have a VR focus or existing services that have been modified, adapted, expanded, or reconfigured to have a VR focus;
(2) The services provided by the cooperating agency are only available to applicants for, or recipients of, services from the designated State unit;
(3) Program expenditures and staff providing services under the cooperative arrangement are under the administrative supervision of the designated State unit; and
(4) All State Plan requirements, including a State's order of selection, will apply to all services provided under the cooperative program.
(b) If a third party cooperative agreement does not comply with the statewideness requirement in §361.25, the State unit must obtain a waiver of statewideness, in accordance with §361.26.
34 CFR 361.60 states:
(a) Federal share—(1) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2) of this section, the Federal share for expenditures made by the State unit under the State plan, including expenditures for the provision of vocational rehabilitation services and the administration of the State plan, is 78.7 percent.
(b) Non-Federal share—
(1) General. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) and (3) of this section, expenditures made under the State plan to meet the non-Federal share under this section must be consistent with provisions of 34 CFR 80.24.
(2) Third party in-kind contributions. Third party in-kind contributions specified in 34 CFR 80.24(a)(2) may not be used to meet the non-Federal share under this section.
(3) Contributions by private entities. Expenditures made from contributions by private organizations, agencies, or individuals that are deposited in the account of the State agency or sole local agency in accordance with State law and that are earmarked, under a condition imposed by the contributor, may be used as part of the non-Federal share under this section if the funds are earmarked for –
(i) Meeting in whole or in part the State’s share for establishing a community rehabilitation program or constructing a particular facility for community rehabilitation program purposes;
(ii) Particular geographic areas within the State for any purpose under the State plan, other than those described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, in accordance with the following criteria….
(iii) Any other purpose under the State plan, provided the expenditures do not benefit in any way the donor, an individual to whom the donor is related by blood or marriage or with whom the donor has a close personal relationship, or an individual, entity, or organization with whom the donor shares a financial interest.
34 CFR 361.63(c)(4) states:
Program income cannot be used to meet the non-Federal share requirement under §361.60.
34 CFR 364.5(c)(3) of the IL regulations states:
Program income may not be used to meet the non-Federal share requirement under 34 CFR 365.12(b).
Finding 1: MI CILs, MI SILC, and MCB are not in compliance with the Federal requirements regarding third-party cooperative arrangements under 34 CFR 361.28, private contributions to VR agencies for match purposes under 34 CFR 361.60(b)(3), or program income under 34 CFR 361.63(c)(4) and 34 CFR 364.5(c)(3).
MI CILs are non-profit entities that provide both VR and IL services to eligible individuals, with Titles I and VII funds respectively. As non-profit entities, MI CILs engage in fund-raising activities because they have a statutory authorization to develop additional resources to use for the IL program; therefore, CILs may use Title VII funds to engage in these activities. The MI SILC, established under Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act has set up a separate non-profit corporate arm – as it is permitted to do -- to perform certain financial brokering duties that fall outside the scope of allowable activities for the SILC to perform under Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act. MCB engages in approximately nine agreements in which the MI CILs pass some of the income they raised through this non-profit corporate arm of the MI SILC to MCB, to be used as a source of match for the Title I VR program. The funds were being passed through the SILC, at the direction of MCB, in order to meet the requirements of 34 CFR 361.28. MI SILC claims it is not performing this pass-through duty with Title VII funds. The agreements set forth the MI CILs’ expectation that the VR agency, in turn, would give Title I VR funds back to the CILs so they could continue to provide VR and IL program services.
Under Title VII, the SILC may use Federal funds only for the duties authorized under section 705 of the Act. The SILC can perform other activities, beyond those listed in section 705, so long as those activities are funded with non-Federal money and do not impair its ability to perform duties under section 705. Nothing in Title VII prohibits the SILC (either the Council itself or its non-profit fiduciary arm) from performing the activities described above – serving as a pass-through for CIL funds to MCB to be used as match for Title I VR funds – so long as this activity is not being supported by Federal funds. Because it is not Title VII Part B funds from MCB that the SILC is disbursing, but rather funds from CILs, this SILC activity does not infringe on MCB's non-delegable duty to disburse Title VII Part B funds.
MCB states that it has required the SILC to serve as the pass-through for CIL funds so that it could satisfy the requirements for having a third-party cooperative arrangement with another public agency to provide VR services under 34 CFR 361.28 of the VR regulations. Under such an arrangement, the other public agency provides some, or all, of the match for the VR services provided and: 1) the services must be provided only to VR consumers; 2) those services must be different than the usual services provided by that other public agency; and 3) the expenditures made and the staff providing those services must be under the administrative supervision of the VR agency.
The key problem with these agreements, for purposes, of the VR program, between the MI CILs, the MI SILC, and MCB, is that both the MI CILs and the non-profit fiduciary arm of the SILC performing this brokering duty are non-profit entities. They are not public agencies as defined under 34 CFR 77.1 and required by the VR regulations at 34 CFR 361.28. Moreover, even if the SILC, as the Council itself (rather than its non-profit fiduciary arm), could be considered a public agency under 34 CFR 77.1, the SILC does not provide VR services, as is required of the public cooperating agency pursuant to 34 CFR 361.28. Finally, the funds at issue under these agreements are CIL, not SILC, money. For all of these reasons, neither the CILs nor the SILC qualify as a public agency for purposes of the third-party cooperative arrangement requirements set forth at 344 CFR 361.28.
In addition to analyzing these agreements to determine whether they satisfied the requirements for third-party cooperative arrangements pursuant to 34 CFR 361.28, RSA reviewed the VR regulations at 34 CFR 361.60 to determine whether these agreements would satisfy the general matching requirements for the VR program. Private entities are allowed to provide contributions to the State VR agency, pursuant to 34 CFR 361.60(b)(3), for helping the VR agency satisfy its matching requirements. However, under 34 CFR 361.60(b)(3)(iii), the donor, or an entity with whom the donor shares a financial interest, cannot benefit from the financial contribution. In this case, the donor is ambiguous. An argument could be made that the donor is either the CILs that are providing the actual funds, or the SILC, that actually funnels the money to the VR agency. Regardless of which entity is deemed the donor, they both potentially could benefit from the contribution. The VR agency cannot first receive a contribution from the CILs (or the SILC) and then give the money back to the CILs via vendor payments for the provision of VR services to VR consumers, unless the vendor payments were made pursuant to a grant or contract awarded under the State’s regular competitive procedures, as provided for in 34 CFR 361.60(b)(3)(iii). It is RSA’s understanding, however, that the agreements that have been worked out with the MI CILs, MI SILC, and MCB are not part of a competitive process; therefore, they would not comply with the requirements of 34 CFR 361.60. In order to comply with this provision, CILs would need to give the funds as an outright donation with no expected benefit in return.
Finally, the VR and IL program regulations at 34 CFR 361.63(c)(4) and 34 CFR 364.5(c)(3) prohibit program income from being used to meet the non-Federal share requirements of either the VR or IL program. In addition, under 34 CFR 80.24(b)(4), program income may not be used to satisfy a cost sharing or matching requirement, unless they are expressly permitted in the terms of the assistance agreement, which is not the case here. Although it is unknown what source of funds was used for these agreements, to the extent the funds used were directly generated by Title VII activities, they would constitute program income for CILs and would not be available to be used as match for either Title I VR or Title VII IL.
Corrective Action: MCB must:
1.1 cease reporting funds it receives from the CILs via the SILC for meeting its non-Federal share obligation of 21.3 percent of expenditures incurred under the VR program;
1.2 cease all agreements under which CILs are providing funds to the SILC, which in turn provides the funds to MCB as a source of match for the VR program;
1.3 submit a written assurance to RSA within 10 days of receipt of the final monitoring report that it will not include as match for the VR program any certified expenditures from any agreement or cooperative program not meeting the requirements of 34 CFR 361.28 (third-party cooperative arrangements) or expenditures from other sources that do not comply with 34 CFR 361.60(b); and
1.4 complete and submit the following source of match spreadsheet entitled, “SILC/CIL Agreements,” that provides summary information on the total amount of funds received by the SILC to provide match through these agreements and the total amount used by MCB for VR program match in FYs 2005 through 2009:
MCB SILC/CIL Agreements
(FYs 2005 through 2009)
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total funds received from SILC for match provided by CILs
Total funds from these agreements used for match in specified FY
Agency Response: MCB has ceased using CIL/SILC funds for VR match. These services will be provided through fee for services. Written assurance will be provided as requested.
MCB disagrees with RSA’s determination that the cooperative arrangement between MCB and the SILC does not meet Federal regulations at 361.28. The SILC is a governmental entity which meets the requirements in both 361.28 and in 77.1. It is also permissible to have non-profit entities (e.g., CILs) in the cooperative arrangement as long as the cooperative arrangement is between the State VR agency and a government entity. MCB is not aware of any requirement which prohibits the non-profit entity from contributing the non-Federal matching funds and those funds flowing through the governmental entity (e.g., SILC).
