State Rehabilitation Council Quarterly Meeting Wednesday, April 28, 2021 10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Thursday, April 29, 2021 10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Meeting Packet Table of Contents

Meeting Notice and Agenda.........................................................................2Item 3: Approval of the January 27-28, 2021 SRC Meeting Minutes...........6

Att. 1 - Draft SRC Meeting Minutes...........................................................7Item 4: SRC Bylaws Amendment...............................................................15

Att. 1 - SRC Proposed Bylaw Amendments............................................16Item 5: Fair Hearing and Mediation Statistics and Overview of Hearing Summaries.................................................................................................30

Att. 1 - Summary of Fair Hearing Decisions for FFY 2019-2020............31Items 6 and 8: Adopt-a-Region Reports.....................................................50

Att. 1 - Adopt-a-Region - SRC Member Assignments.............................51Att. 2 - Redwood Empire - Adopt-a-Region Discussion Summary..........52Att. 3 - Santa Barbara - Adopt-a-Region Discussion Summary..............53

Item 7: Rehabilitation Services Administration Monitoring Report and Corrective Acton Plan.................................................................................55

Att. 1 - PowerPoint Presentation.............................................................56Att. 2 - Accessible Word Version of PowerPoint.....................................66

Item 13: VR Connections...........................................................................73Att. 1 - PowerPoint Presentation.............................................................74

Item 14: Debrief and Recommendations Discussion..................................79Att. 1 - Proposed Recommendations for Approval..................................80Att. 2 - Jan. 27-28 Meeting Notes on Recommendation Discussion.......81

Item 16: Identification of Future Agenda Items...........................................83Att. 1 - Information Updates/Presentations List......................................84

1

CALIFORNIA STATE REHABILITATION COUNCIL (SRC)Meeting Notice and Agenda

Wednesday, April 28, 2021 10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.Thursday, April 29, 2021 10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Public Participation Options

Virtual Meeting Link: Zoom https://tinyurl.com/CASRC2021o Meeting ID: 914 104 0013 and Passcode: 6r$5HtYk

Join by Phone: +1 408 638 0968 or +1 669 900 6833o Meeting ID: 914 104 0013 and Passcode: 47653956o When participating by phone, to unmute press *6

Email Your Comments: SRC@dor.ca.gov

Meeting AgendaPlease note: Times are listed with the agenda items to assist attendees joining the meeting virtually and by phone. These times are estimates and subject to change. The SRC may act on any item listed in the agenda.

1. Welcome and Introductions (10:00 – 10:05 a.m.) Theresa Comstock, SRC Chair

2. Public Comment (10:05 – 10:10 a.m.) Members of the public will have the opportunity to comment on issues and concerns not included elsewhere on the agenda. Public comment relating to a specific agenda item will be taken at the end of the applicable agenda item or prior to a vote.  

3. Approval of the January 27-28, 2021 SRC Meeting Minutes

2

(10:10 – 10:15 a.m.)

4. SRC Bylaw Amendments (10:15 – 10:30 a.m.)Regina Cademarti, SRC Executive OfficerThe SRC members will review the proposed bylaw amendments. Members will have the opportunity to recommend any additional amendments.

5. Fair Hearing and Mediation Statistics and Overview of Hearing Summaries (10:30 – 11:00 a.m.)DOR Office of Legal Affairs and RegulationsSRC members will learn about the Federal Fiscal Year 2019-20 (Oct. 2019 – Sept. 2020) fair hearing and mediation statistics and receive an overview of hearing summaries.

Break (11:00 – 11:05 a.m.)

6. Adopt-a-Region Reports (11:05 – 11:30 a.m.) SRC members will report out from their recent Adopt-a-Region discussions.

7. Rehabilitation Services Administration Monitoring Report and Corrective Acton Plan (11:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.)Suhail Syed, Executive Advisor, Strategic Initiatives OfficePeter Frangel, Staff Services Manager I, Strategic Initiatives OfficeSRC members will learn about the results of the Rehabilitation Services Administration monitoring report and the details of the DOR Corrective Action Plan.

Break (12:00 – 12:05 p.m.)

8. Adopt-a-Region Reports Continued (12:05 – 12:30 p.m.)SRC members will continue to report out from their recent Adopt-a-Region discussions.

9. Recess until 10:00 a.m. Thursday, April 29, 2021

Agenda for Thursday, April 29, 2021

10. Reconvene, Welcome, and Introductions (10:00 – 10:05 a.m.)3

Theresa Comstock, SRC Chair

11. Public Comment (10:05 – 10:10 a.m.) Members of the public will have the opportunity to comment on issues and concerns not included elsewhere on the agenda. Public comment relating to a specific agenda item will be taken at the end of the applicable agenda item or prior to a vote.  

12. Directorate Report (10:10 – 11:00 a.m.)

Joe Xavier, DOR Director and Andi Mudryk, DOR Chief Deputy Director, will report on leadership and policy topics of interest. National, State, and departmental updates will be provided. SRC members will have the opportunity to ask questions and have an interactive discussion.

Break (11:00 – 11:05 a.m.)

13. VR Connections (11:05 – 11:30 a.m.)Mark Erlichman, DOR Deputy Director, VR Employment DivisionConan Petrie, Staff Services Manager III, VR Support BranchSRC members will receive a project update on the VR Connections Project, the web-based portal enhancing collaboration between DOR staff, consumers, and vendors.

14. Debrief and Recommendations Discussion (11:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.)

SRC members will vote to approve the two proposed recommendations discussed at the January 27-28 SRC Quarterly Meeting. SRC Members will also debrief from this meeting’s discussions and potentially adopt additional recommendations.

Break (12:00 – 12:05 p.m.)

15. SRC Officers, Members, and Executive Officer Reports (12:05 – 12:25 p.m.)

16. Identification of Future Agenda Items (12:25 – 12:30 p.m.)Regina Cademarti, SRC Executive Officer

17. Adjourn (12:30 p.m.) *4

PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comment relating to a specific agenda item will be taken at the end of the applicable agenda item or prior to a vote. Public comments on matters not on the agenda are taken at the beginning of the meeting. A speaker will have up to three minutes to make public comments and may not relinquish his or her time allotment to another speaker. Non-English speakers who utilize translators to make public comment will be allotted no more than six minutes unless they utilize simultaneous translation equipment. The SRC is precluded from discussing matters not on the agenda; however, SRC members may ask questions for clarification purposes.

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDAThis meeting notice and agenda is posted on the SRC webpage. Supplemental meeting materials will be available for public viewing at the meeting site. All times indicated and the order of business are approximate and subject to change.

*The meeting will adjourn upon completion of the agenda. Interested members of the public may join virtually or use the teleconference line to listen to the meeting and/or provide public comment. The SRC is not responsible for unforeseen technical difficulties that may occur and is not obligated to postpone or delay its meeting in the event of unforeseen technical difficulties with the teleconference line or virtual meeting room.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONSIf you require a disability-related accommodation, materials in alternate format or auxiliary aids/services, please call (916) 558-5897 or email SRC@dor.ca.gov five days prior to the meeting. Any requests received after this date will be given consideration, but logistical constraints may not allow for their fulfillment.

CONTACT PERSONRegina Cademarti, SRC Executive Officer, SRC@dor.ca.gov, (916) 558-5897.

5

Agenda Item 3

Wednesday, April 28, 2021

Item Name: Approval of the January 27-28, 2021 SRC Meeting Minutes

Item Type: Action

Background: The SRC members will review and vote to approve the minutes from the last SRC quarterly meeting on January 27-28, 2021.

Attachment(s): Attachment 1 – January 27-28, 2021 Draft SRC Meeting Minutes

6

Agenda Item 3, Attachment 1 Draft SRC Meeting Minutes

California State Rehabilitation Council (SRC)Quarterly MeetingJanuary 27-28, 202110:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.Virtual meeting through Zoom with conference call option.

Draft

SRC Members DOR Staff DOR Staff (cont.)Theresa Comstock, Chair Maria Aliferis-Gjerde Rowena OkadaMarcus Williams, Vice Chair Sara Abdrabou Jiabao PengChanel Brisbane Sareena Bains John PonceInez De Ocio John Cabreros Nina PresmontIvan Guillen Regina Cademarti Louisa SalomaJonathan Hasak Elizabeth Colegrove Desiree SampleSusan Henderson Katherine Connolly Avantika SharmaPeter Mendoza Corrie Daroza Suhail SyedLaQuita Wallace Shanti Ezrine Toussaint WadeNick Wavrin Molly Foote Nick WeisKecia Weller Kerry Gantt Michele WelzJoe Xavier Judy Gonzalez Nancy Wentling

Kelli GuilloryIsabel HirohataDaisy Hughes Public MembersRobert Loeun Sandy BalaniMaryann Martinez Lesley GibbonsKathi Mowers-Moore Olivia Lopez,Elizabeth Musgrove Danny MarquezAndi MudrykLisa Niegel

Wednesday, January 27, 2021

7

Welcome and Introductions SRC Chair Theresa Comstock called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and a quorum was established. The SRC members introduced themselves and welcomed new members:

Chanel Brisbane (representing Community Rehabilitation Programs)

Ivan Guillen (representing Client Assistance Programs) Jonathan Hasak (representing Business, Industry, and Labor) Susan Henderson (representing Parent Training and

Information Centers) Peter Mendoza (representing the State Independent Living

Council)

Public Comment There were no public comments on issues and concerns not included elsewhere on the agenda.

Approval of the September 23-24, 2020 SRC Meeting MinutesMotion: It was moved/seconded (Weller/Wavrin) to approve the September 2020 meeting minutes. A roll call vote was taken. (Yes – Brisbane, Comstock, Guillen, Wallace, Wavrin, Weller, Williams), (No - 0) (Abstain – Henderson) (Absent for vote – Aviles, Hasak, Mendoza) The final vote was 7 yes and 0 no. Motion carried. Consumer Satisfaction Survey Update SRC members received an update on the Consumer Satisfaction Survey (CSS). Since the September 2020 SRC meeting the DOR has focused on entering the CSS survey instruments into Survey Monkey and on the mail merge for the surface mail recipients.

In February 2021 the survey will be sent to consumers and it will be open for responses for the month of February. After the SRC receives the CSS data (possibly April 2021) the SRC can schedule a Monitoring and Evaluation Standing Committee Meeting to further evaluate the CSS data.

2018-2020 California Statewide Assessment SRC members were joined by presenters, Avantika Sharma, Judy Gonzalez, and Molly Foote, from DOR’s Planning Unit to learn about the final report summarizing the 2018-2020 California Statewide Assessment

8

(CSA) triennial cycle. Once approved, the CSA will be published on the DOR website and submitted to the Rehabilitation Services Administration.

