STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE REHABILITATION COUNCIL

ANNUAL REPORT

2001 - 2002

Gray Davis	State of California
Governor 

Grantland Johnson			California Health and Human
Secretary 	Services Agency

Catherine Campisi, Ph.D.		Department of Rehabilitation
Director 

Jennifer Olson				State Rehabilitation Council
Chair

Melanie Hessing			State Rehabilitation Council
Executive Officer 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATE REHABILITATION COUNCIL
ANNUAL REPORT 2001-2002
	
SRC Mission Statement
DOR Mission Statement
SRC Chair’s Report	 
SRC Functions, Accomplishments and Recommendations	 
	Appendices:
1.	Membership Photograph	 
2.	Member Biographies	 
3.	SRC Committee Member List	 
4.	SRC Committee Structure	 
5.	SRC  Assignments to DOR Internal Workgroups	 
6.	Charts and Graphs
a.	 Organizational Chart	 
b.	 Number of Rehabilitations	 
c.	 Distribution of Expenditures	 
d.	   Disability Group Category	 

7.	RSA Standards and Performance Indicators

a.	RSA Standards and
	Performance Indicators Definition	 
b.	November 20, 2001-Letter from SRC to
RSA Commissioner Wilson	 
c.	October 30, 2001-Letter from DOR Director Campisi
To RSA Commissioner Wilson	 
d.	February 10, 2002-Letter to SRC from	
RSA Commissioner Wilson	 
8.	Work Incentive Grant Letter	 

         December 2002			       State Rehabilitation Council
					                            2000 Evergreen Street			
						             Sacramento, CA  95815												             (916) 263-8681 V/TTY
						             (916) 263-0386 FAX						

Enclosed is a copy of the State Rehabilitation Council’s (SRC) Program Year 2002 Annual Report.  Please contact Melanie Hessing, Executive Officer to the SRC, if you have questions or comments regarding its contents.

Thank you in advance for your interest in and support for programs that provide and promote empowerment, employment and independence for Californians with disabilities.

Melanie Hessing can be reached at the address and telephone number above, or via e-mail at src@dor.ca.gov.

Honorable Gray Davis, Governor, and   			  December 2002
RSA Commissioner Joanne M. Wilson              

It is with great pleasure that the California State Rehabilitation Council (SRC) submits its Annual Report for Federal Fiscal Year 2001/02.  In its ongoing efforts to meet its mandates, the SRC continues to work diligently to maintain what it considers an excellent working partnership with the California Department of Rehabilitation (DOR).  

Governor Davis appointed seven new members to the SRC this year, expanding the Council’s representation of California’s diverse population of persons with disabilities.  Each member serves on one of the SRC’s three working committees and one or more of several DOR internal workgroups.  As Chair of the SRC, I serve as a member of the administration’s Executive Leadership Team’s Strategic Planning Group.  Various SRC committee and DOR workgroup assignments have afforded unique opportunities for evaluation, and have also fostered great understanding as regards to the challenges faced by DOR staff and the consumers we serve.    

The SRC is dedicated to carrying out its commitment to working on behalf of all Californians with disabilities.  To that end, members attended State Plan public hearings, conducted local office visits, advanced recommendations to the DOR via Director Catherine Campisi, Ph.D., shared their expertise and experience with staff in a number of forums, and gathered and reviewed data regarding the DOR’s level of service delivery and employment outcomes.   I commend my fellow Council members on the depth of their commitment and contributions.  It is the intention of the SRC to continue working to ensure a rehabilitation service delivery system that results in meaningful employment outcomes to Californians with disabilities.
				Jennifer P. Olson, Chair

Honorable Gray Davis, Governor, and 		December 2002 
RSA Commissioner Joanne M. Wilson         
							
I am pleased to again have the opportunity to join the California State Rehabilitation Council (SRC) in presenting its Annual Report to you and other interested parties.  The Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) and the SRC have established a shared vision for creating opportunities for employment, independence and community participation for Californians with disabilities.  

This is clearly reflected in the SRC’s Mission Statement and demonstrated through its ongoing commitment to participate in the Department’s implementation and development of consumer-oriented programs and policies.

DOR benefits a great deal from the use of Consumer Satisfaction Surveys.  This evaluation system was developed as a joint initiative of the SRC and the DOR.  Pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act, the SRC carries out a number of evaluative functions using these surveys throughout the year and regularly shares its findings and recommendations with the DOR.  Further, the SRC’s participation on a number of DOR workgroups has resulted in an even broader consumer-orientation to our vocational rehabilitation service delivery system.

California has faced a number of challenges during these times of economic uncertainty and instability.  Notwithstanding these challenges, California’s DOR is dedicated to continue working in partnership with the SRC, our consumers, and other stakeholders to provide services and advocacy that result in employment, independent living, and equality for individuals with disabilities.

