Fiscal Year 2012 Monitoring Report on the South Dakota Service to the Blind and Visually

Fiscal Year 2012 Monitoring Report on the South Dakota Service to the Blind and Visually

Fiscal Year 2012
Monitoring Report

on the

South Dakota Service to the Blind and Visually Impaired

Vocational Rehabilitation Program


U.S. Department of Education

Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services

Rehabilitation Services Administration

November 1, 2012

Table of Contents

Page

Section 1: Executive Summary...... 1

Section 2:Performance Analysis...... 4

Section 3: Emerging Practices...... 9

Section 4:Results of Prior Monitoring Activities...... 11

Section 5:Focus Areas...... 16

A. Organizational Structure Requirements of the Designated State Agency and Designated State Unit 16

B. Transition Services and Employment Outcomes for Youth withDisabilities..17

C. Fiscal Integrity of the Vocational Rehabilitation Program...... 20

Section 6:Compliance Findings and Corrective Actions...... 23

Appendix A: SBVI Response...... 37

Appendix B: Legal Requirements...... 41

Section 1: Executive Summary

Background

Section 107 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act), requires the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) to conduct annual reviews and periodic on-site monitoring of programs authorized under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act to determine whether a state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agency is complying substantially with the provisions of its State Plan under Section 101 of the Rehabilitation Act and with the evaluation standards and performance indicators established under Section 106. In addition, the commissioner must assess the degree to which VR agencies are complying with the assurances made in the State Plan Supplement for Supported Employment (SE) Services under Title VI, Part B, of the Rehabilitation Act.

Through its monitoring of the VR and SE programs administered by the South Dakota Service to the Blind and Visually Impaired (SBVI) in federal fiscal year (FY) 2012, RSA:

  • reviewed the VR agency’s progress toward implementing recommendations and resolving findings identified during the prior monitoring cycle (FYs 2007 through FY 2010);
  • reviewed the VR agency’s performance in assisting eligible individuals with disabilities to achieve high-quality employment outcomes;
  • recommended strategies to improve performance and required corrective actions in response to compliance findings related to three focus areas, including:
  • organizational structure requirements of the designated state agency (DSA) and the designated state unit (DSU);
  • transition services and employment outcomes for youth with disabilities; and
  • the fiscal integrity of the VR program;
  • identified emerging practices related to the three focus areas and other aspects of the VR agency’s operations; and
  • provided technical assistance (TA) to the VR agency to enable it to enhance its performance and to resolve findings of noncompliance.

The nature and scope of this review and the process by which RSA carried out its monitoring activities, including the conduct of an on-site visit from June 26 through June 28,2012, is described in detail in the FY 2012 Monitoring and Technical Assistance Guide for the Vocational Rehabilitation Programor in PDF format.

Emerging Practices

Through the course of its review, RSA collaborated with SBVI, the State Rehabilitation Council (SRC), the Region 8 Technical Assistance and Continuing Education (TACE) center, and other stakeholders to identify theemerging practices belowimplemented by the agency to improve the performance and administration of the VR program.

Outreach to Unserved and Underserved Individuals

  • Marketing Initiative: SBVI educates the public about the services available from the agency and the capabilities of citizens with vision loss through its “See What You Can Do” marketing campaign.

A more complete description of this practice can be found in Section 3 of this report.

Summary of Observations

RSA’s review of SBVIdid not result in observations related to the three monitoring focus areas.

Summary of Compliance Findings

RSA’s review resulted in the identification of compliance findings in the focus areas specified below. The complete findings and the corrective actions that SBVImust undertake to bring itself into compliance with pertinent legal requirements are contained in Section 6 of this report.