MCB believes the SILC does qualify under 34 CFR 77.1 as a public “agency, organization or institution,” even if it does not qualify as a “public agency” for purposes of 34 CFR 361.28. Establishment of a non-profit to serve as its fiduciary (and in the process support the statutorily required SILC independence from other state agencies or offices) does not change the inherent public nature of the Governor-appointed SILC and the activities it carries out.
With regard to the completion of the chart, as required by corrective action 1.4, MCB has limited staff and resources and cannot work on issues which go back to October 1, 2004 (beginning of FY 2005). The agency’s highest priority is working on current issues. The documentation is available onsite for RSA reviewers.
RSA Response: The Finding is based on the fact that MCB had entered into third-party cooperative arrangements with the MI SILC and MI CILs to funnel funds to MCB for VR match purposes. In doing so, MCB failed to satisfy the requirements of 34 CFR 361.28 for the following reasons: 1) the CILs are non-profit entities, whereas 34 CFR 361.28 requires that the cooperating agency be a public agency; and 2) the SILC -- regardless of whether it could satisfy the definition of a public agency at 34 CFR 77.1(c) – does not provide services to consumers as required of the public cooperating agency by 34 CFR 361.28. Because the agreements do not satisfy the requirements of a third-party cooperative arrangement at 34 CFR 361.28, the funds transferred by the CILs via the SILC to MCB may not be used for match purposes under the VR program. For this reason, the Finding stands. MCB stated that it has already ceased using funds from the CILs and SILC for VR match purposes (corrective action 1.1) and that it will submit the assurance required under corrective action 1.3. MCB also must cease all agreements between MCB, the SILC, and CILs for VR match purposes and complete the chart, as required by corrective actions 1.2 and 1.4, respectively. RSA will provide the TA, as needed, but will need MCB to be more specific as to the TA requested.
Technical Assistance: MCB requests TA on match issues.
2. Unallowable Certified Expenditures
Legal Requirements:
34 CFR 361.28 states that:
(a) The designated State unit may enter into a third-party cooperative arrangement for providing or administering [VR] services with another State agency or a local public agency that is furnishing part or all of the non-Federal share, if the designated State unit ensures that—
(1) The services provided by the cooperating agency are not the customary or typical services provided by that agency but are new services that have a VR focus or existing services that have been modified, adapted, expanded, or reconfigured to have a [VR] focus;
(2) The services provided by the cooperating agency are only available to applicants for, or recipients of, services from the designated State unit;
(3) Program expenditures and staff providing services under the cooperative arrangement are under the administrative supervision of the designated State unit; and
(4) All State plan requirements, including a State's order of selection, will apply to all services provided under the cooperative program.
(b) If a third-party cooperative agreement does not comply with the statewideness requirement in §361.25, the State unit must obtain a waiver of statewideness, in accordance with §361.26.
34 CFR 361.60 states, in pertinent part, that:
(a) Federal share—(1) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2) of this section, the Federal share for expenditures made by the State under the State plan, including expenditures for the provision of [VR] services and the administration of the State plan, is 78.7 percent….
(b) Non-Federal share—(1) General. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) and (3) of this section, expenditures made under the State plan to meet the non-Federal share under this section must be consistent with provisions of 34 CFR 80.24.
(2) Third party in-kind contributions. Third party in-kind contributions specified in 34 CFR 80.24(a)(2) may not be used to meet the non-Federal share under this section.
(3) Contributions by private entities. Expenditures made from contributions by private organizations, agencies, or individuals that are deposited in the account of the State agency or sole local agency in accordance with State law and that are earmarked, under a condition imposed by the contributor, may be used as part of the non-Federal share under this section if the funds are earmarked for –
(i) Meeting in whole or in part the State’s share for establishing a community rehabilitation program or constructing a particular facility for community rehabilitation program purposes;
(ii) Particular geographic areas within the State for any purpose under the State plan, other than those described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section…; and
(iii) Any other purpose under the State plan, provided the expenditures do not benefit in any way the donor, an individual to whom the donor is related by blood or marriage or with whom the donor has a close personal relationship, or an individual, entity, or organization with who the donor shares a financial interest....
Finding 2: In FY 2009, MCB entered into three agreements called “Certified Expenditure Agreements” with local school districts for the purpose of using expenditures incurred under these agreements for meeting its non-Federal share requirement for the VR program. The certified expenditures under these three agreements, totaling $416,112, were for school staff, fringe benefits, supplies, and travel. The agreements were silent as to the services to be provided by the cooperating agencies and the consumers to be served; however, in practice, RSA was told by staff that the local school districts provided the same services under the agreements to their usual consumers that they customarily provide in the ordinary course of business. For example:
· Eaton Intermediate School District (ISD) transition staff informed RSA while onsite that the Orientation and Mobility (O&M) and Visual Impairment (VI) consultants provided the same services to all students with disabilities participating in the program – not just MCB consumers. According to the Eaton ISD transition staff, only 3 of the 11 students – 27 percent – receiving O&M consultation services under the cash match program were MCB consumers. Similarly, only 3 of the 17 students – 18 percent – receiving VI consultation services under the cash match agreements were MCB consumers. Although the written agreements indicated that MCB was not certifying any of the Eaton ISD staff’s time for match purposes, the Eaton ISD transition staff told RSA that MCB certified 100 percent of the O&M consultant’s salary and 50 percent of the VI consultant’s salary as providing services to MCB consumers.
· The agreement for Ingham ISD identified three individuals as certifying 100 percent of their time – totaling $204, 946 – spent providing services exclusively to MCB consumers. However, according to a spreadsheet provided by MCB that spanned October 2008 through July 2009, one of the individuals providing services pursuant to the cash match agreement at Ingham ISD verified that she worked only 244.55 hours – 15.85 percent of the 1,533 total hours worked – in providing services to MCB consumers.
Finally, the various agreements stated that service providers under the agreements would be “technically supervised by” MCB and would comply with all requirements governing the VR program. According to MCB staff, the agency has engaged in these and similar agreements for several years.
In order for MCB to use expenditures incurred by another public agency for purposes of satisfying its non-Federal share of 21.3 percent of the expenditures under the State Plan, the non-Federal expenditures must be incurred by the cooperating agency pursuant to a valid third-party cooperative arrangement that meets the requirements of 34 CFR 361.28. In particular, the regulations require: 1) the services be new services, not customarily provided by the agency, or expanded services with a VR focus; 2) the services be provided only to VR applicants or eligible consumers; 3) the VR agency maintain supervisory control over the expenditures and staff providing the services; and 4) all State Plan requirements be met.
The three agreements between MCB and local school districts failed to comply with Federal requirements governing third-party cooperative arrangements for several reasons. First, as stated above, the agreements were silent as to the individuals to be served and the services to be provided under the agreements. Due to the lack of specification in the agreements, RSA learned from transition staff in the school districts that the school districts continued to provide their customary services to their usual consumer population, not VR services to VR consumers, under these agreements, in violation of 34 CFR 361.28(a)(1) and (2). Although MCB consumers were among those served under the agreements, they were a small minority of the individuals receiving the services. Federal regulations require that the services provided under the cooperative agreements must be provided only to VR consumers (34 CFR 361.28(a)(2)). Second, MCB did not supervise the expenditures incurred or the staff providing services under the agreements, as required by the language of the agreements and 34 CFR 361.28(a)(3). For example, MCB could not verify the number of hours staff worked, the tasks performed, or the actual expenditures incurred under the agreements. In a spreadsheet provided by MCB, it is clear that the staff providing the services under the Ingham agreement spent very little time serving MCB consumers as compared to other students with disabilities, yet MCB accepted the staff’s certification that they spent 100 percent of their time serving MCB consumers. Third, the school districts failed to meet the State Plan requirements, as required by 34 CFR 361.28(a)(4), by not providing VR services to VR consumers. Expenditures incurred under the VR State plan must be solely for the provision of VR services and the administration of the VR program (34 CFR 361.3). For the foregoing reasons, these agreements do not comply with 34 CFR 361.28; therefore, the non-Federal expenditures incurred under these agreements are not eligible sources of match for MCB under the VR program.
In addition, upon reviewing the three agreements and supporting documentation, RSA learned that MCB was using third-party in-kind contributions as a source of match. For example, the MCB certified $16,000 and $12,300 in supplies and travel expenditures incurred by Eaton ISD and Ingham ISD, respectively, for match purposes under the VR program. MCB’s use of in-kind contributions violated 34 CFR 361.60(b)(2), which prohibits the use of third-party in-kind donations for match purposes under the VR program.