CATHERINE CAMPISI, Ph.D.
Director

STATE REHABILITATION COUNCIL

Mission Statement

It is the mission of the California State Rehabilitation Council, in partnership with the California Department of Rehabilitation, to assure that Californian's with disabilities are represented, informed and empowered; receive necessary, sufficient and timely individualized services; and that these services are excellent and lead to meaningful employment. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION

Mission Statement

The mission of the California Department of Rehabilitation is to work in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders to provide services and advocacy resulting in employment, independent living and equality for individuals with disabilities.

2001-2002 SRC CHAIR’S REPORT

Meetings
	
The SRC meets quarterly in the Sacramento DOR offices for two days in March, June, September and December.  Stand-alone committee meetings take place each quarter in February, May, August and November.  All meetings are open to the public and announced in accordance with California’s Bagley-Keene public meeting law.  Officers were elected, revisions to existing bylaws were adopted and outgoing SRC Chair Don Senger passed the gavel to newly-elected Chair Paul Frye.  Mr. Frye resigned soon thereafter.  Vice-Chair Jennifer Olson was elected Chair, and veteran Council member Sam Seaton was elected Vice-Chair.

Committee Structure and Activity

Using the RSA Standards and Performance Indicators as a guide, the SRC underwent an extensive committee restructuring this year.  Tasks were apportioned among the three SRC committees: Executive Planning Committee (EPC), Policy & Program Review Committee (PPRC) and Employment and Marketing Committee (EMC).  (Appendix 3.)  Under the mandates of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as amended), the SRC focuses on three key areas: coordination, evaluation and monitoring.

Coordination involves maintaining effective relations between SRC, DOR and other entities; it is the primary focus of the EPC.  Tasks include:

·	SRC strategic planning, goal setting and establishing priorities;
·	State plan review and input;
·	Facilitation of relations between DOR, state independent living centers, other state rehabilitation councils and other entities; and
·	Approval and transmission of the SRC annual report to the Governor and RSA. 

Evaluation involves examination and data collection and interpretation related to the DOR’s various functions as well as making programmatic recommendations.

SRC receives regular reports and updates at meetings from DOR experts on a wide variety of topics including:

·	Workforce Investment Act, Ticket to Work and One-Stop Centers;
·	Statewide Needs Assessment Project (SNAP);
·	Consumer Satisfaction Survey (CSS);
·	Marketing DOR and the DOR’s business/employer interface;
·	Employment outcomes;
·	Employee benefits;
·	Services to DOR consumers by other agencies; and
·	Drafting the annual report.

Monitoring involves outreach, materials development, and data analysis.  Areas of focus include:

·	Visiting District Offices and One-Stop Centers;
·	Creating employment tools and resources;
·	Training activities;
·	Membership, budget, and SRC procedures & meetings;
·	Comprehensive System of Personnel Development       (CSPD); and
·	Eligibility, order of selection, informed choice and applicant documentation

PPRC had regular briefings from DOR management related to the current activities and issues facing the DOR.  The PPRC was kept abreast of statewide budget issues, as well as those specifically facing the DOR, staffing changes, new program initiatives, and other matters affecting the DOR’s day-to-day operations.

The SRC’s Employment Outcomes Committee changed its name to Employment and Marketing Committee this year after redefining its objectives. The EMC is focused on outreach activities to employers regarding the benefits of hiring persons with disabilities.  To this end, the EMC works with the DOR’s Workforce Development Section (WDS).  EMC members have been actively involved with Employer Outreach, Assistive Technology, DOR’s internal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Management and Social Security Ticket To Work Workgroups on an ongoing basis.

The WDS formed an Employer Outreach Marketing Workgroup on which the SRC has representation through membership.  The workgroup developed a marketing program and materials with input from DOR field and Central Office staff, as well as members of the business community.  The workgroup’s members include a District Administrator, District Employment Coordinators, Rehabilitation Supervisors and Counselors, an SRC member, a representative from the business community and a representative from the California Business Leadership Network.  
 
As part of the DOR’s marketing program, the workgroup designed several marketing tools and products that can be customized to include each DOR district’s local contact information.  The WDS provided staff support to the workgroup in the development of those products.  Additional products and materials are being developed and will be released as soon they are available.

New Council Members

This year’s new appointments by the Governor brought SRC membership to 18.  New members bring a variety of valuable skills, contacts and perspectives to the group:

·	Deborah Corey is a Vocational Coordinator at the  Community Research Foundation and educational consultant.
·	Dr. Guy Deaner has 30 years of experience in the field of rehabilitation counseling and is a Professor of Rehabilitation Counseling at California State University, Sacramento.
·	Anthony Lewis is a Rehabilitation Counselor and a member of the Orientation Center for the Blind Advisory Committee.
·	Suzanne Malson is the Director of the Section 121 Native American Vocational Rehabilitation Program for the Fort Mojave Tribe in San Bernardino County.
·	Kent Mickelson serves on the Statewide Independent      Living Council and is Executive Director for the Center for Independence of the Disabled.
·	Patricia O'Sullivan is the Global Disabilities Manager at Agilent Technologies.
·	Ann Savage serves on the Workforce Investment Board and is Director of Development for the Los Angeles Conservation Corps.