  • SBVI has entered into 59 Project Skills third-party cooperative arrangements (TPCAs) using the same agreement as DRS. DRS’s TPCAs with three private non-profit community rehabilitation programscalled Project Skills are not properly structured with a public agency. The TPCAs do not identify SBVI as the VR agency participating in the agreement. In addition, DRS does not apply sufficient internal control procedures for public agencies in these arrangements to ensure the proper expenditure of funds.
  • The SD School for the Blind and Visually Impaired (SDSBVI) TPCA funds activities that do not constitute the provision of VR services to applicants for, or recipients of, the VR program, and SBVI does not conduct monitoring of the SDSBVI TPCA to ensure that grant-supported activities comply with applicable federal requirements.
  • SBVI has unallowably disbursed VR program income to providers that expend these funds for the provision of SE extended services, and SBVI does not disburse program income prior to requesting additional cash drawdowns from its federal VR award.
  • SBVI has not applied the same policies and procedures the state utilizes for procurements from its non-federal funds to the purchase of client services.
  • SBVI has submitted inaccurate SF-269 and SF-425 reports related to its indirect costs generated from a cost allocation plan, and unreported program income funds earned at the SD Rehabilitation Center.
  • SBVI’s institution of higher education (IHE) agreement is designed as a TPCA. However, the structure of the agreement does not meet all TPCA requirements and certified expenditures received from public colleges would not be allowable as match for the VR program.
  • SBVI’s current agreement with the State Educational Agency (SEA) does not describe procedures for the identification of and outreach to students with disabilities needing transition services who are not receiving special education services.

Development of the Technical Assistance Plan

RSA will collaborate closely with SBVIand the Region 8 TACE to develop a plan to address the TA needs identified by SBVI in Appendix A of this report. RSA, SBVIand Region 8 TACEwill conduct a teleconference within 60 calendar days following the publication of this report to discuss the details of the TA needs, identify and assign specific responsibilities for implementing TA and establish initial timeframes for the provision of the assistance. RSA, SBVIand Region 8 TACEwill participate in teleconferences at least semi-annually to gauge progress and revise the plan as necessary.

Review Team Participants

Members of the RSA review team included Charles Sadler (Technical Assistance Unit), Craig McManus (Fiscal Unit), Christyne Cavataio and David Jones (Vocational Rehabilitation Unit), Julya Doyle (Data Collection and Analysis Unit), and Timothy Beatty (Independent Living Unit). Although not all team members participated in the on-site visit, each contributed to the gathering and analysis of information, along with the development of this report.

Acknowledgements

RSA wishes to express appreciation to the representatives of SBVI for the cooperation and assistance extended throughout the monitoring process. RSA also appreciates the participation of the Secretary of the Department of Human Services (DHS), the SRC (called the Board of Service to the Blind and Visually Impaired), the Client Assistance Program and advocates, the Region 8 TACE, and other stakeholders in the monitoring process.

Section 2: Performance Analysis

This analysis is based on a review of the programmatic and fiscal data contained in Tables 2.1 and 2.2below and is intended to serve as a broad overview of the VR program administered bySBVI. It should not be construed as a definitive or exhaustive review of all available agency VR program data. As such, the analysis does not necessarily capture all possible programmatic or fiscal trends.In addition,the data in Table 2.1 measure performance based on individuals who exited the VR program during federal FYs 2007 through 2011. Consequently, the table and accompanying analysis do not provide information derived from SBVI open service records including current applicants,individuals who have been determined eligible and those who are receiving services.SBVImay wish to conduct its own analysis, incorporating internal open caseload data, to substantiate or confirm any trends identified in the analysis.