Corrective Action: MCB must:
2.1 cease reporting non-Federal expenditures as match funds under the VR program when those non-Federal expenditures fail to comply with 34 CFR 361.28 or 34 CFR 361.60(b);
2.2 amend those agreements that will be used by MCB as a source of non-Federal expenditures for meeting its non-Federal share obligation under the VR program to ensure they comply with 34 CFR 361.28;
2.3 submit a written assurance to RSA within 10 days of receipt of the final monitoring report that: 1) all future third-party agreements, for purposes of meeting MCB’s non-Federal share under the VR program, will comply with 34 CFR 361.28; and 2) MCB will not use in-kind contributions for meeting its non-Federal share under the VR program in accordance with 34 CFR 361.60(b); and
2.4 complete and submit the following source of match spreadsheet entitled, “Certified Expenditure Agreements,” that provides summary information on the total amount of certified funds MCB received from the public agencies through these agreements and the total amount used by MCB for VR program match in FYs 2005 through 2009:
Certified Expenditure Agreements
(FYs 2005 through 2009)
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total certified funds MCB received from public entities for match
Total certified funds from these agreements used for match in specified FY
Total certified funds from the agreements, incurred in the provision of allowable services to eligible individuals in accordance with 34 CFR 361.28, used for match in specified FY
2.5 MCB must submit written documentation to support the amount of certified expenditures reported in the above chart as being allowable under the VR program. The supporting documentation must demonstrate that the expenditures were incurred during the provision of allowable VR services to MCB consumers.
Agency Response: MCB’s match procedures are based on prior RSA consultation and reviews and MCB has historical documentation to support this claim. MCB disagrees with the RSA finding that the three agreements between MCB and the local school districts (Certified Expenditure Agreements) are unallowable certified expenditures. It is our determination that these agreements fully meet the requirements of 361.28. The services provided in these three agreements were not the usual services of the school districts.
MCB disagrees with the RSA statement that MCB did not supervise the expenditures incurred or the staff providing services under the agreement. MCB’s blended staff is supervised by the manager within the region. The time sheets for the personnel that provided services for MCB’s consumers under the certified match agreements are housed at the ISD district offices. The certified agreements that are signed by the school personnel identify the specific instructional time provided to MCB’s consumers. Copies of the agreements are attached indicating the supervision by the MCB staff. MCB meets with the staff bi-monthly to review progress of the program, as well as to discuss with the staff the objectives of the specific individualized programs. The ISD staff that are identified in the agreements are the ones that provide the instructions for the consumers in their expanded curriculum relating to career exploration, vocational information, comprehensive mobility instructions, work readiness skill training, job placement services, including job coaching, when necessary, and job follow along services. These agreements also provide pre-employment activities, which includes resume development, job shadowing, and mentoring during the summer months. These services are provided to eligible MCB consumers.
With regard to completion of the chart as required by corrective action 2.4 above, MCB has limited staff and resources and cannot work on issues which go back to October 1, 2004 (beginning of FY 2005). The agency’s highest priority is working on current issues. The documentation is available onsite for RSA reviewers.
RSA Response: RSA has re-reviewed the three agreements in light of MCB’s comments. While RSA understands that MCB disagrees with the RSA statement that MCB did not supervise the expenditures incurred or the staff providing services under the agreement, the problem is that neither the three one-page agreements – which were ambiguous as to the supervision MCB would provide -- nor our conversations with staff from those cooperating agencies while onsite support MCB’s claim. Furthermore, even if MCB could document that it supervised the expenditures incurred and the staff providing the VR services under the agreements, as required by 34 CFR 361.28(a)(3), the agreements still failed to satisfy the other requirements for a third-party cooperative arrangement at 34 CFR 361.28(a)(1), (2), and (4). Most importantly, the information that RSA learned onsite, as described in this Finding, indicates that the services provided under the third-party cooperative agreements – O&M and VI consultations – were the same services provided to all students with disabilities. In fact, only 27 percent and 18 percent of the students participating in the O&M and VI consultations, respectively, were MCB consumers. Furthermore, the spreadsheet MCB provided shows one of the staff persons only provided services to MCB consumers 15.85 percent of her time, yet 100 percent of her salary was certified as non-Federal expenditures for match purposes. Allowable expenditures under the VR State Plan must be solely for the provision of VR services to eligible consumers or the administration of the VR program (34 CFR 361.3). Providing services to non-consumers is not an allowable expense under the VR program. Given that MCB did not supply documentation to support its claim that the school districts provided only new or modified VR services to MCB consumers exclusively in accordance with the requirements set forth at 34 CFR 361.28, the Finding stands and corrective actions must be taken.
In addition to re-reviewing the agreements, we also reviewed a letter written in April 1996 by the then RSA Regional Commissioner regarding the certified staffing agreements. While the letter did not express concerns about the certified agreements as they existed at that time, the letter was based on third-party cooperative arrangement legal requirements that existed in 1996. Those regulatory requirements changed in 1997, the year after the letter was written, and have remained virtually unchanged since then. With regard to the issue of in-kind contributions discussed in that same letter, the information provided by the regional office did not accurately reflect the legal requirements that existed then and now. RSA has always maintained the position that third-party in-kind contributions are not an allowable source of match under the VR program even though they are allowable under EDGAR (see 60 Fed. Reg. 64475, 64494 (December 15, 1995) and 62 Fed. Reg. 6308, 6333 (February 11, 1997)). Although the prohibition for using third-party in-kind contributions as a VR match source was found in a different regulatory provision (34 CFR 361.24(c)) in 1996 then its current provision (34 CFR 361.60(b)(2)), the prohibition has remained virtually unchanged over the years.
MCB still must complete the corrective actions outlined above. In light of the fact that more facts are needed to determine the amount of certified staff expenditures that would be deemed allowable under the VR program, we have revised the chart that MCB must complete, pursuant to corrective action 2.4. The revised chart not only asks for the amount of certified staff expenditures MCB is counting towards its VR match requirement per year, but also asks MCB to determine the amount of those expenditures that it believes were incurred in the provision of allowable services to eligible individuals in accordance with 34 CFR 361.28. MCB also must submit supporting documentation as evidence of the amount of certified expenditures it reports in the chart as being allowable under the VR program (corrective action 2.5). The chart also asks MCB to determine the amount of in-kind contributions it used, per fiscal year, for VR match purposes. RSA will provide the specific TA requested as needed. RSA requests that MCB be more specific about the TA it needs.
Technical Assistance: MCB requests clarification on services to applicants vs. eligible consumers and allowable outreach activities.
3. Assigning Personnel Costs
Legal Requirements:
OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B (2 CFR Part 225, Appendix B):
8.h.4 Where employees work on multiple activities or cost objectives, a distribution of their salaries or wages will be supported by personnel activity reports or equivalent documentation which meets the standards in subsection (5) … Such documentary support will be required where employees work on: (a) more than one federal award; and (b) A federal award and a non-federal award.
8.h.5 Personnel activity reports or equivalent documentation must meet the following standards: (a) they must reflect an after-the-fact distribution of the actual activity of each employee; (b) they must account for the total activity for which each employee is compensated; (c) they must be signed by the employee; and (d) budget estimates or other distribution percentages determined before services are performed do not qualify as support for charges to federal awards but may be used for interim accounting purposes.
Finding 3: MCB is not in compliance with OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, sections 8.h.4 and 8.h.5, because MCB’s time distribution methodologies and personnel activity reports for those staff performing duties benefiting more than one federal grant program or cost objective do not accurately reflect the time spent on each program. RSA’s review disclosed that administrative salaries are charged to the VR program based on predetermined budgeted amounts that are not adjusted to the actual distribution of time and salaries worked on each cost objective. As a result, a disproportionate share of personnel costs for administering the OIB program is borne by the VR program.
Additionally, IL program costs associated with the MCBTC are borne by the VR program. Although the funding for the VR program represents the greatest share of the agency’s funding, the practice of assigning all personnel costs to the VR program because of limited funding in other programs is not in accordance with cost principles outlined in OMB Circular A-87. Since the VR program does not receive 100 percent of the benefit of funds expended for operating MCBTC, the VR program can only be allocated an equitable portion of MCBTC’s costs.
Corrective Action: MCB must:
3.1 cease using Title I funds for personnel costs that do not have supporting documentation as required under OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, 8.h.4 and 8.h.5;
3.2 submit a written assurance to RSA within 10 days of receipt of the final monitoring report that it will comply with OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, 8.h.4 and 8.h.5; and
3.3 submit a plan, including timeline, describing the corrective actions that will be taken to ensure:
a) personnel activity reports are maintained to support the allocation of an equitable portion of personnel costs for individuals, not charged indirectly, who work on more than one federal grant program or cost objective; and
b) personnel and administrative costs are allocated equitably, either directly or indirectly, to each program administered by MCB (excluding the SE program under Title VI-B, which can legally be charged to the VR program).
Agency Response: MCB has implemented new time sheets that require all staff to delineate time spent working on a particular program. Staff and management must provide electronic approval or manual signatures certifying time. The implementation of the new time sheets provide the supporting documentation required under OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, 8.h.4 and 8.h.5 for assigning personnel costs.