The CSA is required by the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by the federal Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act, the CSA informs the goals and priorities of DOR’s State Plan and DOR’s understanding of its consumers and their service needs. It assesses the VR needs of DOR consumers with a focus on five areas: individuals with most significant disabilities, those from the minority communities and unserved/underserved populations, those who are served through other components of the workforce development system, youth and students with disabilities, and the need for Community Rehabilitation Programs (CRP) and CRP services statewide.

Areas highlighted in the presentation included: primary and secondary data sources used, the potential impacts on data as a result of COVID-19, common themes, and recommendations such as provide DOR staff with cultural competency training, the need for additional business partners to provide work experience to students, training for DOR and CRP staff for providing customized employment services, and to build partnerships and increase cross-training with local America’s Job Centers of California offices.

Virtual Delivery Services Project SRC members learned about the Virtual Delivery Services (VDS) Project started in the DOR Inland Empire District. This project created a virtual delivery services platform to provide vocational rehabilitation services to consumers and a virtual Student Services Assistant & Peer Mentorship project.

Areas highlighted in the VDS presentation included: project concepts, participating DOR districts, virtual workshop themes available for potentially-eligible students including career exploration, employment preparation, and job seeking skills. From June 2020 to December 2020 there was a total of 92 workshops and 2085 individuals served.

Areas highlighted in the Student Services Assistant and Peer Mentorship project included: DOR’s partnerships with agencies, why the project was created, objectives including outreach to unserved/underserved youth populations, virtual work experience, and core services workshops.

9

Presenters shared the participants job duties, deliverable work experience and tasks, and outcomes for DOR student assistants.

Adopt-a-Region Reports SRC members reported out from their Adopt-a-Region discussions.

Thursday, January 28, 2021

Reconvene, Welcome, and Introductions SRC Chair Theresa Comstock called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and a quorum was established. SRC members, DOR staff, and members of the public introduced themselves.

Public Comment Danny Marquez with California Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies (CASRA) thanked DOR for the work towards the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) roundtable. Mr. Marquez looks forward to the continuing to develop work around the implementation of the IPS model for job placement for people with disabilities.

Directorate Report National

December stimulus package. There is no new direct vocational rehabilitation funding is in the package.

Reappropriations Package. This package distributed $20 million dollars to the Business Enterprise Program to offset the vendor losses.State

Proposed New Department of Better Jobs and Higher Wages. This department would develop and align strategies to better meet California’s workforce needs and address the state's future of work challenges.

Proposed Creation of a New Center for Data Insights and Innovation. The Center will focus on developing knowledge and insights to improve program delivery across health and human services.

Governor will appoint a Senior Advisor on Aging, Disability, and Alzheimer’s to advance partnerships for action on the master plan for aging.

10

Broadband Expansion Action Plan Released. This Plan focuses on all Californians having high-performance broadband available at home, schools, libraries, and businesses and all Californians have access to affordable broadband and the devices necessary to access the internet.

Department Senate Confirmation. Chief Deputy Director, Andi Mudryk is in the

senate confirmation process. DOR continues to provide services remotely, virtually, and in person

consistent in needs and desires of consumers. DOR is drafting a corrective action plan (CAP) in response to final

Rehabilitation Services Administration Monitoring Report. Areas of interest in the report include student services, supported employment, third party match, and internal controls.

DOR awarded. The Association of California State Employees with Disabilities acknowledged DOR’s commitment to hire people with disabilities.

DOR Director Joe Xavier awarded. Mr. Xavier received an Ed Roberts award from the Center of Independent Living in Berkeley.

DOR considering applying for an RSA grant for innovative opportunities with career pathways. The grant application is due April 7, 2021 and DOR would apply for $18 million over 5 years.

Order of Selection Overview The SRC members received an overview of the Order of Selection (OOS) from Maryann Martinez from the DOR Budgets, Fiscal Forecasting and Research Section. Highlights included:

DOR has been under an OOS since 1995. DOR analyzes quarterly fiscal and caseload trends to forecast the

departments budgeting needs and due to fiscal challenges may need to limit the number of individuals served. Currently all three priority categories are open.

Consumers receiving pre-employment transition services or student services who have not applied for services are not impacted by the OOS.

Overview of DOR’s 2021 Rulemaking Calendar SRC members learned about the status of anticipated regulation projects. Highlights include:

11

The rulemaking calendar is required by Office of Administrative Law (OAL) at the beginning of each calendar year to inform them of the approximate number of regulation packages to expect. It does not create absolute requirements for departments.

DOR has five proposed regulation packages for 2021.1. Financial participation: Outlines the financial participation for

consumers.2. Basic competitive grants: This is designed to make the grant

process more transparent and efficient.3. WIOA regulation update: This is a paired down version of the

regulation package which overhauled the WIOA regulations in general.

4. Application and Eligibility: Puts into practice expedited enrollment.5. Student services. This started the drafting phase but needs further

direction in policy. This will be filed later in 2021.. Overview of the Proposed Changes to Financial Participation

Regulations and Loaned Property RegulationsSRC members received an overview of the draft text of proposed amendments to the financial participation regulations and loaned property regulations and had the opportunity to provide input. Highlights included:

The five areas of the regulations are:(1) Exemptions and how they apply. (2) Annual assessment. (3) Special circumstances. These are exemptions that do not fall

within all area (1) exemptions and ensures flexibility. (4) Actual calculation. (5) Payment process or how DOR and the service provider will collect

the financial participation money. The goal is to have the regulations effective by January 2022. SRC provided input including adding in an example of the math

calculation, having plain language used to communicate these regulations to consumers and staff, and clarifying if disability-related expenses are excluded.

Debrief and Recommendations Discussion SRC members debriefed from the meeting to discuss, draft, and potentially adopt recommendations. Highlights included:

Promote the success of Virtually Delivery Services

12

Ensure Financial Participation message is not a deterrent for individuals to apply.

Ensure counselors have talking points about Financial Participation and there is uniform language used.

SRC Chair requested that due to a limited amount of time to move this item to the next SRC Executive Planning Council on March 17, 2021.

SRC Officer Elections Motion: It was moved/seconded (Weller/Wavrin) to approve the slate of candidates Theresa Comstock as Chair, Nick Wavrin as Vice-Chair, and Benjamin Aviles as Treasurer to serve through 2021. A roll call vote was taken. (Yes – Brisbane, Comstock, Guillen, Hasak, Henderson, Mendoza, Wallace, Wavrin, Weller, Williams), (No - 0) (Abstain – 0) (Absent for vote – Aviles)The final vote was 10 yes and 0 no. Motion carried.

SRC Officer, Member, and Executive Officer Reports The SRC Executive Officer shared the new SRC Adopt-a-Region assignments below:

DOR District/Region DOR Regional Director Assigned SRC Member

Greater East Bay Carol Asch Susan Henderson

San Jose Donna Hezel Jonathan Hasak

Redwood Empire David Wayte Theresa Comstock

San Joaquin Valley Araceli Holland Peter Mendoza

San Francisco Theresa Woo Chanel Brisbane

San Diego Carmencita Trapse

Ivan Guillen

Blind Field Services Peter Dawson Marcus Williams

Identification of Future Agenda Items

13

The following items were noted for possible items for the upcoming SRC quarterly meetings:

Office of Administrative Hearing Decisions Approval of Administrative Law Judges Regulations update Consumer Satisfaction Survey

Adjourn The SRC quarterly meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m.

14

Agenda Item 4

Wednesday, April 28, 2021

Item Name: SRC Bylaws Amendment

Item Type: Information and Discussion

Background: This agenda items supports, SRC Bylaws, Article VIII, Item 1 stating the SRC bylaws shall be reviewed annually by the Executive Planning Committee (EPC).

On March 17, 2021, the EPC reviewed the SRC Executive Officers suggested edits to the bylaws. The EPC agreed with these bylaw amendments and did not have any additional edits.

Today, SRC members will review the proposed bylaw amendments. Members will have the opportunity to recommend any additional amendments. The vote on any amendments shall not take place until the next SRC meeting (July 14-15, 2021).

Attachment(s): Attachment 1 – SRC Proposed Bylaw Amendments

15

Agenda Item 4, Attachment 1SRC Proposed Bylaw Amendments

CALIFORNIA STATE REHABILITATION COUNCILBYLAWS

Article I NameThe name of this council shall be the STATE REHABILITATION COUNCIL,

hereinafter referred to as the SRC.

Article II AuthorityTitle I, Part A, Section 105 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended

(29 U.S.C. 720 et seq.), and California Welfare and Institutions Code

Sections 19070 - 19072, and federal and state regulations pertaining

thereto. Should subsequent amendments to federal and state laws conflict

with these bylaws, said laws and regulations shall prevail.

Article III FunctionsThe functions of the SRC are mandated in federal law as follows:

A. Review, analyze, and advise the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR)

regarding the performance of the responsibilities of the DOR under Title

1 of the Rehabilitation Act, particularly responsibilities relating to:

(1) eligibility (including order of selection);

(2) the extent, scope, and effectiveness of services provided; and

(3) functions performed by State agencies that affect or that

potentially affect the ability of individuals with disabilities in

achieving employment outcomes under this title.

B. In partnership with the DOR:

16

(1) develop, agree to, and review State goals and priorities in

accordance with section 101(a)(15)(C) of the Rehabilitation Act;

and

(2) evaluate the effectiveness of the vocational rehabilitation program

and submit reports of progress to the Rehabilitation Services

Administration (RSA) Commissioner in accordance with section

101(a)(15)(E) of the Rehabilitation Act.

(3) advise and assist in the preparation of the vocational rehabilitation

services portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan and

amendments to the plan, applications, reports, needs

assessments and evaluations as required.

C. Advise the DOR regarding activities authorized to be carried out under

Title 1 of the Rehabilitation Act.

D. To the extent feasible, conduct a review and analysis of the

effectiveness of, and consumer satisfaction with:

(1) the functions performed by the DOR;

(2) vocational rehabilitation services provided by State agencies and

other public and private entities responsible for providing

vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities

under this Act; and

(3) employment outcomes achieved by eligible individuals receiving

services under this title, including the availability of health and

other employment benefits in connection with such employment

outcomes.

E. Prepare and submit an Annual Report to the Governor and the RSA

Commissioner on the status of vocational rehabilitation programs

operated within the State, and make the report available to the public.

17

F. To avoid duplication of efforts and enhance the number of individuals

served, coordinate activities with the activities of other councils within

the State, including the following: State Independent Living Council;

Advisory Commission on Special Education; Assistive Technology

Advisory Committee; State Council on Developmental Disabilities;

California Behavioral Health Planning Council; and the California

Workforce Development Board.

G. Provide for coordination and the establishment of working relationships

between the DOR and the State Independent Living Council and centers

for independent living within California.

H. Perform such other functions, consistent with the purpose of Title 1 of

the Rehabilitation Act, as the SRC determines to be appropriate, that are

comparable to the other functions performed by the Council.