PerformanceAnalysis

VR Program Analysis

Table 2.1

SBVI Program Performance Data for Federal FY 2007 through Federal FY 2011

All Individual Cases Closed / Number, Percent or Average / 2007 / 2008 / 2009 / 2010 / 2011 / Change from 2007 to 2011 / Agency Type 2011
TOTAL CASES CLOSED / Number / 190 / 176 / 224 / 217 / 244 / 54 / 13,838
TOTAL CASES CLOSED / Percent / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0% / 28.4% / 100.0%
Exited as an applicant / Number / 28 / 26 / 36 / 38 / 44 / 16 / 2,895
Exited as an applicant / Percent / 14.7% / 14.8% / 16.1% / 17.5% / 18.0% / 57.1% / 20.9%
Exited during or after trial work experience or extended employment / Number / 2 / 1 / 4 / 6 / 2 / 0 / 132
Exited during or after trial work experience or extended employment / Percent / 1.1% / 0.6% / 1.8% / 2.8% / 0.8% / 0.0% / 1.0%
TOTAL NOT DETERMINED ELIGIBLE / Number / 30 / 27 / 40 / 44 / 46 / 16 / 3,027
TOTAL NOT DETERMINED ELIGIBLE / Percent / 15.8% / 15.3% / 17.9% / 20.3% / 18.9% / 53.3% / 21.9%
Exited without employment outcome after signed IPE, but before receiving services / Number / 2 / 1 / 6 / 3 / 2 / 0 / 125
Exited without employment outcome after signed IPE, but before receiving services / Percent / 1.1% / 0.6% / 2.7% / 1.4% / 0.8% / 0.0% / 0.9%
Exited from order of selection waiting list / Number / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 26
Exited from order of selection waiting list / Percent / 0.0% / 0.0% / 0.0% / 0.0% / 0.0% / 0.0% / 0.2%
Exited without employment after eligibility, but before a signed IPE / Number / 22 / 24 / 28 / 22 / 37 / 15 / 1,315
Exited without employment after eligibility, but before a signed IPE / Percent / 11.6% / 13.6% / 12.5% / 10.1% / 15.2% / 68.2% / 9.5%
TOTAL EXITED AFTER ELIGIBILITY, BUT PRIOR TO RECEIVING SERVICES / Number / 24 / 25 / 34 / 25 / 39 / 15 / 1,466
TOTAL EXITED AFTER ELIGIBILITY, BUT PRIOR TO RECEIVING SERVICES / Percent / 12.6% / 14.2% / 15.2% / 11.5% / 16.0% / 62.5% / 10.6%
Exited with employment / Number / 100 / 102 / 112 / 116 / 115 / 15 / 6,240
Exited with employment / Percent / 52.6% / 58.0% / 50.0% / 53.5% / 47.1% / 15.0% / 45.1%
Exited without employment / Number / 36 / 22 / 38 / 32 / 44 / 8 / 3,105
Exited without employment / Percent / 18.9% / 12.5% / 17.0% / 14.7% / 18.0% / 22.2% / 22.4%
TOTAL RECEIVED SERVICES / Number / 136 / 124 / 150 / 148 / 159 / 23 / 9,345
TOTAL RECEIVED SERVICES / Percent / 71.6% / 70.5% / 67.0% / 68.2% / 65.2% / 16.9% / 67.5%
EMPLOYMENT RATE / 73.53% / 82.26% / 74.67% / 78.38% / 72.33% / -1.2% / 66.77%
Transition aged youth / Number / 28 / 22 / 29 / 27 / 29 / 1 / 1,869
Transition aged youth / Percent / 14.7% / 12.5% / 12.9% / 12.4% / 11.9% / 3.6% / 13.5%
Transition aged youth employment outcomes / Number / 16 / 10 / 8 / 11 / 11 / -5 / 603
Transition aged youth employment outcomes / Percent / 16.0% / 9.8% / 7.1% / 9.5% / 9.6% / -31.3% / 9.7%
Competitive employment outcomes / Number / 98 / 100 / 103 / 111 / 112 / 14 / 5,452
Competitive employment outcomes / Percent / 98.0% / 98.0% / 92.0% / 95.7% / 97.4% / 14.3% / 87.4%
Supported employment outcomes / Number / 8 / 6 / 9 / 5 / 11 / 3 / 196
Supported employment outcomes / Percent / 8.0% / 5.9% / 8.0% / 4.3% / 9.6% / 37.5% / 3.1%
Average hourly wage for competitive employment outcomes / Average / $9.66 / $11.18 / $10.87 / $11.59 / $11.96 / $2.30 / $14.33
Average hours worked for competitive employment outcomes / Average / 33.4 / 34.5 / 34.5 / 32.1 / 32.0 / -1.5 / 30.9
Competitive employment outcomes at 35 or more hours per week / Number / 57 / 66 / 69 / 60 / 63 / 6 / 2,829
Competitive employment outcomes at 35 or more hours per week / Percent / 57.0% / 64.7% / 61.6% / 51.7% / 54.8% / 10.5% / 45.3%
Employment outcomes meeting SGA / Number / 39 / 46 / 43 / 40 / 54 / 15 / 2,198
Employment outcomes meeting SGA / Percent / 39.0% / 45.1% / 38.4% / 34.5% / 47.0% / 38.5% / 35.2%
Employment outcomes with employer-provided medical insurance / Number / 30 / 20 / 20 / 22 / 20 / -10 / 1,325
Employment outcomes with employer-provided medical insurance / Percent / 30.0% / 19.6% / 17.9% / 19.0% / 17.4% / -33.3% / 21.2%