MCB has already addressed the corrective action by developing and implementing new bi-weekly time sheets with signature required by employees and their managers that verify time spent on a particular program. This new process has been undertaken to ensure:
a) personnel activity reports are maintained to support the allocation of an equitable portion of personnel costs for individuals, not charged indirectly, who work on more than one federal grant program or cost objective; and
b) personnel and administrative costs are allocated equitably, either directly or indirectly, to each program administered by MCB (excluding the SE program under Title VI-B, which can legally be charged to the VR program).
RSA Response: RSA appreciates the steps MCB has taken to address the corrective actions outlined above. MCB still needs to submit the assurance required by corrective action 3.2 above.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
4. Periodic Certification
Legal Requirement:
OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B (2 CFR Part 225, Appendix B):
8.h.3: Where employees are expected to work solely on a single federal award or cost objective, charges for their salaries and wages will be supported by periodic certifications that the employees worked solely on that program for the period covered by the certification. These certifications will be prepared at least semi-annually and will be signed by the employee or supervisory official having first hand knowledge of the work performed by the employee.
Finding 4: MCB is not in compliance with OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, 8.h.3 because the agency has not conducted periodic certifications for employees working solely on one federal grant program or cost objective. To comply, employees or their supervisors are required to certify, at least semi-annually, that the employee worked solely on one grant program, or cost objective, during the period covered by the certification.
Corrective Action: MCB must:
4.1 cease using Title I funds for personnel costs that do not have personnel certifications as required under OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, 8.h.3;
4.2 submit a written assurance to RSA within 10 days of receipt of the final monitoring report that it will comply with OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, 8.h.3; and
4.3 develop and submit policies/procedures that ensure, at a minimum, semi-annual certifications are completed for all employees working solely on one federal grant program, or cost objective, to comply with the requirement in OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, 8.h.3.
Agency Response: MCB is now in compliance with OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, 8.h.3 by having implemented signed semi-annual certifications for all personnel that work solely on one grant program. MCB will not use Title I funds for personnel costs that do not have such personnel certifications for the current and all future fiscal years. Although MCB did not have semi-annual certifications for previous years, it can still provide sufficient supporting documentation for personnel working on only one grant program through position descriptions, work products, and other miscellaneous forms of documentation.
MCB has established procedures that ensure, at a minimum, semi-annual certifications are completed for all employees working solely on one federal grant program, or cost objective, to comply with the requirement in OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, 8.h.3.
RSA Response: RSA appreciates the actions MCB has undertaken to address this compliance issue. MCB still must submit the policies and procedures that MCB has developed to ensure compliance, as required by corrective action 4.3 above.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
5. Youth Low Vision Program Match
Legal Requirements:
Section 100(a)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act), and 34 CFR 361.1 of its implementing regulations establish that the purpose of the VR program is to provide services to individuals with disabilities so that they may achieve an employment outcome that is consistent with their strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities, interests, and informed choice.
Section 103(a) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.48 of its implementing regulations authorize the VR agency to provide VR services to eligible individuals so long as those services are necessary for the individual to achieve an employment outcome and are listed on the individual’s Individualized Plan for Employment.
Section 111(a)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.3 of its implementing regulations require that Title I VR program funds be used solely to cover the costs of providing VR services and administering the VR program.
34 CFR 361.60(b)(1) states:
Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) and (3) of this section, expenditures made under the State plan to meet the non-Federal share under this section must be consistent with the provisions of 34 CFR 80.24.
34 CFR 80.24(a)(1), in pertinent part, states:
…a matching or cost sharing requirement may be satisfied by either or both of the following: (1) Allowable costs incurred by the grantee, subgrantee or a cost-type contractor under the assistance agreement. This includes allowable costs borne by non-Federal grants or by other cash donations from non-Federal third parties.…
OMB Circular A-87, Attachment A, in pertinent part, states:
C.1.Factors affecting the allowability of costs. To be allowable under federal awards, costs must meet the following general criteria:
a. Be necessary and reasonable for the proper and efficient performance and administration of Federal awards; and
b. Be allocable to Federal awards under the provisions of this Circular.…
C.3.a A cost is allocable to a particular cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to such cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received.
Finding 5: For more than 20 years, MCB has administered the YLVP, a State-funded program that provides specialized and individualized optometric evaluations, glasses, and other low vision devices for children from infancy to age 26 who meet certain visual criteria. Teacher Consultants for visually-impaired individuals at ISDs make the referrals to MCB. The agency then authorizes individualized low-vision examinations with licensed optometrists and ophthalmologists throughout the State. Depending upon the results of the examinations, MCB will authorize the purchase of individually-prescribed low-vision eyewear and devices. YLVP services are available to individuals every other school year up to the age of 26. YLVP typically provides 250 specialized examinations and 350 individually-prescribed low-vision aids and devices each year, thus enabling children and students to participate in school and other activities.
Although MCB has historically operated YLVP separate from the VR program, in recent years MCB has begun using State funds expended under the YLVP to meet its non-Federal share for the VR program. MCB reports it used $240,000 in non-Federal expenditures for the YLVP as match to draw down $886,761 in Federal VR funds in FY 2008.
Federal regulations governing the VR program require MCB to use non-Federal expenditures for carrying out the VR program to meet its non-Federal share of 21.3 percent of the expenditures under the State Plan (34 CFR 361.60(b)(1)). These expenditures must be for allowable VR program costs (34 CFR 80.24(a)(1)). Section 111(a)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.3 require that VR funds be spent solely on expenditures incurred in providing VR services or administering the VR program. Allowable VR services are those provided to an eligible individual, pursuant to an IPE, and necessary for that individual to achieve an employment outcome (section 103(a) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.48; see also OMB Circular A-87, Attachment A, C.1.a and C.3.a).
Given the age range served by the YLVP, it is possible that some of the individuals served under that program, especially those nearing high school graduation through age 26, are also consumers of the VR program. For these individuals, individually-prescribed low vision aids and devices are services that MCB could provide under the VR program so long as those services are listed on the IPE as necessary for the individual to achieve an employment outcome (section 103(a)(6) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.48(e)). Therefore, YLVP expenditures for individually-prescribed low vision aids and devices provided to VR consumers, pursuant to an approved IPE, would be allowable under the VR program and would be consistent with the cost principles set forth at OMB Circular A-87, Attachment A, C.1 and C.3. As such, these expenditures could be used for meeting the State’s non-Federal share obligation under the VR program. However, it is RSA’s understanding that very few, if any, of the individuals served by YLVP are VR consumers. To the extent YLVP services are provided to non-VR consumers they are not allowable under the VR program and, therefore, may not be used for meeting the State’s non-Federal share under the VR program (section 103(a) of the Rehabilitation Act, 34 CFR 361.48, 361.60(b)(1), and 34 CFR 80.24(a)(1)). Furthermore, such expenditures would not be considered allowable under the Federal cost principles because they were not necessary for the administration of the VR program since the services were not provided to MCB consumers. Instead, the costs incurred would be considered necessary for the YLVP since the services were YLVP services provided to YLVP consumers. As described further in the corrective actions, RSA needs further information to determine what portion, if any, of the $240,000 MCB reported as match funds in FY 2008 constituted allowable expenditures under the VR program – expenditures to provide services to VR consumers pursuant to an approved IPE.
Corrective Action 5: MCB must:
5.1 cease using non-Federal expenditures incurred under the YLVP for meeting the non-Federal share requirement under the VR program, when those services are provided to individuals who are not VR consumers or who do not require those services according to their IPE in order to achieve an employment outcome;
5.2 submit a written assurance to RSA within 10 days of receipt of the final monitoring report that it will comply with Federal requirements to ensure that VR funds are used solely to provide VR services to eligible consumers or administer the VR program, and that non-Federal expenditures used for match purposes will be only those allowable under the VR program; and
5.3 complete and submit the following source of match spreadsheet entitled, “Youth Low Vision Services Program,” that provides summary information on the total amount of State funds MCB received from the YLVP and the total amount used by MCB for meeting the non-Federal share of the VR program in FYs 2005 through 2009:
Youth Low Vision Services Program
(FYs 2005 through 2009)
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total funds MCB received from this program for match
Total funds from this program used for match in specified FY
Total funds from this program, in the provision of allowable services to VR-eligible individuals in accordance with their approved IPEs, used for match in specified FY
Agency Response: MCB disagrees with RSA’s finding that MCB should cease using non-Federal expenditures incurred under the YLVP for meeting the non-Federal share requirement under the VR program. MCB believes that RSA is basing its determination on an extremely narrow and inaccurate interpretation of Federal statute. MCB believes the costs in the YLVP are both necessary and reasonable for the YLVP. RSA fails to justify that these costs are not necessary and reasonable.
MCB has reviewed its practices of utilizing these funds to capture federal funds. MCB believes these services are consistent with section 103(b)(2)(B) of the Rehabilitation Act – VR services for groups of individuals, which allows for the provision of other services that promise to contribute substantially to the rehabilitation of a group of individuals but that are not related directly to the IPE of any one individual with a disability. MCB also uses these funds in the provision of outreach services and vocational exploration and training for transitioning students.