Article IV MembershipA. Pursuant to federal law [29 USC Section 725 (b)(3)], the Governor shall

appoint all of the members to the SRC after soliciting recommendations

from representatives of organizations representing a broad range of

individuals with disabilities and organizations interested in individuals

with disabilities. In selecting members, the Governor shall consider, to

the greatest extent practicable, the extent to which minority populations

are represented on the Council.

B. The SRC, pursuant to 29 USC Section 725 (b), shall be composed of at

least 16 members:

(1) One representative of the State Independent Living Council;

18

(2) One representative of a parent training and information center

established under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA);

(3) One representative of the Client Assistance Program (CAP);

(4) One vocational rehabilitation counselor, with knowledge of and

experience with vocational rehabilitation programs, who shall

serve as an ex officio, nonvoting member of the SRC if the

counselor is an employee of the DOR;

(5) One representative of Community Rehabilitation Program (CRP)

service providers;

(6) Four representatives of business, industry and labor;

(7) Two representatives of disability advocacy groups representing a

cross section of:

a. individuals with physical, cognitive, sensory, and mental

disabilities; and

b. parents, family members, guardians, advocates, or authorized

representatives of individuals with disabilities who have difficulty

in representing themselves or are unable due to their disabilities

to represent themselves;

(8) One current or former applicants for, or recipients of, vocational

rehabilitation services;

(9) One representative of the directors of the American Indian

Vocational Rehabilitation Projects in California;

(10) One representative of the California Department of Education;

(11) One representative of the California Workforce Development

Board; and

19

(12) The Director of the DOR, who shall be an ex officio member of

the SRC.

C. A majority of SRC members shall be persons who are:

(1) individuals with disabilities, and

(2) not employed by the DOR.

D. Each SRC member shall be appointed to serve no more than two

consecutive full three-year terms (with the exception of the

representatives from CAP and the American Indian Vocational

Rehabilitation Projects). If a council member is initially appointed to

replace a former member who did not complete his or her term, the new

council member must be appointed for the remainder of the vacated

term for which he or she is being appointed – not a full three-year term.

Once that initial term is completed, the individual may be appointed to fill

a second term of three years.

E. Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the SRC shall be filled in

the same manner as the original appointment. The vacancy of one or

more members shall not affect the power of the remaining members to

execute the duties of the SRC.

F. SRC members shall notify the SRC Executive Officer if the member

cannot attend an SRC meeting. If it is determined that a quorum will not

be present, members will be notified.

G. Duties of SRC Members:

(1) Prepare for, and attend, quarterly SRC meetings.

(2) Serve on at least one SRC committee, taskforce or workgroup.

(3) Review and comment on proposed DOR plans, policies and

regulations.

20

(4) Report to the SRC on successes/challenges/trends impacting the

Member's category of representation.

[(5)] Maintain cooperative and mutually supportive appropriate

relationships with the DOR Executive leadership, local District

Administrators Regional Directors and staff.

[(6)] Meet quarterly with local District AdministratorsRegional

Directors as assigned each quarterly meeting. [Staff Suggestion. Update the job title of District Administrator to Regional Director and add in quarterly to define the time frame of meeting]

(5)[(7)] Perform other duties as required.

Article V OfficersA. The SRC Officers shall be Chair, Vice-Chair and Treasurer, with duties

and responsibilities as follows:

(1) The Chair shall:

a. Preside as Chair of SRC meetings in order to facilitate

discussion, planning and decision making;

b. Select and appoint, from among the SRC membership, Chairs

and members of all SRC Committees and taskforces, with the

exception of the Nominating Committee; and

c. Coordinate SRC activities and maintain communication with the

SRC Executive Officer, DOR leadership and SRC leadership.

(2) The Vice-Chair shall:

a. Preside at meetings of the SRC in the absence of the Chair;

b. Assume the Office of Chair if, for any reason, the Chair is unable

to complete the term;

21

c. Serve as SRC Parliamentarian, ensuring that SRC meetings

operate in accordance with applicable state laws and regulations

and these bylaws; and

d. Carry out other duties as may be assigned by the Chair.

(3) The Treasurer shall:

a. Work together with the SRC Executive Officer to ensure:

1) Maintenance of accurate and timely financial records

2) Appropriate development and allocation of SRC budget

3) Periodic review of SRC expenditures/financial status;

b. Present a financial report to the SRC at each quarterly meeting;

and

c. Carry out other duties as may be assigned by the Chair.

B. Officers' Election and Terms:

(1) The election of Officers shall take place during the final full SRC

meeting of the federal fiscal year (October 1 - September 30).

(2) The Officers of the SRC shall be elected by a majority of the voting

SRC members. The Nominating Committee's slate of candidates shall

be provided to the SRC members at least one week prior to the

Election of Officers. At the meeting at which the election is held, and

subsequent to the announcement of the slate, the floor shall also be

open to nominations.

(3) The term of Office shall be for one year, from October 1 - September

30.

(4) Officers may serve for no more than two consecutive full terms in any

one Office.

Article VI Procedures22

All meetings of the State Rehabilitation Council shall be conducted in

accordance with California's Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Government

Code Section 11120, et seq).

A. Quorum.

In order to conduct any official business, a quorum shall consist of fifty-

one percent (51%) of the current SRC voting membership, excluding

vacancies. Pursuant to federal law, vacancies shall not affect the power

of the remaining members to execute the duties of the SRC.

B. Voting:

(1) Each member shall have one vote.

(2) All decisions shall be made by a majority vote of the voting

members present.

(3) Unless a member needs accommodation, all votes will be

conducted by a voice vote. At anytime, a member can request a

show of hands or a roll call vote.

(4) Ex-officio members may not vote or present motions.

(5) In accordance with the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act, all

votes occurring during teleconference meetings shall be by roll

call vote.

C. Meetings.

(1) The SRC shall convene at least four meetings per federal fiscal

year (October 1 - September 30).

(2) SRC meeting times and locations shall be set by the Executive

Planning Committee (EPC) with input from SRC members.

D. Agendas.

Agendas for SRC meetings shall be developed by the SRC Executive

Officer and Chair, with input from the EPC. Agendas for Committees

23

shall be developed by the SRC Executive Officer and Chair of Standing

Committees, with input from SRC Chair. The SRC may adopt

procedures for requesting placement of items on agendas. The SRC

Chair shall approve the meeting agenda before distribution. In the event

that the SRC Chair is unavailable, the SRC Vice-Chair shall have

approving authority.

E. Minutes.

The SRC Executive Officer has responsibility for ensuring that minutes

of all committees and full SRC meetings are kept. Approved minutes

shall be maintained in the SRC office. Such approved minutes shall be

made available to the public upon request.

F. Conflict of Interest.

No member of the Council shall cast a vote on any matter that would

provide direct financial benefit to the member or to the organization that

he/she they represents, [Staff Suggestion: Use gender neutral pronoun by replacing he/she with they and replacing represents with represent] or otherwise give appearance of a conflict-of-interest.

The member shall abstain and publicly state the conflict of interest.

According to state law, all SRC members shall file a Fair Political

Practices Commission Form 700 to file their statements of economic

interests 30 days after initial appointment and annually thereafter.

SRC members shall adhere to all conflict-of-interest policies adopted by

DOR and state law.

G. Accessibility Policy

The Council’s role is to promote the employment of people with

disabilities, and as such, the SRC strives to include all people with

disabilities in all aspects of its role. The SRC will provide

24

accommodation to members of the public and the membership in

accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act and other state

law. Documents will be made available in electronic formats and

alternative formats, upon request in accordance with the Bagley-Keene

Open Meeting Act.

H. Public Comment

The opportunity for public comment shall be provided on each agenda in

accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.

I. Rules of Order

Absent a conflict in federal or state law and regulation, the most recent

revision of Robert's Rules of Order shall govern questions of

parliamentary procedure not otherwise specified by these Bylaws.

J. Compensation for services

Pursuant to Welfare and Institution Code Section 19092, any member of

the SRC who is unemployed or required to forfeit wages from other

employment shall be compensated one hundred dollars ($100) per day

for each day the member is engaged in discharging his/her their [Staff Suggestion: Use gender neutral pronoun by replacing his/her with their] SRC-related duties. Certification of eligibility for said

compensation shall be maintained by the DOR. It is the responsibility of

the SRC member to notify the SRC Executive officer of any change in

eligibility for said stipend and follow any policies related to the stipend. K. Reimbursement for travel, per diem, child care and attendant care

services shall be in accordance with applicable state policy.

Article VII CommitteesIt is the intention of the SRC that the full SRC make key decisions

pertaining to the fulfillment of its federal responsibilities, unless otherwise

25

delegated. The purpose of the Standing Committees is to provide an

opportunity for greater discussion, analysis and oversight of these

mandated functions or to address certain administrative functions of the

SRC.

A. Committee Quorums

Three voting members of the SRC shall constitute a quorum for

purposes of conducting committee meetings.

B. Duties of Standing Committee Chairs;

a) Agenda creation with the Executive Officer for Committee

meeting,

[b)] Provide input on the work of the Committee, . [Staff Suggestion: remove period and replace with a comma]

b)[c)] Discuss work of the Committee with Chair of the SRC,

c)[d)] Provide updates at each quarterly meeting,

d)[e)] Facilitate meetings,

e)[f)] Determine if additional meetings are needed, and,

f)[g)] Provide the Executive Officer with the direction on Committee

work products.

C. Standing Committees: The following standing committees are hereby

established:

1) Executive Planning Committee (EPC)

a) The EPC will be led by the SRC Chair, with the Vice-Chair,

Treasurer, Policy, Unified State Plan and Monitoring and Evaluation

Committee Chairs as members.

b) The EPC shall schedule SRC meetings, establish agendas and

select meeting sites while coordinating Council activities with other

SRC Standing Committees, the DOR, and other entities responsible

26

for, or concerned with, the provision of rehabilitation services within

the State of California. (These duties are in practice delegated to the

Executive Officer working in conjunction with the SRC Chair.)

c) Create slate of candidates for the SRC to be appointed as Members

of the Nominating Committee.

2) Policy Committee

The areas assigned to the Policy Committee are:

a) Develop the SRC Annual Report

b) Evaluate proposed regulations, policies and services.

c) Prepare recommendations for the SRC.

d) Receive issues from the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee and

the Unified State Plan Committee to further evaluate and assist the

SRC in developing recommendations to DOR.

3) Monitoring and Evaluation Committee

The areas assigned to the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee are:

a) Evaluate the Consumer Satisfaction Survey and its results.

b) Review and analyze trends in Appeal Hearing Decisions.

c) Review the progress of performance measures.

d) Review data as requested by the SRC.

e) May refer issues to other Committees to further evaluate and make

recommendations for improvement of services.

f) Prepare recommendations for the full Council’s consideration.

4) Unified State Plan Committee

a) Collaborate with DOR in developing various aspects of the Vocational

Rehabilitation Services Portion of the Combined or Unified State

Plan.

b) Conduct and evaluate the Comprehensive Statewide Assessment.

