Attachment 4.4

Views on State Policies and Administration of the State Plan

The Department for the Visually Handicapped (DVH) presented draft copies of the required State and Strategic plans for FY 1998-2000, effective October 1, 1997, to the Vocational Rehabilitation Advisory Council (VRAC) during its quarterly meeting on May 17, 1997.

DVH utilizes VRAC's input in developing the State plan, Strategic plan, and policies for the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program. Information provided by satisfaction surveys is also utilized.

VRAC provided input in developing the satisfaction survey used during FY '97. Summaries of the satisfaction surveys that were conducted by mail and telephone were shared with VRAC. Each customer closed successfully rehabilitated (status 26) or not successfully rehabilitated (status 28) had an opportunity to complete a survey. The satisfaction survey, with assistance from VRAC, will be revised for FY '98 in order to capture more information regarding customer satisfaction with service providers. This additional information will be used to share with customers in assisting them to make informed choices.

The following is a summary of issues considered by VRAC, recommendations from satisfaction surveys, and recommendations from the Annual Report prepared by VRAC, and the agency's response to those issues and recommendations.

Issue 1:

We believe a comprehensive policy regarding informed choice would be very helpful.

Response 1:

There will be a VRAC subcommittee to help with the development of the policy. A draft policy will be available in time for the next quarterly meeting for their review. The policy will reflect information provided in the State plan attachment on choice and guidance previously provided to VR counselors.

Issue 2:

There are several items from Attachment 2.3 of the State plan that need to be put on VRAC's agenda for discussion.

Response 2:

Those items from the public comment attachment referenced will be included on VRAC's agenda for discussion.

Issue 3:

The agency needs to be commended for its policies regarding transition services. Most VR agencies do not begin working with students as young as 14 years of age. I would like to share the transition attachment with the Virginia Interagency Transition Council (VITC).

Response 3:

We encourage you or anyone else to share the State plan to any organization or individual interested in reviewing it.

Issue 4:

We would like to see something in the Strategic plan to improve employment outcomes for deafblind individuals.

Response 4:

The agency will include new initiatives to serve deafblind individuals in the Strategic plan.

Issue 5:

It is recommended that the agency revise counselor performance standards to place a value on outcomes. It seems unfair that all closures are equally weighted in measuring counselor performance.

Response 5:

We know that such an effort has been undertaken in the past by other VR agencies without a lot of success. It is a recommendation we are willing to work with VRAC on. We would like to have a committee representing VRAC, VR counselors, and supervisors to develop performance standards that assign weight/value to closures. We will test the proposed standards by running a dual system for counselor performance in FY '98. In FY '98 counselors will be evaluated using existing standards, and based on results of the proposed weighted standards, a decision will be made in FY '99 which standard will be used.

Issue 6:

It was recommended that the agency develop a staff training program for new and experienced staff to focus on good customer service and the development of positive attitudes toward blindness.

Response 6:

VRAC was requested to work with the agency in developing such a program. The first program was completed in April 1997. Employees spend one week at the Virginia Rehabilitation Center for the Blind (VRCB) where they participate in training and other activities using sleepshades. Participants are required to stay in the dorm with trainees. There will be at least one training session each quarter.

Issue 7:

Satisfaction surveys and public comments identified adaptive technology as a growing need, even though it was acknowledged that the agency has expanded services in this area greatly during the past couple of years.

Response 7:

DVH will continue to use its resources to expand services in this area. The computer technology network will be expanded, adaptive technology will once again be included in the Strategic plan, more training in adaptive technology will be made available through VRCB and the technology lab at headquarters, and some of the technology labs in regional offices will be expanded. Adaptive technology training for VR counselors will be one of the training priorities.

Issue 8:

The VRAC subcommittee to work with VRCB will continue indefinitely.

Response 8:

DVH welcomes advice from the subcommittee and will work closely with the them to improve services at VRCB or any other program/service provided by the agency.

Issue 9:

VRAC appreciated the opportunity to review and participate in the streamlining initiate undertaken in late FY '96 and early FY '97.

Response 9:

DVH was pleased that the chairman was able to take an active role in the review.

Issue 10:

Some members of VRAC stated that they would like to see high school and/or college students have training on the Internet to be able to access information for research through the Worldwide Web.

Response 10:

That will be an area emphasized in adaptive technology during FY '98.

Issue 11:

The order of selection became a topic of discussion by VRAC because the agency decided to revise its categories in response to recommendations from the Rehabilitation Services Administration.

Response 11:

DVH was not on an order of selection during FY '97 and does not anticipate needing to implement an order of selection during FY '98. The agency did, however, want to have categories for an order of selection in place in the event it should become necessary to go on an order of selection. A committee comprised of DVH staff, managers, and VRAC members developed new categories for an order of selection. VRAC reviewed the order of selection developed by the committee and agreed with it.

Issue 12:

VRAC decided to utilize the pool of impartial hearing officers contracted by the Department of Rehabilitative Services (DRS).

Response 12:

The agency agrees that since we have so few hearings that need to go to the impartial hearing officer phase, it is quite appropriate to utilize DRS officers.

Issue 13:

Part-time students not having a time limit to complete their education was discussed by VRAC. The agency was considering placing a time limit on the part-time student to receive an Associate's Degree in three and one-half years and a Bachelor's Degree in seven years. The Council agreed with the policy being proposed, stating it must be clear and concise as well as uniformly administered.

Response 13:

The policy will be implemented; however, there will be flexibility to allow for special circumstances.