To hasten assimilation, new members are trained by the SRC executive officer on technical matters and procedural protocols, and are also paired with veteran SRC members as a means to provide mentoring and ongoing training.   (Appendix 2.)

Vision

Ongoing fiscal constraints have impacted DOR and SRC alike, creating the need to continue streamlining services.  

DOR has vigorously embraced the challenge by restructuring and strengthening its partnership with the SRC while focusing on maintaining the provision of services to consumers.

The SRC will continue to explore ways to expand collaboration and provide outcomes in the most efficient manner possible.  

Next year, an SRC strategic planning session will take a look at the past and chart a course for the future.  

The SRC examined the possibility of electronic meetings in conformance with the Bagley-Keene Act and holding multi-geographic meetings as a supplement to regularly scheduled quarterly meetings, with a view to reducing travel costs.  Recently established access to DOR information through its website and other means provide SRC members with timely information.  The SRC will continue to seek time- and cost-efficient ways of fulfilling its multiple mandates.

Council members bring to the table diverse perspectives from the field.  Visiting District Offices and One-Stop Centers is an important component of member services as well as attendance at statewide and regional district administrator meetings.  A framework for visits, data collection and transmission to DOR has been established and will continue to be refined on an as-needed basis.

An opportunity for the coming year is to increase SRC participation in various DOR internal workgroups. SRC members have been assigned to key workgroups and have initiated contact with them.  Limitations on members' time and funding for travel preclude physical attendance at many workgroup meetings; SRC responded by attending meetings telephonically, and collecting agendas and meeting minutes.  Creating an effective framework for participation and effective use of this information is a goal for the coming year.

SRC FUNCTIONS, 
ACCOMPLISHMENTS 
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conformance to the Act
	
State Rehabilitation Council Staffing

The SRC has two full-time staff as part of the DOR.  The staff is composed of an Executive Officer to the Council and an office technician, both of whom are civil service employees.  Organizationally, the SRC’s Executive Officer is part of the DOR Executive Office.  (Appendix 6c.)  Subject-knowledgeable staff from throughout the DOR works on the SRC’s mandated and self-selected projects.  There is in fact a number of DOR staff supporting the SRC as it carries out its functions and priorities, in addition to the two full-time staff assigned to support it.

The DOR Director is a non-voting member of the SRC and regularly attends SRC and EPC meetings.  Additionally, the DOR provides staff support at the Assistant Deputy Director level to the PPRC and EMC.

The DOR's Research, Evaluation, Planning, and Statistics (REPS) Section contributes significant and excellent staff resources several of the SRC’s projects.  This section provides the expertise and other resources for the State Plan, CSS, comprehensive SNAP, CSPD, and a myriad of statistical reports for use in evaluations.  One research analyst from this section serves as a non-voting member of the EPC. The SRC is briefed regularly by staff, and receives special briefing on request.  This partnership allows the SRC to meet its many and broad mandated activities and to work on projects that serve to enhance employment opportunities for Californians with disabilities. 

Since passage of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), the SRC and the DOR have worked diligently to achieve partnered involvement in all areas of responsibility.

(WIA, Title IV of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, Section 105 (c).)  In large part, the SRC achieves its mandated functions and priorities through the efforts of its three working committees, the Executive/Planning Committee, the Policy and Program Review Committee and the Employment Outcomes Committee.  (Appendix 3.)

Consumer Satisfaction Surveys

The SRC has been involved in the CSS Project since inception.  The SRC was intimately involved in the development, distribution and outcome data provided by the survey.  The DOR has kept the SRC informed and updated as to each new phase of the surveys. The SRC provided invaluable input on the type of questions to ask, the method of survey distribution, and the consumer samples to be surveyed. 

The SRC believes that the development, distribution and analysis of the data have been carried out in a professional and timely manner. As the results of the consumer’s responses have been compiled, the SRC has been deeply involved in analysis, questioning and commenting on these responses. 

The CSS Project has been conducted in three phases:

Phase I is a general short-form survey with self-selected respondents (surveys are available in all DOR offices).  This phase is ongoing, with reports published on a quarterly basis.

Phase II is a statewide scientific sample of consumers on targeted issues, such as their levels of satisfaction with regard to how they were treated by DOR staff, the DOR’s policies and procedures, employment outcomes and the quality of services provided by the DOR.