27

c) Monitor the State of California’s Unified State Plan.

d) Review drafts of the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Portion of the

Unified State Plan.

e) May refer issues to other Committees to further evaluate and make

recommendations for improvement of services.

f) Prepare recommendations for the full Council’s consideration.

5) Nominating Committee

The Nominating Committee shall make recommendations to the SRC

relative to the annual election of SRC officers. The Nominating Committee

shall:

a) Be composed of at least three (3) and not more than five (5) SRC

members.

b) Be elected by the SRC at the meeting preceding the meeting in which

Officer elections are held, from a slate of candidates recommended

by the EPC. The floor shall also be opened to additional nominations.

c) Serve for one year. Should a mid-year vacancy occur in the office of

vice-chair or treasurer, the Nominating Committee shall reconvene

and recommend a candidate for vote at the next SRC meeting.

D. Ad hoc Committees/Taskforces/Workgroups

The SRC may, by majority vote, establish task specific entities as

necessary. These entities are limited to acting on the issues for which they

were created and within the time frame established for the assignment.

Article VIII Amendments1. These Bylaws shall be reviewed annually by the Executive Planning

Committee.

2. Bylaws amendments may be introduced, in writing, at any full SRC

meeting. The vote upon such amendments shall not take place until the

28

following SRC meeting. Amendments must receive a two-thirds vote of the

voting membership present at the meeting. No amendments may be

adopted which conflict with any applicable state and federal law or

regulation. Subsequent changes to applicable state and federal laws and

regulations shall supersede any portion of the bylaws in conflict with same.

Dates of RevisionRevised August 15, 2018

Revised November 18, 2015

Revised May 27, 2015

Revised August 20, 2014

Revised May 16, 2012

Revised January 25, 2011

29

Agenda Item 5

Wednesday, April 28, 2021

Item Name: Fair Hearing and Mediation Statistics and Overview of Hearing Summaries

Item Type: Information

Background: In accordance with title 34 Code of Federal Regulations part 361.16(a)(2)(iv), the SRC is provided the due process or fair hearing decisions rendered by Impartial Hearing Officers for Federal Fiscal Year 2019-2020. 

The fair hearing decisions and summaries contain insight on the application of state and federal regulations to specific issues and services. To maintain confidentiality, personal identifying information has been redacted from the summary and decisions  

Attachment(s): Attachment 1 – Summary of Fair Hearing Decisions for Federal Fiscal Year

2019-2020Attachment 2 – Fair Hearing Decisions [Separate Attachment]

30

Agenda Item 5, Attachment 1 Summary of Fair Hearing Decisions for Federal Fiscal Year 2019-

2020

California Department of RehabilitationSummary of Fair Hearing Decisions for Federal Fiscal Year 2019-2020

1. OAH Number 2020011026 Impartial Hearing Officer: Eric SawyerDecision Date: September 3, 2020Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7160 and 7160.5

This appeal was denied. Appellant, a DOR consumer since December 2016, is receiving funding to attend junior college. In July 2018, DOR authorized dental services totaling approximately $1,591 to assist in job interviews and potential employment. In November 2019, without DOR prior authorization, appellant had a dental provider provide additional dental services at a cost of $4,678. Subsequently, appellant requested that DOR pay for the additional services. The DOR declined and filed a request for fair hearing.

The Impartial Hearing Officer concluded that DOR appropriately denied appellant’s request for the additional dental services, concluding that applicable regulations required appellant to obtain prior written approval for the dental work, including the approval of the DOR Statewide Dental Consultant. The Impartial Hearing Officer noted that the requirement is not merely mechanical and the Statewide Dental Consultant plays an important role in confirming the validity of proposed treatment and whether more cost-effective alternatives are available. The Impartial Hearing Officer also concluded that there are no applicable exceptions excusing the requirement for written pre-authorization for restorative dental work, including the fact that appellant believed the situation was an emergency.

2. OAH Number 2019061074 Impartial Hearing Officer: Laurie PearlmanDecision Date: August 28, 2020

31

Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7029.9 and 7179.3

This appeal was denied. Appellant started receiving DOR services in 2006. From 2016 through June 2018, DOR funded appellant’s assistive technology training. Appellant requested that DOR continue to pay for training. The DOR denied the request and eventually notified appellant that appellant’s vocational rehabilitation case would be closed due to lack of cooperation. Appellant appealed, claiming that DOR improperly discontinued the training.

The Impartial Hearing Officer determined that DOR’s decision to discontinue the training and its determination that appellant failed to cooperate in the vocational rehabilitation program were amply supported by the evidence, noting that DOR funded many more hours of training than typically provided. Appellant refused comparable assistance technology or computer training benefits, refused to participate in a vocational or psychological assessment, refused to provide requested information to pursue a self-employment goal, refused to allow a vendor to access appellant’s computer to download software, and refused to provide receipts for iTunes purchases made with a card supplied by DOR. Appellant did not respond to the notice that informed appellant the case would be closed and appellant was uncooperative in the Administrative Review process. Moreover, appellant was verbally abusive to DOR staff. The Impartial Hearing Officer found that the totality of appellant’s behavior demonstrates a failure to cooperate.

3. OAH Number 2020050373Impartial Hearing Officer: Carmen D. SnuggsDecision Date: August 5, 2020Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7029, 7128, 7130, and 7149

This appeal was denied. Appellant’s July 2020 request for a fair hearing stems from a March 2020 fair hearing decision, in which appellant contends that DOR denied appellant’s right to receive an assessment and an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) within 30 days of the decision as ordered.

32

The Impartial Hearing Officer determined that appellant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that DOR did not act in good faith to implement the March 2020 decision, which required DOR to conduct an assessment of appellant’s eligibility and vocational rehabilitation needs and develop an IPE within 30 days. Instead, DOR established that beginning in April 2020, it attempted to: (1) conduct a telephone conference with appellant regarding the assessment process; (2) conduct an assessment based upon a review of appellant’s records and any additional records appellant wished; (3) refer appellant to a vendor for an assessment when the vendor resumed assessment services; and (4) explain the purpose for the consent to release information form and the referral process to appellant on multiple occasions. The DOR also established that appellant failed to participate in and cooperate in the referral process by altering the required consent to release information form. The Impartial Hearing Officer determined that appellant is not entitled to and cannot dictate or control DOR’s internal processes, DOR acted in good faith, and the appeal was denied. It was ordered that DOR conduct an assessment and develop an IPE within 90 days or as soon as practicable due to the pandemic, if appellant cooperates with DOR.

4. OAH Number 2019120332Impartial Hearing Officer: Kimberly J. BelvedereDecision Date: August 5, 2020Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7128, 7131, 7154, 7155, and 7156

This appeal was denied. The DOR agreed to assist appellant in pursuing appellant’s goal of obtaining a Bachelor of Science degree in Organizational Leadership at a university through online, self-paced courses. While appellant’s Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) also includes obtaining a master’s degree in special education and a teaching credential, it does not provide that this training is to be obtained through a private institution. Per appellant’s request, DOR conducted an administrative review and determined that appellant was not eligible for private tuition reimbursement for the pursuit of the graduate degree and teaching credential. Appellant filed a request for a fair hearing.

The Impartial Hearing Officer determined that appellant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the employment goal, appellant’s teaching credentials, must be obtained through a full time online, self-

33

paced program, or that no reasonable accommodation is available such that a private institution is appellant’s only option. Cause therefore did not exist pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7155, or 7156, subdivision (d)(1), to require DOR to pay for appellant’s master’s degree program or teaching credential program at the private tuition rate. The Impartial Hearing Officer denied the appeal and determined that, in sum, appellant is free to attend a private university and pursue graduate educational goals, which is supported by DOR. However, cause did not exist on this record to order DOR to pay the private tuition rate for an online-only, self-paced program when there are public options available and a host of unexplored reasonable accommodations available to appellant.

5. OAH Number 2020020802Impartial Hearing Officer: David B. RosenmanDecision Date: June 23, 2020Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7041, 7001.5, 7004.6, 7029.9, and 7062

This appeal was denied because appellant did not meet the burden to show that a Trial Work Experience (TWE) was an unnecessary assessment for DOR to use to determine eligibility.

The Impartial Hearing Officer found the evidence was clear and convincing that the available data established that appellant is incapable of benefiting from vocational rehabilitation services in terms of an employment outcome in an integrated setting due to the severity of appellant’s disability. Appellant has repeatedly applied for services from DOR since 2007, and DOR has opened 10 cases. By appellant’s own admission, appellant was often not ready to receive services, and the cases were closed, sometimes due to lack of readiness, failure to complete assessments or to cooperate otherwise, or simply on appellant’s request for case closure. In appellant’s latest case, a TWE plan was structured to accommodate appellant’s concerns about appellant’s abilities and stamina. At the fair hearing, appellant argued that although appellant had signed a TWE plan, appellant changed appellan’ts mind and that a TWE was not necessary. The Impartial Hearing Officer determined that appellant’s failure to continue in the TWE after one day, when the TWE was scheduled for six weeks, was further demonstration that appellant is not able to benefit from DOR vocational services in an integrated employment setting and did not intend

34

to achieve an employment outcome at that time. It was ordered that appellant must participate in a TWE for DOR to gather data to be used in the determination of eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services.

6. OAH Number 2020021126Impartial Hearing Officer: Juliet E. CoxDecision Date: June 2, 2020Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, section 7179.3

This appeal was denied. Appellant applied to DOR in February of 2019 for assistance in planning and preparing for, and securing employment. The DOR counselor assisted in developing an Individual Plan for Employment (IPE) describing a plan for appellant to prepare for and seek clerical employment in an office setting. The IPE called for appellant to work with staff members at a nonprofit agency to develop a resume, prepare for interviews, and identify potential employers.

In January 2020, appellant telephoned a DOR counselor and complained loudly and aggressively that neither DOR nor any of the other organizations to which DOR had referred appellant had helped appellant secure employment. Appellant also told a DOR counselor that appellant had enrolled in courses at a city college and further DOR services were not needed or wanted. The DOR counselor sent appellant an email seeking to confirm and summarize the telephone conversation, and appellant replied to the email on the same day reiterating appellant’s unhappiness. After DOR closed appellant’s case later in the month, appellant requested a fair hearing.

At the hearing, appellant complained about DOR staff and alleged that they were unprofessional towards appellant and exhibited racial bias. The Impartial Hearing Officer determined that there was no conclusive evidence demonstrating racial bias. It was noted that appellant demonstrated racial animosity in appellant’s own testimony, as well as animosity toward people who appellant determined to be transgender people. It was ruled that DOR may stop providing services to a consumer who has an IPE if the consumer declines to participate in implementing the IPE.