With regard to completion of the chart, as required by corrective action 5.3, MCB has limited staff and resources and cannot work on issues which go back to October 1, 2004 (beginning of FY 2005). The agency’s highest priority is working on current issues. The documentation is available onsite for RSA reviewers.
RSA Response: RSA is not persuaded by MCB’s assertion that YLVP services are allowable under the VR program, pursuant to section 103(b)(2)(B) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.49(a)(6), as a service to groups, or MCB’s assertion that non-Federal expenditures incurred under the YLVP may be used for satisfying MCB’s match requirements under the Title I VR program. The services to groups provision in both the Rehabilitation Act and VR regulations pertains to those services that benefit a group of individuals as a whole – not individuals within a class or group of individuals. According to the facts outlined above, and which MCB did not dispute, the YLVP provides specialized eye exams, glasses, and specialized low vision aids to individuals who fit within a group comprised of visually-impaired individuals aged infant to 26. These are clearly individualized services designed to improve the specific visual impairments of each of those individuals. These types of services are separate and distinct from those VR services that benefit groups, such as specialized telecommunications services that improve access to VR services for a group of consumers or the purchase of a bus to transport groups of consumers to a training center.
In addition, Federal regulations governing the VR program require MCB to use non-Federal expenditures for carrying out the VR program to meet its non-Federal share of 21.3 percent of the expenditures under the State Plan (34 CFR 361.60(b)(1)). These expenditures must be for allowable VR program costs (34 CFR 80.24(a)(1)). Section 111(a)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.3 require that VR funds be spent solely on expenditures incurred in providing VR services or administering the VR program. The YLVP services do not constitute a service to groups under the VR program (section 103(b) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.49), but it may have been possible for some of the expenditures to qualify for match purposes had they been provided to eligible VR consumers pursuant to an agreed-upon IPE. MCB, however, did not assert any facts to support that these were allowable VR services to eligible individual VR consumers in accordance with their IPEs. In fact, MCB alleged that these were solely services to groups, which they are not.
In separate communication, MCB claimed that the RSA Region 5 office had approved the use of YLVP expenditures for meeting MCB’s VR match requirements. RSA has reviewed an email exchange between MCB and the RSA Region 5 office, which existed at that time, dated April 26, 2004 and May 7, 2004. The MCB incoming communication simply stated that the State had appropriated $250,000 for the provision of low vision services to visually-impaired youth to assist them in transition and that MCB planned to use those funds towards satisfying its VR match requirement. MCB did not provide specifics as to the population to be served or whether those individuals would be MCB consumers with approved IPEs in place that identified these as needed services. The RSA response was extremely short and provided no analysis for how MCB’s proposal complied with Federal requirements. RSA presumes that the then regional office staff’s response was given with the expectation that the expenditures incurred would be for allowable services to individuals determined eligible for MCB VR services and provided in accordance with approved IPEs. In order to be an allowable source of match, the non-Federal expenditures must be for allowable services to eligible individuals (34 CFR 361.60(b)(1)).
As stated previously, to the extent that the YLVP services were provided to VR-eligible consumers in accordance with approved IPEs, those services would be allowable and could be used towards satisfying MCB’s VR match requirement. To the extent that the services were provided to individuals who had not been determined eligible for MCB VR services and did not have approved IPEs in place, those expenditures would not be allowable under the VR program and would not be able to be used towards satisfying MCB’s VR match requirement. For this reason, the Finding stands and MCB must complete the corrective actions outlined above. In recognition that some of the expenditures may be allowable, we have modified the chart that MCB must complete. The revised chart not only asks MCB to provide the amount of YLVP funds received by MCB and used for VR match purposes per year, but also asks MCB to determine the amount of those funds used to provide allowable services to VR-eligible individuals in accordance with their approved IPEs. This will enable RSA to determine the amount of these expenditures that may have been allowable and eligible to be used as a source of VR match.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
6. Unallowable Source of Non-Federal Funds – Benefits to Private Donor
Legal Requirement:
34 CFR 361.60(b)(3) states, in pertinent part:
Expenditures made from contributions by private organizations, agencies, or individuals that are deposited in the account of the State agency or sole local agency in accordance with State law and that are earmarked, under a condition imposed by the contributor, may be used as part of the non-Federal share under this section if the funds are earmarked for—…
(iii) Any other purpose under the State plan, provided the expenditures do not benefit in any way the donor….The Secretary does not consider a donor’s receipt from the State unit of a grant, subgrant, or contract with funds allotted under this part to be a benefit for purposes of this paragraph if the grant, subgrant, or contract is awarded under the State’s regular competitive procedures.
Finding 6: MCB has entered into many agreements, known as “cash match agreements,” with local school districts in MI for the purpose of providing non-Federal match funds for the VR program. One of these “cash match” agreements is with the Macomb ISD. The Macomb ISD receives $9,000 in funds earmarked as match funds for the VR program from New Horizons, a local private CRP. New Horizons provides job placement services to MCB’s eligible consumers as a fee-for-service vendor. Thus, New Horizons gives the Macomb ISD $9,000 to give to MCB for non-Federal match purposes; MCB, in turn, pays New Horizons to provide VR services.
Federal regulations governing the VR program permit private entities, such as New Horizons, to contribute funds to a State VR agency to assist it in satisfying its non-Federal share requirements so long as the donor does not benefit from the expenditure of those funds (34 CFR 361.60(b)(3)). In this case, New Horizons benefits directly from the expenditures of its donated funds because MCB, in turn, pays New Horizons to provide VR services on a fee-for-service basis rather than under a contract awarded under the State’s regular competitive process. Accordingly, MCB has failed to comply with the requirements of 34 CFR 361.60(b)(3) for the use of contributions from private entities for matching purposes.
Corrective Action: MCB must:
6.1 cease using Title I funds, including the match funds it receives from New Horizons for match purposes, in a manner that inappropriately benefits New Horizons as required by 34 CFR 361.60(b)(3);
6.2 submit a written assurance to RSA within 10 days of receipt of the final monitoring report that it will no longer use Title I VR funds and its matching funds to benefit private donors of those matching funds;
6.3 develop and implement policies and procedures to prohibit reversion of funds to benefit private donors; and
6.4 complete and submit the following source of match spreadsheet entitled, “Macomb ISD Cash Match/New Horizons,” that provides summary information on the total amount of funds Macomb ISD received from New Horizons for match, and the total amount used by MCB for State VR Services Program match in FYs 2005 through 2009:
Macomb ISD Cash Match/New Horizons
(FYs 2005 through 2009)
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total funds Macomb ISD received from New Horizons for match
Total funds from this program MCB used for match in specified FY
Agency Response: Based on the review of 34 CFR 361.60(b)(3), MCB has ceased a possible “reversion to donor” practice in regards to the Macomb Cash Match Agreement. MCB understands that the CRP must not receive a benefit from their contributions; although, the vendor provides the funds to the ISD to be used in ways that could assist all transition students. Therefore, any and all transition students could benefit. MCB also maintains that there was no substantial harm to the Federal interest with the Macomb Cash Match agreement.
With regard to completion of the chart as required by corrective action 6.2 above, MCB has limited staff and resources and cannot work on issues which go back to October 1, 2004 (beginning of FY 2005). The agency’s highest priority is working on current issues. The documentation is available onsite for RSA reviewers.
RSA Response: RSA appreciates the fact that MCB has ceased the “reversion to donor” practice described above. Given that MCB does not refute the Finding, MCB must complete the corrective actions 6.2 through 6.4 outlined above.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
7. Financial Reporting
Legal Requirements:
34 CFR 361.12 states:
The State plan must assure that the State agency, and the designated State unit if applicable, employs methods of administration found necessary by the Secretary for the proper and efficient administration of the plan and for carrying out all functions for which the State is responsible under the plan and this part. These methods must include procedures to ensure accurate data collection and financial accountability.
34 CFR 80.40(b)(1) states:
Grantees shall submit annual performance reports unless the awarding agency requires quarterly or semi-annual reports…Annual reports shall be due 90 days after the grant year, quarterly or semi-annual reports shall be due 30 days after the reporting period. The final performance report will be due 90 days after the expiration or termination of grant support
Finding 7: MCB is not in compliance with 34 CFR 361.12 and 34 CFR 80.40(b)(1), because MCB failed to submit accurate required financial and statistical reports. RSA requires that agencies submit VR program Financial Status Reports (SF-269), the Annual Vocational Rehabilitation Program/Cost Report (RSA-2), and the Report of Vending Facility Program (RSA-15). A review of MCB’s reports revealed reporting errors. In addition, RSA found that there are no internal checks and balances to verify the accuracy of financial information on each report, and the information on different reports conflict. To illustrate this point, financial staff from the DSA, DELEG, are responsible for preparing the SF-269, and submit the reports to RSA prior to review by MCB financial staff. Reporting errors include:
· costs currently reported in the public CRP category should be reported under the private CRP category (RSA-2);
· indirect costs reported on the fourth quarter SF-269 ($285,000) were not accurately reflected on the RSA-2 ($65,530);
· costs associated with MCBTC were reported as administrative costs and not properly recorded in the Employed at Agency Operated CRPs – Other Services category (RSA-2);
· VR counselors employed at agency-operated CRPs were reported in the category for field office counselors;
· expenditures reported for the YLVP are recorded on the SF-269 as non-Federal expenditures and used for match, whereas this is a state-funded program that is separate and distinct from the VR program (see Finding 5 above);
· rent, retirement and healthcare costs (vendor benefits) in excess of $2 million are included as part of the expenditures for the BEP program included on the RSA-2 report; and
· allowable expenditures for BEP management services and supervision were not included on the RSA-15 report.