Phase III is a statewide scientific sample narrowly focused on job placement services and the population that benefited from the DOR’s services in terms of an employment outcome.

In summary, the SRC has been very involved from the inception of the CSS. The SRC is pleased with the process and feels the results will continue to provide excellent data as a management tool to help 
the DOR design its services to be even more responsive to consumer needs.  CSS reports are available on request by calling (800) 963-1478.

Client Assistance Program Reports and Rehabilitation Appeals Board Decisions

One of the SRC’s PPRC members represents the Client Assistance Program (CAP).  In conjunction with the CSS, CAP reports provide valuable insight into consumer issues and concerns. 
 
SRC members review copies of the CAP’s Annual Report to RSA, which, among other things, examines consumer satisfaction, types of services provided, and areas of concern to DOR consumers. 

Combined with information gleaned from abstracted decisions of Rehabilitation Appeals Board (RAB) cases and employment outcome information, the SRC is afforded a comprehensive picture of DOR services as seen through the eyes of its consumers.  SRC members use these tools to supplement the CSS to garner insight into DOR performance.

The SRC reviews RAB abstracts on a quarterly basis and continues to find that the Board’s decisions largely indicate that the DOR acts in accordance with applicable law in its service delivery practices.  

Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD)

As mandated by Federal regulation, all vocational rehabilitation agencies are required to develop a Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD). 

The DOR developed its CSPD in order to obtain and maintain a sufficient number of “qualified rehabilitation professionals” to service the State’s consumers. 

The DOR has:

·	developed an assessment and training system that ensures that counselors have, or will receive, the training required to be successful;

·	developed a state educational standard (baccalaureate degree), followed by DOR encouragement that staff to obtain their Master’s Degree and earn CRC credits to assist with meeting the Federal mandate; 

·	developed classification specifications that mirror the State’s standard; and 

·	estimated the number of anticipated consumers and the number of vocational rehabilitation professionals needed to serve the anticipated consumers.

In March 2001, the DOR revised the classification specification that governs the Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor series to provide a financial incentive for staff to enhance their education and training.  

This classification combined three classes (Vocational Rehabilitation Trainee [VRT], Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor [VRC], and Senior Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor [SVRC]) into one class with five separate salary ranges (Alternate Range Criteria [ARC]).  New employees with higher education levels (i.e., Master’s Degree or CRC credits) are placed into higher pay ranges and existing employees may move to higher salary ranges as they achieve commensurate education, training and experience.   

To date, the DOR’s Staff Development Section has conducted 457 core counselor courses to 8,772 SVRCs in order to provide the required training to SVRCs under the ARC.  Approximately 539 ARC requests have been received, representing 67.6% of the 797 SVRCs currently employed. 

Of the 539 range changes received, 513  (95.2%) range changes have been approved, 22 are in the review process and four (4) were deemed ineligible.

Comprehensive Statewide Needs Assessment Project (SNAP)

The Comprehensive Statewide Needs Assessment Project (SNAP) for Vocational Rehabilitation is a triennial requirement. 

The requirement is set out in the Rehabilitation Act at Section 101 (a)(15)(A). This, as is the Consumer Satisfaction Project, is a joint project of the SRC and the DOR.  In 2001-2002, the DOR completed its Comprehensive Statewide Needs Assessment in six of its 17 districts. The staff of the Interwork Institute at San Diego State University (SDSU) conducted the assessment under a contract with the DOR. (The Interwork Institute is California's Regional Continuing Education Program (RCEP).)

The six districts completing the assessment were: Greater Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange/San Gabriel, San Jose, Santa Rosa, and Santa Barbara. These districts are representative of the geographic, ethnic and socioeconomic diversity in California. 
 
The assessment consisted of telephone survey of existing DOR consumers and was conducted by the professional staff of the Social Science Research Laboratory at SDSU. The survey consisted of thirty-eight questions that included housing, transportation, self-care, mobility, communication, interpersonal relationships, self-direction, employment, legal and financial assistance, and ended with a series of demographic questions.

The telephone survey yielded a vast body of information, and to insure the widest possible coverage, Spanish-speaking interviewers were hired and special telephones were installed for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. Surveys were also sent to community partners and employers in each of the districts’ catchment areas. The community partners provided information on the populations they serve, which are not typically served by the DOR, which groups are often referred to as unserved and underserved populations.  The employer surveys yielded information on perspectives of hiring individuals with disabilities and what would encourage the hiring of individuals with disabilities or increasing the number of hires.
 
The final component of the assessment was conducting a number of focus groups in the districts. Focus groups were composed of the same populations as those surveyed. The groups were very instrumental in confirming survey data and in explaining some of the data. 

The DOR continues working to extrapolate the data from the six districts and the two pilot districts into a statewide analysis. The SRC and the DOR will develop the protocols for the next triennial assessment. The Chief of DOR's REPS Section will provide information or copies of the final report.