7. OAH Number 2020010885Impartial Hearing Officer: Erlinda G. Shrenger

35

Decision Date: April 13, 2020Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7149, 7154, 7155, 7156, and 7311

This appeal was denied. Appellant was deemed eligible for services and an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) was developed and signed by appellant on November 18, 2016, which included college training at a private school that DOR would contribute funding for. When the IPE was signed, appellant was already enrolled at a private college. At a September 2019 administrative review meeting, appellant’s parents expressed their disappointment with DOR only reimbursing them at the California State University rate for the 2019-2020 school year rather than the University of California rate, which is higher. When DOR did not agree through the administrative review process to provide reimbursement for appellant’s out-of-pocket costs for appellant’s books and supplies, appellant requested a fair hearing.

The Impartial Hearing Officer determined that DOR’s decision to deny appellant’s request for college training at the private school rate and to provide funding at the California State University rate complied with title 9 of the California Code of Regulations because appellant was not entitled to training services at a private school fully funded by DOR. Appellant was not entitled to private school funding because appellant could not meet the requirement of section 7155. Appellant was not entitled to reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs paid for books, supplies and materials because appellant did not obtain prior written authorization for the purchases as required by section 7311 and the terms of the IPE.

8. OAH Number 2019120363Impartial Hearing Officer: Eric SawyerDecision Date: March 30, 2020Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7160, 7190, 7191, 7192, 7193, 7194, 7196, 7197, and 7198

Appellant’s appeal was granted after appellant established by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant met the requirements for funding a dental treatment plan. The appeal stemmed from DOR’s denial of funding for restorative dental services, including implants, costing approximately $113,000 based on the opinion of a DOR Statewide Dental Consultant, which contended that the proposed treatment plan was

36

extensive and a moderate treatment plan was warranted, i.e., a pair of better fitting dentures and repair of appellant’s lower gum line, costing approximately $10,600.

The Impartial Hearing Officer determined that dental services are specifically provided for in appellant’s current Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE), as well as appellant’s prior IPE. It was determined that appellant’s requested funding is subject to the similar benefit provisions of sections 7196 through 7198, though appellant is not required to self-fund any part of the service request pursuant to sections 7190 through 7194. The dental implants were also recommended by appellant’s attending physicians and the three dentists who examined appellant. Appellant’s need for restorative dental services had been reviewed. Appellant met the burden of establishing that dental implants are necessary to restore oral health and resolve malnutrition caused by Crohn’s disease. It was ordered that DOR provide funding for appellant to receive the dental treatment plan with the estimated cost of $113,000.

9. OAH Number 2020020325Impartial hearing Officer: Wim Van RooyenDecision date: March 23, 2020Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7128, 7351, and 7356

The appeal was denied. Appellant first became a DOR client in 2008, seeking to pursue a vocational goal of becoming an Automotive Services Manager or Supervisor, a position compatible with appellant’s physical limitations. In September 2008, DOR and appellant agreed to an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE), which was amended several times without any substantive changes to the goals and services relevant to the case. The IPE was last amended on March 17, 2016, with an expected completion date of October 2020. In subsequent years, appellant was dissatisfied with DOR services and requested case transfers. In 2017, appellant was reassigned to different counselors at least three times, hampering the implementation of the IPE. On September 24, 2018, DOR closed appellant’s case based on a failure to cooperate. In January 2019, DOR re-opened appellant’s case. In June 2019, appellant again became dissatisfied with the assigned DOR counselor and requested a transfer, claiming that the DOR counselor has a history of untimely provision of funding for tuition, books, and internet service. Appellant also claimed that

37

appellant was unable to attend college in the fall of 2019 or spring of 2020 semesters because the DOR counselor failed to authorize funding to repair appellant’s personal vehicle.

The DOR claimed that appellant failed to communicate with the DOR counselor and provide requested documentation concerning the fall 2019 and spring 2020 class registrations and tuition fees, vehicle registration and insurance, and proposed vehicle repairs. The DOR counselor could not authorize the requests without documentation, and DOR denied appellant’s transfer request. Appellant requested a fair hearing, and the appeal was denied because it was determined that appellant failed to prove case transfer was warranted, and the case history with numerous transfers over the last three years were consistent with appellant’s pattern of non-cooperation.

10. OAH Number 2019110932Impartial hearing Officer: Coren D. WongDecision Date: March 19, 2020Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7029.7, 7029.9, 7128, 7130, 7131, 7149, 7154, and 7156

This appeal was denied. Appellant was deemed eligible for services and a January 2019 Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) identified an employment goal of “Audio and Video Equipment Technician.” On January 30, 2019, appellant contacted DOR and requested that DOR purchase computer and audio equipment for a college course. The DOR responded that it would purchase the equipment only if it was required for the course, as verified by the course syllabus or letter from the professor. On March 21, 2019, appellant told DOR that appellant went to a guitar store and created a list of necessary equipment, and again asked DOR to purchase the equipment. The DOR again requested documentation in the form of the course syllabus or letter from the professor. Appellant repeatedly requested that DOR purchase the equipment, without providing the requested documentation. On May 14, 2019, appellant informed the DOR counselor that appellant dropped the courses at the school because DOR would not purchase the equipment. After the request for equipment was denied again at an administrative hearing, appellant requested a fair hearing.

38

The Impartial Hearing Officer determined that appellant did not meet the burden of demonstrating DOR violated any applicable law or regulation. It was determined that the annual review of the January 2019 IPE was long overdue, and the parties were ordered to immediately schedule a meeting for a mutual date and time to determine whether any amendments were necessary and appropriate.

11. OAH Number 2019121024 Impartial Hearing Officer: Carmen D. SnuggsDecision Date: March 13, 2020Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7001.5, 7128, 7149, and 7179.3

The appeal was granted in part and denied in part. Appellant sought to enhance appellant’s ability for long term employment by learning information technology skills to run the help desk for appellant’s employer. After previously being a DOR consumer, appellant re-applied for services in May 2019 to seek help with funding information technology training. After several months of correspondence with DOR, appellant elected to borrow money to attend information technology classes. On September 24, 2019, DOR attempted to contact appellant via telephone to inform appellant that DOR would not fund training to obtain a certificate in light of the fact that appellant was already employed, had a bachelor’s degree, and a paralegal certificate. The DOR subsequently closed appellant’s case.

On December 18, 2019, DOR received appellant’s request for a fair hearing wherein appellant requested an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) that would support appellant’s educational plan for information technology classes. Appellant also sought assistance for college tuition fees, books, transportation, class materials, and certificate exams. The DOR contended that it properly denied appellant’s funding request because appellant already had the skills necessary to obtain entry level employment. The Impartial Hearing Officer determined that appellant established that DOR’s failure to complete an assessment and timely implement an IPE violated California Code of Regulations, title 9. It was determined that appellant participated and cooperated with DOR, providing all requested documents. The DOR was ordered to complete an assessment of appellant’s eligibility and vocational rehabilitation needs and develop and IPE within 30 days of the decision. Appellant’s appeal in all other respects was denied.

39

12. OAH Number 2019100042 Impartial Hearing Officer: Regina BrownDecision Date: March 13, 2020Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7029.9, 7128, 7149, and 7179.3

This appeal was denied when it was determined that appellant’s inappropriate behavior demonstrated that appellant was unsuited to appellant’s employment goal. Appellant was determined eligible for services in October 2016 and appellant was to complete customer service training and an anger management program, continue to attend job preparation services, and conduct informative interviews with potential cosmetology schools prior to DOR agreeing to pay for a cosmetology program. In October 2018, an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) was developed to include a cosmetology program with DOR funding the cost of the private school training. Appellant began attending the cosmetology program.

Appellant had several incidents with fellow students and staff who alleged that appellant was inappropriate and disrespectful, including showing pornographic videos on appellant’s phone to young female students, showing students inappropriate websites, and making racially offensive comments. Various staff at the cosmetology school informed appellant about appellant’s inappropriate behavior, but appellant did not change the behavior and was subsequently expelled from the cosmetology program. On July 23, 2019, DOR sent appellant a letter informing appellant that the vocational goal of cosmetologist had not been achieved within the IPE and appellant needed to schedule an appointment to complete a new IPE. Appellant failed to contact DOR and appellant’s case was closed. At the fair hearing appellant disagreed with the decisions of the cosmetology school and DOR. The Impartial Hearing Officer denied the appeal, concluding that DOR violated no applicable laws or regulations, and that appellant’s unacceptable behavior demonstrated appellant was not ready for training or employment as a cosmetologist.

13. OAH Number 2019120866Impartial Hearing Officer: Nana ChinDecision Date: March 9, 2020Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7173, 7174, 7311, and 7312

40

This appeal was granted in part. Appellant was deemed eligible for vocational services in 2017, and an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) was developed for an employment goal of “Computer Software Engineers, Applications, Software Developers, Applications.” The DOR approved appellant’s request for software on a subscription basis as well as a printer but denied appellant’s request for Apple Care because it was deemed to be a warranty, which cannot be funded by DOR according to its policies. Appellant requested a fair hearing, alleging DOR had not provided the services.

At hearing, appellant expressed frustration with the state process and DOR’s alleged failure to immediately understand and comply with appellant’s requests. The Impartial Hearing Officer ordered DOR to provide appellant with a Canon image class mid-range printer as recommended to use because appellant had a documented visual impairment, which would cause him difficulty in accessing the materials without assistance. The appeal in all other respects was denied. The evidence did not establish that there was any delay by DOR in providing services set forth in the IPE. In addition, there was no evidence that appellant’s disability required non-subscription software or Apple Care for successful participation in training. With respect to appellant’s request for counseling services, appellant presented no evidence that appellant is ready to search for employment and in need of such counseling services.

14. OAH Number 2019020447 Impartial Hearing Officer: H. Stuart WaxmanDecision Date: February 29, 2020Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7006, 7128, 7311, and 7356

This appeal was denied when it was determined that DOR acted in accordance with the law when it denied appellant’s request to pursue higher education and fund efforts to expunge appellant’s arrest record.

In October 2016, appellant signed an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) for “Marketing, Advertising, and Public Relations Managers.” In July 2018, appellant earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Marketing and was thereafter employed by a federal agency. In September 2018, appellant was informed by the federal agency that appellant was ineligible for a

41

temporary position due to a “derogatory” criminal arrest history. In October 2018, appellant requested a change of employment goal to become an attorney. Following an IPE development meeting in January 2019, appellant requested expungement of appellant’s criminal record. The DOR did not approve appellant’s requests. The Impartial Hearing Officer determined that DOR’s decision to deny the request for a new IPE with the employment goal of attorney was unreasonable given appellant’s history of arrest or criminal convictions. It was also determined that DOR’s decision to deny appellant’s request for funding to expunge appellant’s arrest record was also reasonable, as comparable services and benefits were available to assist with appellant’s criminal arrest or conviction records.