Corrective Action: MCB must:
7.1 cease submitting inaccurate financial and statistical reports as required by 34 CFR 361.12;
7.2 submit a written assurance to RSA within 10 days of receipt of the final monitoring report that it will ensure the accuracy of future financial and statistical reports submitted on behalf of the VR program; and
7.3 submit a plan, including timeline, describing the internal controls that will be implemented to ensure the accuracy of the financial reports.
Agency Response: With regard to the first bullet above, this particular observation was raised because there were a couple of vendors that were coded to the wrong types of services. MCB corrected the service types to properly reflect private services rather than public services.
With regard to the second bullet above, MCB needs verification from RSA on how to account for indirect costs. MCB indirect costs for the fourth quarter were accurately reported as $285,000 on the SF-269. However, DELEG only provided MCB $65,530 as allowable expenses for indirect as that was the only funding submitted to Department of Management and Budget (DMB) for indirect costs; the remainder was offset by allowable costs not required to be sent to DMB (workers’ comp payments and employee retirement payout costs). The RSA-2 instructions for reporting indirect costs states the following “Enter the total amount of funds expended for administrative costs claimed through an approved Indirect Cost (I/C) Agreement or Cost Allocation Plan. This amount also includes such costs claimed under the Title VI-B program and reflected on line 1a.” The $65,530 reported by MCB on the RSA-2 was the amount the Department considered the amount expended for administrative costs. The entire amount was included on the RSA-2 report with the amount of indirect cost sent to the MI DMB for indirect costs. The remainder was used for allowable staffing cost for retirement and workers’ compensation payouts.
With regard to the third bullet above, MCB reported MCBTC Cost as “Other Services Public Community Rehabilitation Programs” on the RSA-2 report through FY 2002. However, prior to submitting the FY 2003 RSA-2, RSA advised MCB that MCBTC costs should no longer be listed as “Other Services – Public Community Rehabilitation Programs” on the RSA 2 but rather as “Administrative Costs.” At that time, the MCBTC was considered more of a personal adjustment center. Since that time MCBTC has emerged to focus more on VR rather than personal adjustment and can now be considered a CRP. MCB will make the adjustment on all future RSA-2s.
With regard to the fourth bullet above, the reason this was reported in the field office category was due to the determination in 2002 that MCBTC’s core functions were that of a personal adjustment center rather than a CRP. Now that MCBTC can be considered a CRP (see above), MCB will make the adjustment on all future RSA-2s.
With regard to the fifth bullet above, YLVP expenditures were incorrectly coded on the SF-269. MCB believes YLVP expenditures should be included in VR and Transition Expenditures, as well as services to groups (see our comments to previous finding).
With regard to the sixth bullet above, the instructions on the RSA-2 include the following for the BEP: “Enter the total amount expended for the Business Enterprise Program (e.g., Randolph-Sheppard). The Business Enterprise Program is the program in which persons who are blind operate vending facilities or other small businesses. Include in this total the expenditures for management services and supervision, initial stock and supplies, and other goods and services, as well as the operational costs of a small business enterprise during its initial establishment period, not to exceed six months.” MCB interpreted the statement “total amount expended” for the BEP to include both State and Federal funding. We could not find any instructions to indicate that the amount spent for BEP rent and retirement should not be included in the total for BEP expenditures.
MCB disagrees with most of the required corrective actions. MCB believes that the RSA-15 and the SF-269 should not be included in this finding since RSA did not identify many errors in these reports. MCB has always worked with and received guidance from RSA regarding questioned entries for financial and statistical reports. MCB will continue to work with RSA to ensure reporting is accurate and in accordance with the requirements of 34 CFR 361.12.
MCB has always done its best to provide accurate reporting to RSA. The RSA-2 is the most ambiguous reporting instrument required to be completed by VR agencies. The current RSA-2 Reporting Instructions require that spending from two separate programs be combined (VR and SE). It combines spending from two separate years (carryover funds from proceeding year). It has subtotals that do not equal the total. It cannot be fully reconciled with the SF-269 Report. In addition, conflicting information from RSA staff have added to the confusion. MCB believes that most of the reporting issues can be resolved with written TA from RSA regarding the questions surrounding several reporting categories and improved reporting instrument instructions. In addition, MCB has requested that DELEG provide MCB copies of the SF-269 for approval prior to submission to RSA.
RSA Response: RSA appreciates the efforts MCB has undertaken thus far to ensure that accurate reports are submitted to RSA in the future. RSA’s position on MCB’s use of YLVP expenditures for VR match purposes is discussed in detail in Finding 5 above and will not be reiterated here. However, to the extent that those expenditures were unallowable under the VR program (as described earlier), they should not be reported on financial and statistical reports related to the VR program. Finally, because MCB did not refute the Finding, MCB still must complete corrective actions 7.2 and 7.3 outlined above. RSA will provide whatever TA MCB needs to bring itself into compliance. RSA will need more specific information from MCB regarding the TA it needs, especially with regard to the development of the corrective action plan.
Technical Assistance: MCB needs TA regarding:
1. the reporting of indirect costs and the use of indirect costs for match purposes under the VR program;
2. what costs were allegedly not included on the RSA-15 and for what reporting period; and
3. the development of the requested corrective action plan to ensure that all aspects of the expected plan are addressed.
8. Unallowable Costs – MOPIX
Legal Requirements:
Section 111(a)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.3 require that allowable expenditures made with Title I VR funds must be for providing VR services to eligible consumers or administering the VR program.
34 CFR 361.12 states:
The State plan must assure that the State agency, and the designated State unit if applicable, employs methods of administration found necessary by the Secretary for the proper and efficient administration of the plan and for carrying out all functions for which the State is responsible under the plan and this part. These methods must include procedures to ensure accurate data collection and financial accountability.
34 CFR 80.20 of EDGAR, in pertinent part, requires that:
(a) A state must [expend] and account for grant funds in accordance with State laws and procedures for expending and accounting for its own funds. Fiscal control and accounting procedures of the State, as well as its subgrantees and cost-type contractors, must be sufficient to: …
(2) Permit the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have not been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes.
34 CFR 80.22 requires States to use the Federal cost principles set forth in OMB Circular A-87 for determining allowability of costs.
OMB Circular A-87, Attachment A, section C states, in pertinent part:
1. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must meet the following general criteria: …
b. Be allocable to Federal awards under the provisions of this Circular….
3.a. A cost is allocable to a particular cost objective if the goods and services involved are chargeable or assignable to such cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received.
Finding 8: MCB is not in compliance with section 111(a)(1) of the Act, 34 CFR 361.12, 34 CFR 80.20(a)(2), and OMB Circular A-87, Attachment A, section C, because it has expended $2,500 in I&E funds, pursuant to section 101(a)(18) of the Rehabilitation Act, under the VR program on an unallowable activity entitled the MOPIX program. While onsite, RSA learned that MCB has been providing VR funds for MOPIX, a technology implemented at public movie theaters that provides closed captioning and descriptive narration for individuals who are blind or deaf.
In order to be an allowable expenditure under the VR program, the expenditure must be incurred in the provision of VR services or the administration of the VR program (section 111(a)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.3). Allowable services under the VR program are those listed on an individual’s IPE as being necessary to achieve an employment outcome, or those that will benefit a group of individuals in terms of improving their ability to receive VR services (see 34 CFR 361.5(b)(58), 34 CFR 361.48, and 34 CFR 361.49). The Federal cost principles require that an expenditure is allocable to a Federal program in accordance with the relative benefit received by the program (OMB Circular, A-87, Attachment A, C.3.a.). While onsite, RSA discussed the MOPIX program with the MCB director in more detail. During those discussions, the director indicated that the project is a recreational activity, not an employment-related activity in support of vocational goals. The director indicated that MCBTI students would take advantage of the MOPX technology at the theaters during outings. Given the recreational – not the vocational – nature of the MOPIX, this activity would not fit the definition of a VR service at 34 CFR 361.5(b)(58) or within the parameters of 34 CFR 361.49(a)(3) for VR services to groups. Activities that benefit individuals with disabilities’ access to recreation are funded under another Rehabilitation Act program, and are not allocable to the VR program. As such, the MOPIX program does not constitute an allowable VR program expenditure.