Level of Severity of Disability (LSOD)

Since its introduction on July 1, the revised LSOD rating instrument has had significant and positive impact reducing the amount of staff time required to perform LSOD determinations.  It has resulted in up to a 75% reduction of staff time for determination completion.

The former LSOD instrument automatically defaulted all SSI/SSDI consumers to the Significantly Disabled category (Category 2). While this default process afforded time savings for Rehabilitation Counselors, it did not allow DOR to reliably assess and monitor the number of consumers who are in the Most Significantly Disabled category (Category 1).  Additionally, as a result of the former default process, some consumers participating in VR/Supported Employment Program (SEP) and VR/Work Activity Program (WAP) were not correctly rated into Category 1.  
 
Effective July 1 that automatic default function is no longer in use, regardless of their SSI/SSDI status, and LSOD scores are no longer automatically rated.

Order of Selection

The majority of consumers found eligible for DOR services have received LSOD ratings in Categories 1 & 2.  DOR has fewer consumers on the waiting list this year in Category 3 (approximately 3,000).  Category 3 consumers receive referral information and some are going to local One-Stop Centers for employment services.

Regulatory and Policy Directive Review

SRC members participate in the DOR’s policy directive and regulatory review processes.  All instructions regarding program changes are communicated directly to DOR staff through electronically distributed directives.

These directives are developed in workgroups and/or by subject-knowledgeable personnel.  Prior to distribution, policy directives are reviewed by members of the DOR Executive Leadership Team (ELT), the DOR Legal Affairs Section, and one member from each of the SRC’s working committees.

The SRC can halt distribution of any proposed directive if it believes that any portion of it would be inconsistent with or not lead to achievement of DOR goals or if concerns arise that need be addressed.  To date, the SRC has not held up distribution of any DOR directive.  Part of the success of this review process is the early involvement of the SRC in workgroups and staff briefings.  A similar process is in place for proposed regulatory changes, but that process allows each SRC member to review and comment on the regulations.

Among the most significant approved directives issued during the preceding program year is Rehabilitation Directive 2001.015 on informed choice. This directive supports the intent of the 1998 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act that gave individuals with disabilities active participation in their vocational rehabilitation program. Described as “the foundation for the partnership between the client and the counselor,” informed choice specifically directs DOR staff to recognize that persons with disabilities have the right to make appropriate choices regarding their lives.  This year, field supervisors report that counselors have a better understanding of the informed choice doctrine vis a vis career exploration and planning.

 Ticket to Work

The Ticket to Work Initiative is scheduled to roll out in California the summer of 2003.  Since California is in the third group of states to launch the program, the SRC’s EMC has had the advantage of learning from, and obtaining information from, other states to ensure that California’s process runs as efficiently and effectively as 
possible.  The ticket program is voluntary and beneficiaries receiving tickets will have the option of contacting one or more community-based employment networks or the DOR to discuss employment-outcome related services.  

During the summer of 2002, one-page surveys were sent to 688 organizations that will potentially serve as employment networks under the Ticket to Work Program.  The purpose of the survey was to assist the Ticket to Work Workgroup in discovering what resources and options would be available to recipients of Social Security Disability Insurance and/or Supplement Security Income when the ticket program commences in California.  To educate the community, the Ticket to Work Workgroup is creating a “train the trainer” program to share with DOR staff and community partner organizations for education purposes.

Strategic Planning

The WIA also directs the SRC to work with the DOR in the development of goals and priorities through its strategic planning process.  The Chair of the SRC is an active participant with the DOR in identifying those goals and priorities.  The SRC is confident that the involvement of its Chair in critical planning activities assures SRC/DOR partnership and consensus with the goals and priorities established, resulting in mutual support of those goals and priorities in the communities represented by the SRC members.

Vocational Rehabilitation Program Effectiveness

The DOR identifies three major areas in its mission, which are employment, independence and equality.  The SRC supports these areas fully.  It is easy to measure program effectiveness based on employment outcomes. The SRC is also interested in developing measures for independence and equality for individuals with disabilities.  The SRC continues working with the DOR Director on innovative ways to measure program effectiveness in these areas.  The DOR is making all RSA mandated reports available to the SRC, another example of the positive partnership that has been developed between the SRC and the DOR.

The SRC makes timely recommendations to the DOR on programs that are carried out under the WIA.  Achieving this has required greater levels of involvement of SRC members in staff activities of the DOR and conversely greater involvement of DOR staff at the regular and special meetings of the SRC.  

State Plan

The DOR has involved the SRC in its State Plan process for a number of years.  SRC presence at public comment forums lends well to participation with the community and the DOR in development of the final State Plan.  This participation has a two-fold effect: the mandate to participate in the development of the State Plan is met and the SRC gains insight into the needs of the disability community.