15. OAH Number 2019110962Impartial Hearing Officer: Vallera J. JohnsonDecision Date: February 26, 2020Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7029.7, 7152, 7154, and 7159

This appeal was denied, and the Impartial Hearing Officer determined that DOR is not required to fund training for appellant to become a psychologist. From 2013 to 2018, appellant had an open DOR case. In developing the Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE), the DOR counselor informed appellant that DOR could not assist in obtaining a doctorate degree in forensic psychology but could help appellant find employment consistent with appellant’s master’s degree in psychology and offered appellant the opportunity to start a practice as a licensed marriage and family therapist. Over the years, appellant’s engagement with DOR was not consistent. Between April and September 2015, DOR had no communication with appellant and for extensive periods of time there was no contact. In January 2017, appellant requested that the IPE be changed to include a degree in forensic psychology, expressing that the current IPE plan was too difficult. No evidence was offered to establish that there had been communication between November 2017 and November 2018, and appellant’s case was closed due to failure of appellant to participate. The DOR opened a new case for appellant in May 2019, and appellant again requested training in forensic psychology, which DOR denied.

The Impartial Hearing Officer determined, considering appellant’s master’s degree in psychology and extensive work history, appellant had marketable skills to seek gainful employment. As such, DOR was not required to pay

42

for training to become a forensic psychologist and properly denied appellant’s request.

16. OAH Number 2019120138Impartial Hearing Officer: Karen ReichmannDecision Date: February 5, 2020Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7356 and 7149

This appeal was denied. Appellant was receiving services pursuant to an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) dated July 12, 2018. The DOR was providing support for appellant to achieve a doctorate degree. Appellant attends a university and most of work is online. Appellant argued that DOR was not adequately supporting appellant in the doctorate program and raised numerous issues in the appeal, including that DOR was required to provide funding for an iPhone, business suits, tutoring, a residency program, and books.

The Impartial Hearing Officer determined that DOR has been funding appellant’s pursuit of an educational goal and has funded many related materials and services. It was determined that DOR’s refusal to fund an iPhone was reasonable after appellant negligently damaged one phone and lost another phone. Similarly, DOR had already provided two business suits and its decision not to fund additional suits was not unreasonable. The DOR agreed to provide books to appellant and is processing the request so the issue was determined to be moot. The DOR had also paid for appellant to attend a residency, and its decision to fund the less expensive residency was reasonable. The DOR is continuing to look for an appropriate tutor, and appellant did not establish cause to grant an appeal based on insufficient tutoring services. No violation of law or regulation was proven.

17. OAH Number 2019101052Impartial Hearing Officer: Debra D. Nye-PerkinsDecision Date: December 19, 2019Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7029.7, 7149, 7173, and 7179.3

This appeal was denied. Appellant requested a fair hearing after DOR denied appellant’s request for payment of $80,000 for tools as a diesel

43

mechanic that appellant claimed was for employment. Appellant first began receiving DOR services in 2015, and an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) was developed for appellant to obtain self- employment as an independent contractor for the state as a diesel mechanic with the expectation that appellant would be employed by December 2017. Ultimately, DOR determined that self-employment as a diesel mechanic was not a viable option for appellant. Nevertheless, appellant continued to pursue this line of work and sought payment for expenses appellant claimed arose from this occupation.

The record demonstrated that appellant failed to provide by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant was entitled to payment for the tools requested. Appellant’s only evidence provided in the hearing was a notarized letter from a party claiming to be appellant’s employer. The document lacked veracity, and it appeared that the party was not an employer but appellant’s girlfriend. The DOR provided substantial evidence to demonstrate that appellant’s alleged employer was not legitimate. Appellant provided no credible evidence of a legitimate claim, and the appeal for payment was denied.

18. OAH Number 2019060844Impartial Hearing Officer: Carla L. GarrettDecision Date: December 16, 2019Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7029.9, 7128, 7130, 7179.3, and 7356

This appeal was granted in part when appellant’s case was reopened and appellant awarded $150 reimbursement for attending a conference and denied in part when the Impartial Hearing Officer rejected a series of additional reimbursement requests. Appellant was deemed eligible for services in 2009 with a desired employment goal of paralegal. In March 2019, appellant requested an administrative review after DOR decided to close the case and requested reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses for goods and services not included in appellant’s 2016 Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE). The requests in the administrative review were denied and appellant requested a fair hearing.

The Impartial Hearing Officer determined that the evidence showed appellant participated in some respects, but not in others, since July of 2017. Although appellant engaged in some communication with DOR from

44

October 2017 through March 2018, and discussed DOR assistance, it had been a year since DOR had prepared appellant’s IPE extension. Appellant had never signed it despite multiple requests from DOR to do so. Appellant also repeatedly cancelled meetings and failed to identify concerns with the IPE. It was determined that it was reasonable to close the case, but it was ordered that the parties meet within 60 days of the decision to develop and sign an updated IPE. If appellant then failed to make an objectively reasonable effort to participate and sign the IPE before the expiration of 60 days, DOR would then be allowed to close the case accordingly. It was also determined that appellant’s submission of a copy of a cancelled check was sufficient proof of payment triggering reimbursement for attending a DOR authorized conference, but other reimbursement requests were denied due to lack of DOR authorization and expiration of the IPE.

19. OAH Number 2019081195Impartial Hearing Officer: Ji-Lan ZangDecision Date: November 27, 2019Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7029 and 7161

This appeal was denied in part and granted in part. Appellant was deemed eligible for DOR services on December 5, 2017. Although the Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) was developed in January 2018, appellant did not sign the IPE until March 1, 2018. The IPE indicated that appellant’s vocational objective was “First Line Supervisor or Manager or Supervisor – Clerical and Administrative Support Worker or Trade Show Technician.” The expected completion date of the IPE was April of 2019. The IPE also specified that transportation services, in the form of a $110 local public transit pass, were to be funded by DOR in order for appellant to reach the employment goal identified in the IPE.

In January 2019, DOR closed appellant’s case on the grounds of failure to cooperate. The DOR concluded that appellant was unwilling to work with DOR to secure employment and was requesting services, which exceeded the scope of job placement. Appellant asserted difficulties with the DOR counselor and argued for reimbursement of transportation costs. The Impartial Hearing Officer denied appellant’s request for transportation costs during the periods of October 2017 to February 2018 and October 2018 to January 2019, because appellant did not present any evidence showing participation in vocational rehabilitation services during the period of

45

October 2017 to February 2018. However, in accordance with the IPE, it was determined that appellant should be reimbursed for transportation costs for the month of March 2018, in the amount of the cost of the local public transit pass because appellant participated in vocational rehabilitation services during that month.

20. OAH Number 2019070691Impartial Hearing Officer: Joseph D. MontoyaDecision Date: November 8, 2019Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7136.5, 7136.6, 7136.7, 7136.8, 7136.9, 7179.1, and 7179.3

This appeal was denied since appellant failed to establish that DOR improperly declined to approve appellant’s Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE). Appellant was deemed eligible for services and had worked as a freelance sound engineer. After appellant was determined eligible, appellant sought a self-employment plan wherein appellant would form a company that would have the capability to perform recording on film locations and could perform post-production work at the same location. The DOR declined the proposed IPE, relying on the regulation that provides that while DOR can provide initial costs of establishing a small business, including tools and equipment, but DOR may not provide the costs associated with the expansion of an existing small business.

At the fair hearing, DOR argued that the appellant was seeking to expand an existing small business, and also consented to closure. The appellant asserted that this was not an expansion of an existing business, in that DOR identified the “existing” business was a defunct corporation that appellant previously operated and that appellant had not consented to closure. The Impartial Hearing Officer determined that the record established that for approximately three years appellant had operated a small business, a sole proprietorship and upheld DOR’s decision.

21. OAH numbers 2019070861, 2019080558, 2019090693, and 2019100618Impartial Hearing Officer: Erin R. Koch-GoodmanDecision Date: November 8, 2019Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7128, 7131, 7137, 7351, and 7356

46

This decision consolidated four cases and was granted in part and denied in part. In 2016, appellant submitted a small business plan to DOR, in which appellant’s business would develop products and services for customers with disabilities, assist businesses to hire employees with disabilities, and provide business development training through an online learning management system. The plan detailed a start-up budget of $127,987.22, including $10,137.22 for technology hardware, and $100,000 for the online learning management system. The plan included retaining a contractor to write and configure the learning management system, then appellant would create training videos, and finally the videos would be uploaded to the learning management system. The learning management system would be moved to Amazon Web Services and thereafter appellant’s business would maintain the system. The business plan also provided for professional training and development services and a monthly transportation stipend of $350.

In 2017, DOR and appellant agreed to an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE), since 2018, DOR issued four amendments, some in relation to fair hearing decisions. The issues in this case relate to the fourth amended IPE that DOR sent to appellant on or about September 30, 2019, to extend the end date to January 31, 2020. Appellant requested a fair hearing, alleging that DOR did not properly extend the expiration date consistent with a related fair hearing decision and claimed that DOR should pay for costs associated with appellant’s attendance at work conferences, moving expenses, and commercial office-space rent.

The Impartial Hearing Officer determined that appellant did present sufficient evidence to prove that DOR failed to extend the IPE expiration date, without other alterations, consistent with an earlier fair hearing decision. It was determined that DOR made substantive changes to the second amended IPE not contemplated by the earlier fair hearing decision, and additional time was needed. As such, DOR was ordered to issue a fifth amended IPE within 30 days of the decision, with a new start date of July 2019, and a new expiration date to June 30, 2020. On subsequent issues, it was determined that appellant failed to prove that DOR should pay costs associated with appellant’s attendance at work conferences, moving expenses, or commercial office-space rent.

47

22. OAH Number 2019080451Impartial Hearing Officer: Theresa M. BrehlDecision Date: November 7, 2019Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7029.6, 7019, 7154, 7156, 7156.8, 7158.8, and 7177

This appeal was denied in part. Appellant was found eligible for services in November of 2018, and in March 2019, agreed to an extension of the due date for completion of the Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) in order for DOR to complete an assessment of appellant’s functioning level. The Impartial Hearing Officer found no evidence that DOR had denied appellant’s request for education or training and DOR had not yet completed the counseling and assessment necessary to develop an IPE.

Appellant established by a preponderance of the evidence that DOR should fund appellant’s first two years of training at an out-of-state college at the California public university rate beginning in the fall of 2019 term that had already commenced. Appellant’s request to fund on-campus housing, which would be considered maintenance, was denied.

23. OAH Number 2019030377 Impartial Hearing Officer: Dena CogginsDecision Date: October 8, 2019Applicable Regulations: California Code of Regulations, title 9, sections 7006.3, 7018.4, 7024.9, 7136.6, 7136.7, 7136.8, and 7025.4

This appeal was denied in part. Appellant applied for services in 2018, requesting funding for assistive equipment. The DOR initially informed appellant that appellant was presumed eligible, but later informed appellant that based on information that appellant provided showing that appellant had an existing business, DOR could not provide services. The DOR determined that appellant was operating an existing business, and the purchase of additional equipment for this business would be considered an expansion of the business, which DOR would be unable to provide. Further, DOR asserted that appellant had not provided sufficient information to determine whether appellant’s self-employment met the criteria for “competitive integrated employment.”