Corrective Action 8: MCB must:
8.1 submit a written assurance to RSA within 10 days of receipt of the final monitoring report that VR funds will be used solely for allowable expenditures and in accordance with all program and administrative requirements, as required by section 111(A)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act, 34 CFR 361.12, 34 CFR 80.20, and the cost principles set forth at OMB Circular A-87; and
8.2 cease using VR program funds, including I & E funds or services to groups, to fund the MOPIX program or other recreation-focused activities.
Agency Response: In the future MCB will not make I&E expenditures for purely recreational activities, but will ensure that expenditures such as the MOPIX project will be coded correctly as Services to Groups under CFR 361.49(3).
RSA Response: The MOPIX activity should not be coded as a VR service to groups, pursuant to 34 CFR 361.49. The MOPIX activity, as stated in the Finding, is a recreation-focused activity – not a VR activity. The MOPIX activity assists individuals with disabilities to access movies in public theaters. This does not assist a group of individuals with disabilities to achieve an employment outcome or access VR services. As stated previously, VR funds must be spent for allowable expenditures under the VR program, namely the provision of VR services that enables individuals with disabilities to achieve an employment outcome, or the administration of the VR program. Assisting individuals to access public movies enables individuals to access recreation activities, not employment. For these reasons, the finding stands and MCB must complete the corrective actions outlined above.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
VR, SE, IL, and OIB Fiscal Issues for Further Review
RSA plans on conducting further review of the following VR, SE, IL, and OIB fiscal issues:
· compliance with VR program match, MOE, and carryover requirements applicable to FYs 2005 through 2009;
· verification of RSA-2 report data that is being corrected as a result of TA provided by RSA during the on-site review; and
· use of possible indirect cost under-recoveries as match in the VR program.
Chapter 6: Independent Living Program
During the process of the review, it was found that there were multiple errors in MI’s IL data. As a result, the IL data for the reviewing period are not presented here to avoid misinterpretation.
IL Program Administration and Service Delivery
MRS and MCB jointly share responsibility for the administration of the IL part B program in MI. MCB provides IL services directly through rehabilitation teachers and through contract staff to individuals who are blind or visually impaired. The network of 15 CILs that collectively form the DN/M provides IL services statewide to individuals with disabilities through core funding made up of a combination of part B, part C, and state funds. The state appropriates approximately 1.8 million dollars for the operation of CILs. The total number of individuals served increased from 9,101 in FY 2007 to 10,338 in FY 2008.
The MI SILC was established in 1994 by Executive Order No. 1994-21 as a Governor-appointed council in accordance with the federal requirements of Title VII of the Act. The executive order was last revised as Executive Order No. 2007-49, dated December 20, 2007. Initially, the SILC arranged fiduciary services to be provided by third-party nonprofit organizations until 1999 when it established a nonprofit corporate arm to perform certain financial brokering duties that fall outside the scope of allowable activities for the SILC to perform with Title VII funds[2]. The nonprofit operates under a contractual agreement with MRS and MCB for approximately $370,000 in IL part B funds. The nonprofit also receives state operating funds.
Personnel
At the state agency level, both MCB and MRS have staff designated to carry out program and administrative support functions for the IL program. MRS designates one FTE as the state IL program coordinator and partial FTEs for a grants analyst, grants technician, and the division director. MCB designates its program director as a partial FTE to work with the SILC and MRS on the IL program. In addition to program support, MCB rehabilitation teachers provide IL services. However, these staff members do not work solely on the IL part B program, but also on other programs, including the VR and OIB programs[3].
The SILC nonprofit entity employs one FTE executive director, who works under an employment contract to the council, one FTE operations director, one FTE systems support coordinator, who also provides IT support for DN/M and the Michigan CILs, and employs a partial (1/4) FTE state plan supports coordinator. The nonprofit also contracts for a (1/12) FTE financial officer and an intern from MSU to assist with SPIL activities, including evaluations.
Data Management
In an effort to achieve more consistency in data collection among CILs, the primary IL service providers in the state, MI provided funding to CILs in 2008 to purchase a data management system that would be common to all CILs. This initiative also included training on the use of the system. During the second on-site visit to MI, RSA met with the SILC and DN/M program evaluation committee responsible for the development and coordination of MI’s CIL data system. At the time of the review, the system had not been implemented long enough to fully assess its effectiveness in achieving data consistency among CILs. However, the SILC and DN/M anticipates more accurate data reporting of the FY 2009 data. In addition to the system used by the CILs, MCB uses its own internal system to collect data on individuals served by the agency.
Fiscal Management
MRS and MCB provide financial management for IL services purchased with state or part B funds. MRS monitors requests for funds from CILs received monthly and approves payment. MRS conducts monitoring of quarterly fiscal and narrative reports submitted by CILs.
Quality Assurance
QA is primarily carried out through the quality improvement team (QIT), an interagency team made up of IL partners, including staff of MRS and MCB, the SILC, the CAP, and DN/M. The QIT provides support, training, and TA to the network of CILs. The QIT conducts periodic on-site reviews of CILs, including the following activities: interviews with consumers, community partners, CIL staff, management and board members. Following a review, the QIT provides reports to the CIL, highlighting good performance as well as making recommendations for improvements with subsequent follow-up. The QIT meets quarterly to develop and coordinate resources to meet the training and TA needs of CILs.
To evaluate the implementation of the SPIL objectives, the SILC receives quarterly reports from the SPIL committee and subcommittees, notes from the QIT, and other reports.
Planning
MI has a multi-agency IL strategic planning group that includes representatives of MRS, MCB, the SILC, and the MCDC. The group meets quarterly to dialogue about issues, concerns, visions, and plans for the MI IL program and the CIL network. Regarding the planning process for the SPIL, MI has used the services of a planning consultant to facilitate plan development. The consultant conducted surveys with key state partners. MI used survey results in the development of SPIL goals. The SILC state plan committee meets quarterly and reviews recommendations of subcommittees.
IL Program Technical Assistance Provided to Michigan During the Review Process
RSA provided IL TA to MRS, MCB and the SILC during the review process regarding:
· SILC mandated duties;
· IL “cash match” and IL state match collaborative agreements;
· IL data management;
· 704 Part I reporting requirements;
· SILC composition;
· SPIL development; and
· SPIL goals and objectives.
Observations of MRS, MCB, the SILC, and Stakeholders about the Performance of the IL Program
RSA solicited input from MRS, MCB and the SILC and a wide range of its stakeholders about the performance of the IL program. MRS, MCB, the SILC, and stakeholders shared the observations below.
· More individuals are seeking IL services through CILs due to the current economic downturn.
· MI has significant areas of the state that are underserved with respect to IL services.
· MI’s state legislature provides general revenue funds to support CILs.
· IL partners established an initiative to improve data consistency among CILs.
· MI has a strong partnership between the VR and IL programs.
· CILs expressed concerns regarding the financial impact of the loss of funds related to the IL “cash match” and IL state match collaborative agreements.
RSA discussed the observations of its stakeholders with MRS, MCB, and the SILC and addressed as many of them as possible either directly or by consolidating them into a broader issue area.
IL Program Performance Observations and RSA Recommendations
RSA identified the following performance observations and made recommendations to MRS, MCB and the SILC about those observations. MRS and MCB responded to each of the recommendations and in those instances when RSA, MRS and MCB agreed upon a recommendation, RSA and MRS, MCB, and the SILC identified the TA that RSA would provide to MRS and MCB to successfully implement the recommendation.
1. SPIL
Observations: As part of its monitoring of the MI IL part B program, RSA used MI’s SPIL as a primary resource in reviewing the duties of the DSUs and the SILC, the SILC’s resource plan funded with part B funds, and IL service delivery. In the review of the SPIL, RSA had concerns regarding the scope and amount of information included in the SPIL, the duties of the SILC related to the partnership agreements described in section 1.5, and IL service delivery under the collaborative agreements.
· It is difficult to locate required information in MI’s SPIL due to its length. The SPIL is 212 pages in length and contains extraneous information that is not required by federal statute and regulation, including: an executive summary, a 15-page glossary of terms, a five-page key to acronyms and abbreviations, a 16-page description of MI’s prototype CIL, a 6-page description of MI’s developmental benchmarks, logic model flow charts for each objective, an explanation of a new IL paradigm, charts of CIL service availability, an outline of MI’s business strategic plan outline, and a summary of MI’s community input and needs.
· In the SPIL Foreword[4], authors acknowledge the SPIL length by the statement that people often report they find the SPIL to be complex and difficult to use. Another reference encourages readers to extract portions of the document they find helpful for use in planning and program activities.
· MI’s SILC established a nonprofit corporate arm to perform certain financial brokering duties that fall outside the scope of allowable activities for the SILC to perform with Title VII funds[5], including serving as a pass through of funds between the CILs and MRS in state collaborative agreements.