Two public meetings, one in the north state and one in the south, support the State Plan for VR Services and Supported Employment Services. The DOR administrative staff, the local District Administrator(s), and members of the SRC conduct these meetings.  Invitations are mailed to the local community partners and posted in the local DOR offices.  

How these meetings are conducted is yet another example of the ways the DOR and SRC are partnering.  The SRC opted to discontinue using their State Plan Attachment to make recommendations to the DOR because communications between it and the SRC have become immediate and direct. 

Fewer comments were received from the public during this year’s meetings.  It is possible that the reduction of comments is a result of the CSS and fiscal forecasting.  Problematic and otherwise challenging situations are becoming more quickly addressed at the local level as a result of CSS, and the accuracy rate of the DOR’s fiscal forecasting has facilitated positive management of the Order of Selection for Vocational Rehabilitation Services Policy.  

Office Visits

Recognizing that SRC members have widely varying degrees of familiarity with the DOR and the vocational rehabilitation service delivery program, various activities are undertaken to enhance members’ knowledge and understanding.  

Local DOR office visits by SRC members are not intended to serve as monitoring, evaluative or trouble-shooting missions.  Rather, they serve to increase the SRC members’ understanding of the 
rehabilitation counseling process, including local service-delivery levels, district awareness of and involvement with SRC and state-level activities and increase SRC awareness of local issues and activities.  This activity led the SRC to advance recommendations to the DOR.  Office visits have also served to facilitate development of a relationship between SRC members and District staff.

PROGRAM YEAR 2001-2002 RECOMMENDATIONS TO
THE DOR BY THE STATE REHABILITATION COUNCIL

In accordance with its evaluative, monitoring, and partnership mandates, the SRC has advanced several recommendations to the DOR.  

Segment 1 of this section consists of the DOR’s responses to recommendations forwarded by the SRC during PY 2000-2001 that were adopted and implemented by the DOR during PY 2001-2002.
Segment 2 consists of recommendations advanced to the DOR by the SRC in PY 2001-2002.

SEGMENT ONE
Recommendation 1 

DOR staff will continue to coordinate with SRC staff and members on all internal workgroup issues.  SRC members are encouraged and invited to attend workgroup meetings as their time permits.  

Notices and applications to external advisory panels and councils will be forwarded to SRC staff and passed on to members.  SRC staff will have contact information as appropriate for external councils.  Council or DOR staff as appropriate may provide periodic reports.

Recommendation 2

The DOR will work with the SRC to facilitate coordination with the external workgroups so the SRC will be apprised of what issues are being addressed and the positions taken on common concerns.
 
Recommendation 3

To avoid duplication of effort, the DOR will prepare regular DOR workgroup reports or minutes for the SRC.

Recommendation 4

The DOR plans to continue the Consumer Satisfaction Phase I project.  The DOR is developing plans for the creation of a new marketing poster. The Phase 1 quarterly report continues to print excerpts from the monthly reports submitted by district administrators summarizing the actions taken as a result of reviewing the comments by the consumers.  

Recommendation 5

The Phase II CSS report is now complete, and copies have been distributed.  The DOR encourages the use of Phase II findings in the formulation of plans to improve service delivery.

Recommendation 6

DOR will continue to pursue open and timely communication with the disabled community, both formally and informally, as resources allow.

Recommendation 7

DOR will continue to expand both content and usability of its public website as resources allow. The goal of the revised content of the page that was launched in September 2001 was to provide enough information to answer the basic questions about DOR and provide contact information so the visitor can either call or email the section with their individual questions. 

In the time since the SRC’s recommendations were generated, some of the requests have been addressed and/or implemented on the website.  They are as follows:

•	Public comments regarding regulations and annual State Plan: There are sections in both “About DOR” and “FYI” that provide detailed information on regulations and the State Plan with methods for submitting comments.
•	
•	Feedback from consumers and advisory groups: There is a contact page that lists all divisions of the department with email links and phone/TTY numbers.  
•	 
•	The email links are included in the appropriate section/division descriptions.
•	
•	Information on the SRC: The web page now includes a description of the SRC and its purpose and may be updated by the SRC per Rehabilitation Administrative Manual Section 24.
•	
•	Links page to job sites: The Workforce Development section is looking at expanding their presence on the web with more links to job sites. 
•	
•	    Upcoming Web Site Elements
•	
•	A useful resources links page to include appropriate links to partners will be up by April 2002.
•	
•	Continued refinement of the DOR web site, including upgrade of accessibility features.

Recommendation 8

The DOR is continuing the SNAP and, as stated above, the SRC is actively involved in the process of revising the assessment methodology vis a vis fiscal resource constraints.