48

The Impartial Hearing Officer concluded that the evidence provided at the hearing was insufficient to determine whether appellant’s business met the criteria for competitive integrated employment. The decision ordered DOR to inform appellant as to what information was needed to determine whether appellant’s business met the criteria for competitive integrated employment, and upon receipt of such information make a determination. If DOR determined the business met the criteria for competitive integrated employment, DOR was to fund a portion of the cost of the equipment.

49

Agenda Item 6 and 8

Wednesday, April 28, 2021

Item Name: Adopt-a-Region Reports

Item Type: Information

Background: Through the Adopt-a-Region program, each SRC member is paired up with a DOR Regional Director. This program provides SRC members the opportunity to build connections with the DOR district leadership and learn about local issues, activities, and opportunities.

Attachment(s):Attachment 1 – Adopt-a-Region - SRC Member AssignmentsAttachment 2 - Redwood Empire - Adopt-a-Region Discussion Summary Attachment 3 – Santa Barbara - Adopt-a-Region Discussion Summary

50

Agenda Items 6 and 8, Attachment 1Adopt-a-Region - SRC Member Assignments

Adopt-a-Region - SRC Member Assignments

DOR District/Region DOR Regional Director Assigned SRC Member

Northern Sierra Jay Onasch LaQuita Wallace

Greater East Bay Carol Asch Susan Henderson

San Jose Donna Hezel Jonathan Hasak

Santa Barbara Susan Mathers Theresa Comstock

Inland Empire Robert Loeun Benjamin Aviles

Van Nuys/Foothill Wan-Chun Chang Kecia Weller

Greater Los Angeles Maria Turrubiartes Nicolas Wavrin

Los Angeles South Bay Susan Senior Benjamin Aviles

Redwood Empire David Wayte Theresa Comstock

San Joaquin Valley Araceli Holland Peter Mendoza

San Francisco Theresa Woo Chanel Brisbane

San Diego Carmencita Trapse

Ivan Guillen

Orange/San Gabriel Trung Le

Not assigned

Blind Field Services Peter Dawson Marcus Williams

51

Agenda Items 6 and 8, Attachment 2 Redwood Empire - Adopt-a-Region Discussion Summary

State Rehabilitation Council (SRC)“Adopt a Region” Virtual Meeting

Date: April 5, 2021SRC Member: Theresa ComstockDOR Staff: David Wayte, Regional Director, Redwood Empire

Successes: 1) Intakes: Due to outreach, they are seeing an uptick in: applications,

consumers asking for help and consumers visiting in person.2) Partnerships: Developing Memos of Understanding (MOUs) to

increase collaboration with other agencies, including: Child Protective Services (CPS), Mental Health Agencies, Probation, Regional Centers

3) COVID Adaptation: Staff continued services during COVID, and kept doors open, while keeping staff and consumers safe.

Challenges:1) Reopening from COVID, balancing safety and fairness, including

addressing fears:a. Preparing for consumers who need to return to workb. Preparing staff to return to officesc. Increasing outreach to notify people they are open and ready to

provide services.2) Digital Access for consumers related to:

a. Equipment for interaction with DOR staff/contractorsb. Equipment for use in virtual job placementsc. “Soft Skills” training for virtual workplace (being developed)

3) Fewer Service Providers: Sonoma County has lost many service providers both due to low reimbursement rates and to COVID.

4) Unfunded Mandates: Required collaborations (Foster Care System, Homeless Programs, Juvenile Justice and Prison Re-entry programs) do not come with additional funding, relying solely on the good will of the parties to work together.

52

Agenda Items 6 and 8, Attachment 3 Santa Barbara - Adopt-a-Region Discussion Summary

State Rehabilitation Council (SRC)“Adopt a Region” Virtual Meeting

Date: April 1, 2021SRC Member: Theresa ComstockRegional Director: Susan Mathers (Regional Director)

Brian Winic (Santa Barbara District Administrator)Successes:

5) Downsizing Office Space – The Santa Barbara office is leading the way for the region, by reducing the number of offices by ½. This is being done with employee input to ensure a smooth transition. The work environment will include:

an increase in shared offices continued telework decrease in storage, supply and mail room space the “Job Club” room (consumers use this room for emails) will

be shifted to a smaller room to better match utilization.6) Intakes - Staff is successfully increasing intakes (which had dropped

due to COVID).

Challenges:1) High cost of living results in:

Difficulty hiring and keeping lower-paid staff. “Program Technician” and “Office Techs” were mentioned.

Some employees work 2 jobs, rent single rooms in houses, and move out of state in order to purchase their own home

2) Transportation An increase in referrals and mobility evaluation. Anticipate challenges in responding to an increase in

consumers who are using public transportation (COVID precautions, such as avoiding public transportation, may linger post-COVID, and barriers to getting to work, clients are looking at using alternate transportation options with fewer crowds.

3) Suicide Prevention – Staff have encountered youth who are suicidal, and need to know how to respond to consumers and their

53

families. Suicide prevention training is being provided during an upcoming district meeting.

54

Agenda Item 7

Wednesday, April 28, 2021

Item Name: Rehabilitation Services Administration Monitoring Report and Corrective Acton Plan

Item Type: Information

Background: In March 2018, the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) performed a monitoring review of DOR. In 2021 the final report for the review was published. A corrective action plan (CAP) was developed by DOR and submitted to RSA

Today, SRC members will learn about the results of the RSA monitoring report and the details of the DOR Corrective Action Plan. . Attachment(s): Attachment 1 – PowerPoint PresentationAttachment 2 – Accessible Word Version of PowerPoint

55

Agenda Item 7, Attachment 1PowerPoint Presentation

Slide 1

Slide 2

56

Slide 3

Slide 4

57

Slide 5

Slide 6

58

Slide 7

Slide 8

59

Slide 9

Slide 10

60

Slide 11

Slide 12

61

Slide 13

Slide 14

62

Slide 15

Slide 16

63

Slide 17

Slide 18

64

Slide 19

Slide 20

65

Agenda Item 7, Attachment 2Accessible Word Version of PowerPoint

FFY 2018 Corrective Action Plan:Status Update

California Department of RehabilitationStrategic Initiative Office

April 2021Slide 2: Overview (1 of 2)In accordance with Section 107 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) conducts annual reviews and periodic on-site monitoring of the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) to determine whether DOR is complying substantially with the provisions of its State Plan and with federal evaluation standards and performance indicators.When, based on monitoring, RSA determines that DOR has not administered and operated the VR program in compliance with its State Plan, the Rehabilitation Act, or federal regulations, the DOR must develop a corrective action plan (CAP) for RSA approval. Slide 3: Overview (2 of 2)RSA conducted an on-site monitoring visit in March 2018, and published its FFY 2018 Monitoring Report on January 14, 2021. The report is publicly available at the following link:https://rsa.ed.gov/about/programs/vocational-rehabilitation-state-grants/monitoring-of-vocational-rehabilitation-program/2018DOR had 45 days to draft and submit its CAP, due to RSA by February 28, 2021. For RSA approval, the CAP must contain the specific steps that the DOR will take to resolve each finding, timelines for the completion of each step, and methods for evaluating that the findings have been resolved. DOR submitted its CAP to RSA on February 22, 2021. It was approved by RSA on March 24, 2021. RSA requires the DOR to report progress toward completion of the CAP on a quarterly basis until all corrective actions are resolved.Slide 4: Timeline

1. March 2018: RSA Conducts On-Site Monitoring

66

2. January 14, 2021: RSA Publishes Monitoring Report3. February 22, 2021: DOR Submits CAP to RSA4. March 24, 2021: RSA Approves Final CAP5. July 31, 2021: Progress Report Due to RSA6. October 14, 2021: All Corrective Actions Resolved

Slide 5: SummaryNumber of Findings: 7Total Number of Corrective Actions: 25Corrective Focus Areas:

Performance

VR Services, including Pre-Employment Transition Services

Fiscal

Timeframe to Resolve: January 14 – October 14, 2021

Slide 6: Finding 1: Untimely Eligibility DeterminationDOR does not have mechanisms in place to ensure that all eligibility determinations are made within the required 60-day timeframe, nor to ensure that agreed upon eligibility determination extensions are completed and documented in the service record, if there are exceptional or unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of DOR that preclude making an eligibility determination within 60 days.

Slide 7: Finding 1: Corrective Actions and Planned Steps Number of Corrective Actions: 4

1. Comply with federal regulations by making eligibility determinations within the required 60-day period for no less than 90 percent of all eligibility determinations;

2. Assess and evaluate VR counselor performance and identify effective practices that ensure timely eligibility determinations are made within 60 days from the date of application;

3. Update internal control procedures to ensure requirements are met;

67

4. Update DOR policies and procedures related to documenting the exceptional and unforeseen circumstances that preclude making a timely eligibility determination.

Timeframe: March – October

Slide 8: Finding 2: Internal Controls and Accuracy in ReportingDOR had not developed nor implemented policies and procedures for collecting accurate data, and for verifying the accuracy and reliability of the data through the required supporting documentation. Additionally, DOR had not developed internal controls to evaluate and monitor its compliance with DOR policies and procedures.

Slide 9: Finding 2: Corrective Actions and Planned Steps Number of Corrective Actions: 4

1. Develop and implement policies and procedures to obtain and maintain supporting documentation in an individual’s record of services;

2. Develop and implement internal controls for supporting documentation and maintaining required information in each record of services;

3. Evaluate, develop, and implement changes to DOR’s case management system to ensure the accurate collection of all applicable Plan implementation dates;

4. Develop and implement internal controls to ensure information reported on required monitoring reports is supportable with accurate documentation.

Timeframe: March – October

Slide 10: Finding 3: Provision of Pre-Employment Transition Services StatewideDOR is not meeting the federal requirement to make pre-employment transition services (Pre-ETS) available statewide because it has not made these services available statewide to potentially eligible students and because it cannot yet provide services geographically statewide.

Slide 11: Finding 3: Corrective Actions and Planned Steps

68

Number of Corrective Actions: 31. Provide the necessary training and supports to facilitate the use of

the potentially eligible (PE) student case type in every district office;

2. Train staff of DOR, schools, service providers, and partners regarding DOR’s mandate to provide Pre-ETS to PE students and define who those students are;

3. Regularly evaluate the provision of Pre-ETS by each district office to determine the number and type of educational settings of PE students being served as well as to determine geographic areas in which students are not receiving these services.

Timeframe: March – July

Slide 12: Finding 4: Not All Third-Party Cooperative Arrangements (TPCAs) Satisfied Federal RequirementsFederal regulation only permits a TPCA relationship to exist between DOR and a “public agency,” meaning, a valid TPCA is a two-way agreement only between DOR and a public agency. Many agreements RSA reviewed included a three-way agreement that includes a private entity as a third partner in the TPCA relationship between DOR and a public agency; this would not constitute a valid TPCA. As such, these three-way agreements raise questions as to whether they are an allowable source of match under the VR program. To the extent the TPCA resulted in unallowable match, the expenditures would be considered questioned costs.