Recommendations: RSA recommends that the DSUs/SILC:
1.1 streamline the next SPIL, due on July 1, 2010, to include only information that is required by the statute and regulations, consistent with the SPIL instructions, and eliminate other extraneous information or maintain it on the SILC’s website, in order to make the SPIL more useful as a planning document for IL as well as to make it easier for MI’s IL constituents to understand and for MI’s SILC to evaluate the implementation; and
1.2 consistent with revisions to be made in the SPIL related to Compliance Finding 1 in Chapter 3, revise the language in the SILC’s bylaws and Executive Order No. 2007-49 to specify that when the SILC is performing other duties beyond its mandated duties, it will not use federal funds or state matching funds.
DSUs/SILC Response:
1.1 In September 2009, the council appointed an Ad-Hoc Committee for the purpose of developing options for reformatting our SPIL for FY 2011-2013. Michigan SILC would encourage RSA to develop model documents regarding a consistent SPIL for the states.
1.2 SILC will reinforce the requested language in the SPIL for FY 2011-2013, which will state; “When performing other duties beyond its mandated duties, it will not use federal funds or state matched funds”.
Michigan SILC is aware of this issue and has referred it to the Governor’s office. Revision of the SILC Executive Order will be dependent upon action by the Governor’s office. Because it reflects the decisions and practices of the office, revision of the Executive Order and subsequently of the SILC bylaws will be dependent upon action by the Governor’s Appointments Specialist to clarify the issue.
Technical Assistance: The DSUs/SILC requested TA on the availability of model SPILs.
RSA Response: Subsequent to the on-site review, RSA, in conjunction with SILC-NET, developed the “How-to Develop an Outcomes-Focused SPIL” and informed all states of this TA resource.
IL Program Compliance Findings and Corrective Actions
RSA identified the following compliance findings and corrective actions that MRS, MCB, and the SILC are required to undertake. MRS, MCB, and the SILC must develop a corrective action plan for RSA’s review and approval that includes specific steps the agency will take to complete the corrective action, the timetable for completing those steps, and the methods the agency will use to evaluate whether the compliance finding has been resolved. RSA anticipates that the corrective action plan can be developed within 45 days and RSA is available to provide TA to assist MRS, MCB, and the SILC.
1. SILC Appointments and Term Limits for Non-Voting Members
Legal Requirements:
34 CFR 364.21(b)(1) - Appointment. Members of the SILC must be appointed by the Governor or the appropriate entity within the State responsible, in accordance with State law, for making appointments.
34 CFR 364.21(b)(2)(i)(b) - Term appointments. Each member of the SILC shall serve for the term of three years, except that - (3) No member of the SILC may serve for more than two consecutive terms.
Finding 1: DSUs/SILC are not in compliance with the federal requirements at 34 CFR 364.21(b)(1) and 34 CFR 364.21(b)(2)(i)(b), because the ex-officio members of MI’s SILC are not appointed by the Governor, the appointing authority named in MI’s executive order, and are not subject to the same term limits as voting members. Some of these representatives, including representatives from MRS and MCB, have served on an on-going basis since the establishment of the SILC.
Corrective Action 1: RSA requires that DSUs/SILC take the steps necessary to ensure that all SILC members are appointed by the Governor and subject to the uniformly required term limits specified in federal regulations, regardless of their status as ex-officio, non-voting or voting members. Members of the SILC whose term limits have expired are no longer valid members and cannot participate in or vote on SILC business. Their positions are considered vacant. Examples of corrective actions that the State and the SILC can take to reach compliance include: revising sections II.D and G of the Executive Order No. 2007-09, dated December 20, 2007, to be consistent with federal requirements at 34 CFR 364.21(b)(1) and 34 CFR 364.21(b)(2)(i)(b) regarding appointments and term limits and revising Articles IV.B and H of the SILC’s bylaws regarding member appointments and term limits to be consistent with the revised Executive Order.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
DSUs/SILC Response: MCB, MRS, and SILC will collaborate to propose language to amend the Governor’s Executive Order and to revise by-laws regarding member appointments and term limits. Neither MCB, MRS nor the SILC is in a position to unilaterally make the recommended changes.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
Chapter 7: Independent Living for Older Individuals Who Are Blind Program
OIB Program Administration and Service Delivery
MCB has responsibility for the administration of the OIB program in MI and uses both direct staff and contract staff to provide OIB services. MCB uses an external contractor to recruit and hire rehabilitation teachers who are then supervised by MCB staff. The personnel standard, a master’s degree in rehabilitation teaching, is the same for contract staff as for internal staff. In 1985, MCB began to hire contract staff as a result of the need to increase the number of FTEs in the program. Individuals over the age of 55 with a severe visual impairment who meet the requirement of a severe impediment to employment, but who do not wish to pursue competitive employment, and who cannot perform work in the four core areas (kitchen skills, travel skills, home management, and communication skills) to qualify as a homemaker in the VR program are referred to the OIB program. The number of individuals served in the OIB program decreased from 1,558 in FY 2007 to 1,391 in FY 2008.
Personnel
MCB staff members provide services in multiple programs, including VR, IL part B, and OIB, and did not begin maintaining time distribution records until February 2009.[6] Previously, staff made individual determinations regarding the amount of time expended on each program. MCB did not establish uniform guidelines. Therefore, the number of FTEs in the OIB program is not available for this report.
Data Management
MCB utilizes the same data management system for collecting OIB data as it uses for the VR program. MCB staff reported that they had experienced a systems problem with the OIB data when the agency upgraded to another version. The problem resulted in errors in the data reported in the FY 2008 7-OB report. Laptops and air cards are available to all rehabilitation teachers in the field.
Quality Assurance
MCB has not established QA processes or systems for any components of the OIB program.
Planning
OIB planning is part of MCB’s overall strategic planning process through the Vision 20/20 initiative. Also, MCB staff members participate on the QIT with other IL partners in the state to ensure a coordinated statewide planning.
OIB Program Technical Assistance Provided to MCB During the Review Process
RSA provided OIB TA to MCB during the review process regarding:
· 7-OB data reporting;
· OIB policies and procedures; and
· time distribution management for staff working on multiple programs.
Observations of MCB and Its Stakeholders about the Performance of the OIB Program
RSA solicited input from MCB and a wide range of its stakeholders about the performance of the VR and SE programs. The MCB and its stakeholders shared the observations below.
· It is difficult to provide OIB services in the upper peninsula, especially to members of the Hannahville American Indian tribe.
· There would be benefits of providing more outreach and training at senior centers on assistive technology and low vision aids and devices.
· It is important to find qualified individuals willing to work in the upper peninsula area of the state, which is the most rural.
· There are insufficient resources and staff to respond to the needs of the increasing numbers of older individuals.
RSA discussed the observations of its stakeholders with MCB and addressed as many of them as possible either directly or by consolidating them into a broader issue area.
OIB Program Performance Observations and RSA Recommendations
RSA identified the following performance observations and made recommendations to MCB about those observations. MCB responded to each of the recommendations and in those instances when RSA and MCB agreed upon a recommendation, RSA and MCB identified the TA that RSA would provide to MCB to successfully implement the recommendation.
1. Administration of the OIB Program
Observations: The operational processes for the OIB program are not administered separately within MCB but rather included among the other programs within the agency. As a result there is not a clearly identified source of expertise for the program, new staff members do not have a written OIB manual to review, and an organized evaluation process of the program is not in place.
a.. MCB does not have staff dedicated solely to the OIB program, but have staff members who share responsibilities across multiple programs, including the VR program.[7] In addition, MCB utilizes both direct and contract staff.
b.. MCB uses VR policies for the OIB program and does not have policies specific to the OIB program despite the differences in VR and OIB program requirements.
c.. MCB does not have any established QA processes to evaluate OIB services provided to the target population.
d.. MCB does not have a tracking system in place to determine how many individuals in the VR program are referred to the OIB program. In addition, MCB’s data management system cannot track OIB data accurately for purposes of federal and state reporting.
Recommendations: RSA recommends that MCB:
1.1 develop and implement policies and procedures specific to the OIB program requirements;
1.2 develop and implement QA processes to evaluate the delivery of OIB services; and
1.3 revamp MCB’s data management system to track OIB data accurately.
MCB Response: None provided.
Technical Assistance: None requested at this time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] See Chapter 5, MCB Financial Management, Compliance Finding 5 for related fiscal compliance finding.
[2] See Chapter 3, Compliance Finding 1, SILC Providing Donated CIL Funds to MRS for matching.
[3] See Chapter 5, Compliance Finding 3, Assigning Personnel Costs.
[4] See SPIL, Foreword, page 2.
[5] See Chapter 3, Compliance Finding 1, SILC Providing Donated CIL Funds to MRS for Matching.
[6] See Chapter 5, Compliance Finding 3, Assigning Personnel Costs.
[7] See Chapter 5, Compliance Finding 3, Assigning Personnel Costs.
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list