Orange/San Gabriel Districts.  Three additional districts are scheduled for assessment later in the FY.  These districts are San Jose, San Bernardino and Santa Barbara.  Six districts will be assessed during FY 2002-03, and five will be assessed during FY 2003-04.  

The SRC is actively participating with the DOR in efforts to review and revise the assessment methodology vis a vis current fiscal constraints.

Recommendation 9

The Employment Placement Services (EPS) Division will work with the REPS Section to create a recording and monitoring method for consumer satisfaction performance within each district to include setting benchmarks for annual improvement in consumer satisfaction. 

Recommendation 10

The DOR continues to make improvements in processes; however, DOR has realized the importance of communication and cooperation     on these efforts as it crosses through many organizational units. 
 
To ensure focus on the many department reengineering efforts occurring, DOR requested assistance in the oversight of the implementation of the procurement reengineering recommendations.  Many tasks need to be completed by various units for the successful implementation of the reengineering recommendations.  Oversight and monitoring are critical since the work of one unit may influence the work of another.  A coordinated implementation plan will be developed, communicated, and monitored to ensure that progress on DOR’s procurement reengineering efforts are reported to the SRC and DOR’s management. 

Recommendation 11

The DOR currently offers the training, "Strategies for Successful Employment Outcomes" as a core counselor course.  This class is part of the DOR’s effort to assist counselors with achieving alternate range "E".  It is, therefore, already a highly recommended course.

Recommendation 12

The DOR intends to comply with the SRC recommendation to develop a different format and use different language in discussing District Action Strategies in the Phase 1 report. 

The DOR will continue to monitor, on a quarterly basis, the number of completed Phase 1 questionnaires received in each district.  DOR will provide districts with an analysis of this information so districts can proactively monitor their progress towards achieving their strategic plan goal of maximizing consumer satisfaction.

DOR districts are now responding locally in a proactive manner to cited negative comments on the CSS. All districts submit a monthly report on the CSS and indicate in the report the number of surveys received, number of positive and negative comments, and actions being taken within the district to address negative comments. Chico and Santa Rosa's response to the CSS and the actions taken have been shared as "best practices" with the District Administrators.   

Recommendation 13
 
The SRC recommendations are consistent with current Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) development practices. DOR agrees, however, that greater emphasis on labor market data and potential-earning levels should occur as part of the informed choice process.  Utilization of an “employment focused” approach from the beginning of the rehabilitation process would place greater attention on labor market data. DOR counselors and supervisors are familiar with the need to address labor market information with consumers as part of the IPE and career planning process. 

As part of the informed choice process, the need to provide consumers with current local, state, and national labor market data is critical to the development of a strong IPE. To ensure that all counseling staff and consumers are familiar with, and have access to, current labor market information, the following resources have been, or are being made available:

•	Eureka: Counselors may use this tool to work with consumers as the IPE is developed.  This is a career exploration and development tool incorporating labor market information.
•	
•	Job Club Coordinators and Job Developers/Consultants: As part of an “employment focused” approach, counselors can utilize the services of the labor market specialist, such as Job Club 
•	
•	Coordinators and Job Developers, at any time in the rehabilitation process.  Counselors have been encouraged to include Job Club Coordinators and Job Developers as consultants to work with the counselor and consumer during the IPE/career planning phase of the rehabilitation process.  Potential earnings are an important part of this planning process. Both DOR staff and community service providers skilled in the area of employment services provide these services.
•	
•	The California Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (COICC): The COICC, of which the DOR is a member, provides up-to-date national, state and local labor market and career planning information. Information has been provided to the districts on CD-ROM that includes a 200-career video with local and statewide labor market and training information. New career information is added to this package annually.              
•	
•	Employment Development Department (EDD) Labor Market Information Division: DOR is working closely with this division of EDD and is in the process of developing an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will allow the DOR access to their 800,000 employer files statewide.  This data will be helpful in the career planning and job placement phase of the rehabilitation process. The employer information includes wages, occupations by Standard of Industry Codes (SIC), numbers of employees per business, etc.  This data can be sorted by zip codes, occupational groups, etc, and will be a valuable tool in our planning and placement efforts.
•	
•	Occupational Outlook Report and Training Directory: Occupational outlook/labor market guides are developed in 32 regions of California on an annual basis.  The directories provide a wealth of data on regional high demand occupations, with details on earnings, training needs, and hiring trends.  This information is available locally for counselor and consumer use.
•	
•	One-Stop Career Centers: The One-Stop Career Centers, in which DOR counselors are co-located, are another resource for labor market and career planning data.  

•	Internet: The Local Area Network/Wide Area Network (LAN/WAN) system provides staff with full access to the Internet for labor market and wage data.

We agree with the recommendation of the SRC regarding the need to utilize current labor market data for IPE development and will continue to provide counselors and consumers with resources and assistance in this area as part of the career planning and IPE development process. 