Positive Trends

As shown in Table 2.1, SBVI demonstrated several positive trends during the five-year period between FYs 2006 and 2010, particularly with regard toindividuals exiting the program with employment outcomes. The largest percentage of individuals exiting the VR program in FY 2010 included individuals who exited with employment outcomes, which accounted for 47.1 percent of the total cases closed. This was slightly higher than the national average of agencies serving individuals who are blind or visually impaired at 45.1 percent. Similarly, the employment rate for individuals served by SBVI has been consistently high over the last five years, ranging from 72.3 percent in FY 2011 to 82.3 percent in FY 2008. In FY 2011, SBVI’s employment rate at 77.3 percentwas higher than the 66.8 percent national average for agencies serving individuals who are blind or visually impaired.

The quality of employment outcomes for SBVI consumers has been consistently high over the last five years. In FY 2011, the percentage of individuals who were closed with competitive employment outcomes was 97.4 percent, higher than the national average of 87.4 percent for agencies serving individuals who are blind or visually impaired. Similarly, 9.6 percent of employment outcomes were closed in Supported Employment, and this compares favorably to the 3.1 percent national average for agencies serving individuals who are blind or visually impaired.

Additionally, the percent of individuals at SBVI who had competitive employment outcomes and worked 35 hours or more per week was higher in FY 2011 at 54.8 percent compared to the national average of 45.3 percent for agencies serving individuals who are blind or visually impaired. This percentage has been consistently high over the last five years,ranging from 51.7 percent in FY 2010 to 64.7 in FY 2008.

Trends Indicating Potential Risk to the Performance of the VR Program

The percentage of individuals who exited the VR process as applicants has increased every year over the last five years,up 3.3 percent from 14.7 percent in FY 2007 to 18 percent in FY 2011. This trend mayindicate an increase in the number of individuals who do not require VR services, or inappropriate referrals. SBVI staff are aware of this trend and have implemented measures to better educate referral sources regarding SBVI’s purpose and scope of services.

The number of individuals who exited the VR process after eligibility determination, but before an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) was signed, was higher in FY 2011 at 15.2 percent compared to 9.5 percent for other agencies serving individuals who are blind or visually impaired.

Of the total number of SBVI cases closed in FY 2011, 11.9 percent were transition-age youth. This was lower than the national average of 13.5 percent for agencies serving individuals who are blind or visually impaired. Discussions onsite indicated many transition-age youth in the state have coexisting primary disabilities that require more intensive services than the VR program provides.

In FY 2011, the average hourly wage for individuals who achieved competitive employment outcomes was lower at $11.96, compared to the national average of $14.33 for agencies serving individuals who are blind or visually impaired. While this number has increased over the last five years by $2.30, it is still lower than the national average. On-site discussions with SBVI indicated that wages in the state are lower than those available in the rest of the country. Studies conducted by the Department of Labor place SD amongst the states with the lowest average wages in the country, primarily due to the lack of urban density in the state.