Slide 13: Finding 4: Corrective Actions and Planned Steps Number of Corrective Actions: 5

1. Analyze and submit a summary of all cooperative arrangements with public agencies to determine the legal authority for that arrangement and for the match provided under that arrangement;

2. If necessary, upon RSA review, for any of the 14 contracts involving private providers, immediately cease relying on the contract or modify the contract to ensure federal requirements are satisfied;

3. If necessary, upon RSA review, for any of the contracts, immediately cease using any non-Federal expenditures incurred or non-Federal funds transferred under those agreements as match under the VR

69

program until those agreements are revised to ensure all applicable requirements are satisfied;

4. Revise all SF-425s for FFYs 2016 through the current FFY, as needed, to ensure that non-Federal funds reported are those only from allowable sources;

5. Revise all service contracts to remove use of the term “TPCA” except in those circumstances where the contractual relationship satisfies the federal requirements.

Timeframe: March – September

Slide 14: Finding 5: Failure to Collect Required Data with Respect to Services Provided Under TPCAsA lack of data collection for participants receiving services under TPCAs, and associated costs, was identified, which put into question whether each service DOR pays for under the TPCAs is allowable. Without knowing which participant receives which services under the TPCAs, DOR is not able to submit reports that contain complete and accurate data that are specifically required by federal regulation. This lack of complete and accurate data could negatively affect DOR’s ability to meet its adjusted levels of performance each year under the VR program. Also, this inability to report data accurately, particularly with respect to the provision of pre-employment transition services to students with disabilities, makes it impossible for DOR to report the amount of expenditures it incurs for this purpose to demonstrate it has satisfied the federal reservation requirement.

Slide 15: Finding 5: Corrective Actions and Planned Steps Number of Corrective Actions: 2

1. Establish a process whereby all VR program participants, including those served under TPCAs, are assigned to specific services in the Case Management System, or in some other mechanism that would enable the agency to satisfy all programmatic and fiscal reporting requirements;

2. Develop policies and procedures requiring that all service providers, particularly those providing services under TPCAs, submit invoices that detail services provided to each individual and the amount of time spent serving each individual.

70

Timeframe: April – July Slide 16: Finding 6: Improper Allocation of Personnel and Other CostsDOR did not satisfy the general cost allocation and personnel cost allocation requirements because DOR charged personnel, equipment, and other costs only to the VR award that should have been allocated across multiple cost objectives. Additionally, DOR did not have sufficient internal controls to ensure the proper allocation of personnel and other costs.Slide 17: Finding 6: Corrective Actions and Planned Steps Number of Corrective Actions: 5

1. Immediately cease using VR program funds to pay for the entire amount of direct and personnel costs when those costs must be allocated across multiple cost objectives;

2. Revise and implement a written internal control process, consistent with federal requirements, to ensure DOR allocates all costs properly;

3. Revise contracts, as necessary, to ensure that costs, such as travel and payment of contractual staff, are allocated across all programs that benefit from such costs;

4. Revise the DOR Contract Handbook, as necessary, to clarify proper cost allocation requirements, to ensure proper invoicing, and for training the DOR Contract Administrators;

5. Revise fiscal reports for FFYs 2017 through current, as necessary, to ensure they accurately allocate and report personnel and other costs for each DOR administered program.

Timeframe: March – October

Slide 18: Finding 7: Insufficient Internal Controls and Program MonitoringDOR is required to have policies and procedures in place to ensure it complies with federal requirements and the terms and conditions of the grant award. Moreover, DOR is required to monitor its grant-supported activities to ensure compliance with federal requirements, which would include those related to prior written approval. DOR’s internal controls are not sufficient in all areas to ensure the agency is managing the VR program in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements, as well as the terms and conditions of the award.

71

Slide 19: Finding 7: Corrective Actions and Planned Steps Number of Corrective Actions: 2

1. Update and implement policies, procedures, and internal controls reflecting current Federal requirements, including those requirements governing requests for prior written approval;

2. Develop and implement written internal controls governing oversight of grant-supported activities, particularly with respect to contract monitoring, financial controls, data collection and reporting, and monitoring for agency compliance with federal requirements.

Timeframe: March – July

Slide 20: DOR Next Steps 15 of 25 Corrective Actions resolved by July 31, 2021

Submit quarterly Progress Report to RSA on July 31, 2021

Resolve remaining 10 Corrective Actions by October 14, 2021

72

Agenda Item 13

Thursday, April 29, 2021

Item Name: VR Connections

Item Type: Information

Background: SRC members will receive a project update on the VR Connections Project, the web-based portal enhancing collaboration between DOR staff, consumers, and vendors.

Attachment(s): Attachment 1 – PowerPoint Presentation

73

Agenda Item 13, Attachment 1PowerPoint Presentation

Slide One

Slide Two

74

Slide Three

Slide Four

Slide Five75

Slide Six

76

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

77

78

Agenda Item 14

Thursday, April 29, 2021

Item Name: Debrief and Recommendations Discussion

Item Type: Action and Discussion

Background: During the January 27-28 SRC quarterly meeting, the SRC discussed two areas for recommendations: (1) Financial Participation Policy and (2) Virtual Delivery Services Project and virtual Student Assistant and Peer Mentorship Project. Due to timing the SRC agreed to move the recommendations discussion to the Executive Planning Committee (EPC) on March 17.

On March 17, the EPC discussed recommendations and developed two recommendations in Attachment 1 to present today for the SRC review and approval.

Today, SRC members will vote on the two proposed recommendations and debrief from this meeting’s discussions and potentially adopt additional recommendations.

Attachment(s): Attachment 1 – Proposed Recommendations for Approval Attachment 2 - Notes from January 27-28 SRC Meeting Recommendation Discussion

79

Agenda Item 14, Attachment 1 Proposed Recommendations for Approval

Recommendation 1 – Clear Language for Financial Participation and Loaned Property Regulations The SRC recommends DOR materials (informational handouts to consumers, website content, staff resources and training) related to updated financial participation and loaned property regulations are developed with clear language and examples to ensure understanding by staff, consumers, and the public, reassuring that access to needed services will continue in an equitable and fair manner.

Recommendation 2 – Virtual Delivery Services Project and Student Assistant and Peer Mentorship ProjectThe SRC recommends DOR assess the Virtual Delivery Services Project and Student Assistant & Peer Mentorship Project in terms of:

Analyzing performance outcomes of these projects Consideration for statewide implementation in all DOR Districts

80

Agenda Item 14, Attachment 2 Notes from January 27-28 SRC Meeting Recommendation

Discussion

Financial Participation PolicyAt the January 27-28, SRC meeting, DOR Legal Affairs and Regulations and Kathi Mowers-Moore, Deputy Director, Vocational Rehabilitation Policy and Resource Division presented an overview of the proposed changes to the Financial Participation Regulations and Loaned Property Regulations. The SRC discussed what they would like the regulations to include (items 1-4 below) and agreed to move the recommendations discussion to the March 17, 20201 Executive Planning Committee.

In February, Regina met with DOR Legal Affairs and Regulations, and Kathi Mowers-Moore to discuss the SRC’s want for clear guidance and examples regarding calculation of financial participation and how best to communicate this information whether by memo or by formal recommendation. 1. SRC Want: Calculation to be provided in regulation.

o Response: Typically, in regulations there is not an example of a calculation.

2. SRC Want: Clear guidance in communication to individuals seeking services and within training and resources for staff and contractors.

3. SRC Want: Ensure Financial Participation is presented in a positive manner, so it does not deter consumers for seeking services.

4. SRC Want: Clarify an individual’s annual income amount is first adjusted, accounting for (subtracting) disability-related expenses prior to calculation of financial participation. Response: Disability-related expenses are discussed on a case-by-

case basis. Section 7196.6(c) in the Financial Participation regulations provides

further clarification of undue financial hardship due to medical expenses. An individual will be obligated to pay their share of financial

participation for their vocational rehabilitation goods and services unless there is evidence that undue financial hardship exists in their household.

81

The Department may waive financial participation due to undue financial hardship on an individual basis, when requested by the individual or the individual’s representative, as described in Section 7191.7.

Undue financial hardship means that the individual’s prior year’s gross income for federal or state income tax reporting purposes is insufficient to meet the current costs of everyday living expenses and non-exempt vocational rehabilitation services, as described in Section 7191.2, due to one or more of following:

o Medical expenses necessary for an individual to function independently, except for the cost of routine medical and dental care, or insurance premiums.

Virtual Delivery Services (VDS) and Peer Mentoring Program SRC members learned about the VDS Project started in the DOR Inland Empire District. This project created a virtual delivery services platform to provide vocational rehabilitation services to consumers and a virtual Student Assistant & Peer Mentorship Project

During the recommendation discussion, SRC members commented they would like to recommend VDS and the Virtual Student Assistant and Peer Mentorship Project to expand statewide to all DOR Districts.

82

Agenda Item 16

Thursday, April 29, 2021

Item Name: Identification of Future Agenda Items

Item Type: Discussion

Background: This item affords the SRC the opportunity to discuss issues they would like to appear on future agendas.

Attachment(s): Attachment 1 – Information Updates/Presentations List

83

Agenda Item 16, Attachment 1Information Updates/Presentations List

Meeting Dates: July 14-15, 2021Meeting Time: To be determined

Information Updates/Presentations List

Contract for Fair Hearings and Mediation and Approval of Impartial Hearing Officers. Presenter: DOR Legal Affairs and RegulationsItem type: For information/discussion and actionItem details: Status of DOR’s contract for fair hearings and mediation which is expected to move to the Division of State Hearings. Presenters will request SRC approval of a list of impartial hearing officers employed by the Division of State Hearings. 

Consumer Satisfaction Survey (CSS) Presenter: Budgets Fiscal Forecasting, and Research and/or Planning UnitItem type: For information/discussionItem Details: Update on the CSS. An email with a link to the survey was distributed during the month of March 2021 and the survey link will remain active for contribution opening March 15, 2021, and closing April 15, 2021.

Work Incentive Planners (WIP) Presenter: DOR Social Security Programs SectionItem type: For information/discussion Item Details: In September 2020, the SRC had a presentation on WIPs. The followings areas the SRC would like to learn more about:

1. Gaps in services for consumers who receive SSI/SSDI. For example, a consumer on SSI/SSDI is working at an entry level position in company. If this consumer wanted to advance in their career that increases their income, they can lose their benefits. This can keep consumers stuck in an entry level position.

2. Do WIPs provide financial planning information to consumers? SRC members discussed whether the WIPs or vendors could provide financial planning information to consumers.

3. Is DOR providing benefits counseling at eligibility before a plan is written? If DOR is, does it happen in all districts?

84