Fiscal Analysis

Table 2.2

Fiscal Performance Data for Federal FY 2007 through Federal FY 2011

VR Fiscal Profile / Quarter / 2007 / 2008 / 2009 / 2010 / 2011
Grant amount per MIS / 4th / 1,903,281 / 1,895,983 / 1,984,015 / 2,031,498 / 2,031,498
Latest/ Final* / 1,903,281 / 1,895,983 / 1,984,015 / 2,031,498 / 2,031,498
Total outlays / 4th / 1,739,953 / 2,158,303 / 2,196,828 / 2,152,533 / 2,114,640
Latest/ Final* / 2,418,570 / 2,409,317 / 2,578,451 / 2,581,519 / 2,581,469
Total unliquidated obligations / 4th / 663,024 / 53,371 / 33,755 / 599,387 / 48,124
Latest/ Final* / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Federal Share of Total Outlays / 4th / 1,224,834 / 1,644,969 / 1,605,522 / 1,584,444 / 1,564,669
Latest/ Final* / 1,903,281 / 1,895,983 / 1,984,015 / 2,031,498 / 2,031,498
Federal share of unliquidated obligations / 4th / 500,141 / 53,371 / 29,524 / 447,054 / 48,124
Latest/ Final* / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Total federal share / 4th / 1,724,975 / 1,698,340 / 1,635,046 / 2,031,498 / 1,612,793
Latest/ Final* / 1,903,281 / 1,895,983 / 1,984,015 / 2,031,498 / 2,031,498
Recipient funds / 4th / 515,119 / 513,334 / 591,306 / 568,089 / 549,971
Latest/ Final* / 515,289 / 513,334 / 594,436 / 550,021 / 549,971
Recipient share of unliquidated obligations / 4th / 162,883 / 0 / 4,231 / 152,333 / 0
Latest/ Final* / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Agency actual match
(total recipient share) / 4th / 678,002 / 513,334 / 595,537 / 568,089 / 549,971
Latest/ Final* / 515,289 / 513,334 / 594,436 / 550,021 / 549,971
Agency required match / 4th / 331,499 / 445,208 / 434,531 / 428,827 / 423,475
Latest/ Final* / 515,119 / 513,144 / 536,970 / 549,821 / 549,821
Over/under match / 4th / -346,503 / -68,126 / -161,006 / -139,262 / -126,496
Latest/ Final* / -170 / -190 / -57,466 / -200 / -150
MOE ** / 4th
Latest/ Final* / 594,436 / 550,021 / 549,971
Unobligated funds qualifying for carryover / 4th / 178,306 / 197,643 / 348,969 / 0 / 418,705
Latest/ Final* / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Total program income realized / 4th / 101,702 / 37 / 153,559 / 101,839 / 89,320
Latest/ Final* / 101,702 / 37 / 153,559 / 101,839 / 89,320
Total indirect costs / 4th / 76,845 / 88,777 / 72,563 / 61,719 / 85,619
Latest/ Final* / 85,145 / 96,367 / 93,199 / 85,524 / 91,649

*Denotes Final or Latest SF-269 or SF-425 Submitted

**Based upon Final or Latest SF-269 or SF-425 Submitted

RSA reviewed fiscal performance data from federal FYs 2007 through 2011. State appropriated funds comprised between 92.4in FY 2009 to 94.5 percent in FY 2008 of the agency’s non-federal share over the five-year span. For FYs 2007 and 2009, the recipient share of unliquidated obligations at the fourth quarter was $162,883 (24.0 percent of non-federal share) in FY 2007 and $152,333 (26.8 percent of non-federal share) in FY 2009. SBVI met its match and MOE requirements in all five years, except for MOE in FY 2011, demonstrated by a $44,465 shortfall. This amount was reduced further due to the SD general agency’s non-federal share, resulting in a SD state MOE shortfall of $20,124. The federal share of unliquidated obligations was highest in FY 2007 at $500,141 (28.7 percent of the federal award) and FY 2009 at $447,054 (22.0 percent of the federal award). The carryover balance in FY 2010 was $0. However, it was higher in the remaining four years of the five-year performance period, ranging from $178,306 (9.4 percent of the federal award) in FY 2007 to $418,705 (20.6 percent of the federal award) in FY 2011. Program income fluctuated across the five-year span, from a low of $37 in FY 2008 to a high of $153,559 in FY 2009. However, these figures do not reflect all program income earned by the agency, since program income from the SD Rehabilitation Center was not reported on the SF-269 or SF-425 reports.

Section 3: Emerging Practices

While conducting the monitoring of the VR program, the review team collaborated with SBVI, SRC, TACE 8, and agency stakeholders to identify emerging practices in the following areas:

  • strategic planning;
  • program evaluation and quality assurance practices;
  • financial management;
  • human resource development;
  • transition;
  • the partnership between the VR agency and SRC;
  • the improvement of employment outcomes, including supported employment and self-employment;
  • VR agency organizational structure; and
  • outreach to unserved and underserved individuals.

RSA considers emerging practices to be operational activities or initiatives that contribute to successful outcomes or enhance VR agency performance capabilities. Emerging practices are those that have been successfully implemented and demonstrate the potential for replication by other VR agencies. Typically, emerging practices have not been evaluated as rigorously as "promising," "effective," "evidence-based," or "best" practices, but still offer ideas that work in specific situations.

As a result of its monitoring activities, RSA identified the emerging practicebelow.

Outreach to Unserved and Underserved Individuals

Marketing Initiative: In FY 2011, with the assistance of a contractor, SBVI initiated a market research and analysis, including focus groups with consumers, employers and eye care professionals who provided their views regarding the impact of vision loss and SBVI services. The SRC, with extensive involvement from its public relations committee, provided input and guidance throughout the campaign.