Disability Related Expenses

It was also noted by the SRC the need to address disability related expenses as part of the IPE planning process.  The DOR agreed that this is critical to development of a strong IPE and successful employment outcomes.  The counselors work with consumers to identify disability related expenses.  Planning for such expenses is part of the IPE planning process and is one of the barriers to employment that must be addressed up front if a successful employment outcome is to be achieved.  Training on this issue is included in the Staff Development Counselor training series.   In addition to disability related expenditures there is a need to address “benefits” planning.  This is particularly necessary for consumers who are receiving benefits such as SSI, SSDI, supported housing benefits, In-Home Support Services, Medicare, Medi-Cal, etc.  

DOR Staff Development provides training to counselors on Work Incentives and Benefits Planning for SSA recipients. The need for training in this complex area is ongoing.  An online “benefits coordination” training program is in the development phase.  This online product is being developed through a grant awarded to the World Institute on Disability. Once available this will be a valuable tool for the counselor and consumer.

SEGMENT TWO

Recommendation 1

Following review of data contained in the Third Quarter 2001 CSS, the SRC informed the DOR that it was especially pleased to see the overall continued high rate of consumer satisfaction with DOR’s services.

The SRC also informed the DOR that on clear examination of consumer response figures by district, one district in particular had a very high range of negative responses for all of the questions in the survey.

Notwithstanding the fact that a minimal numbers of questionnaires were received by that district, the SRC continues to have concerns and remains uncertain whether the declining level of positive response is simply due to the low response rate (one-half) - which in itself appears to be a problem area-or whether consumers are quite dissatisfied with the services provided by the district in question.

This has been an area of concern for the SRC and was articulated to the DOR in PY 2000-2001 recommendation.  The SRC recommended that the DOR perform an investigation to determine the precise reasons for the continued decline in positive responses from consumers of this district and implement appropriate remedial actions to reverse that decline.

The DOR agreed with this recommendation and has presented its remediation plan to the PPRC.

Recommendation 2

At an SRC quarterly meeting, the DOR’s Assistant Director for Collaborative Services and a District Administrator provided a presentation and led a discussion regarding a myriad of issues associated with service provision to persons with disabilities at the One-Stop Centers.

The SRC had the opportunity to hear from two SVRCs about their experiences working in the One-Stop Centers, one of who works at a One-Stop Center for a few hours each week, and the other who is co-located at a local One-Stop Center.  Each shared candidly their positive insights as well as areas of mutual concern.  Among their concerns is that they do not have access to the virtual desktop and/or certain FCS programs or voicemail.

The Council understands the fiscal restraints under which the DOR is operating at this time, and also is aware that there are restrictions with regard to how the DOR is allowed to use its resources within the One-Stop Center environment. 

Bearing those considerations in mind, the SRC recommended that the DOR consider whether there may be a way to provide funding, personnel and administrative support to the one-stops in such a way as to remove some of the existing communication barriers faced by DOR counselors. 

The SRC heard how co-location in the One-Stop Centers engenders a partnership among all those working there that is not possible for counselors who drop in at center for a few hours per week.  Notwithstanding the DOR’s program and fiscal constraints and limitations, the SRC would greatly appreciate it if the DOR executive leadership discussing this and other matters of concern with appropriate DOR staff members.  The SRC is willing to participate in any way it can to assist the DOR in determining whether there is a means by which some of the aforementioned supports may be provided to the field, as demonstrated by its active involvement on the DOR’s WIA Management Workgroup.

Recommendation 3

The SRC wrote to DOR Director Campisi following its December 2001 quarterly meeting regarding the Rehabilitation Services Administration’s (RSA’s) Performance Standards and Indicators (Appendix 7a.).  The purpose of the letter was to inform the DOR of the SRC’s support of DOR’s internal Continuous Improvement Work Group (CIWG) recommendations that were presented to the SRC at the end of December 2001.  

Director Campisi responded as follows:

a.	CIWG strongly encourages the DOR to focus upon indicators 1.1, 1.2, and 1.5.

 DOR agrees with the SRC and is placing special attention to these three indicators.  On a quarterly basis, District Administrators and supervisors are provided with a Federal Fiscal Year to Date summary of DOR’s progress towards meeting the RSA standards and indicators. Increasing the quantity and quality of employment outcomes is one of the major goals of this administration. Indicator 1.1 requires a gross increase in the quantity of successful employment outcomes annually.  Districts are making every effort to continually increase the quantity of employment outcomes.  Indicators 1.3 and 1.5 focus on the quality of employment outcomes.  Here also, DOR is making a significant and concerted effort to improve. Recent and pending increases in California’s minimum wage are making it more difficult for DOR to pass indicator 1.3.  As part of their strategic plans, districts have identified strategies to increase the percentage of competitive employment outcomes, including consumers who are working in a group setting, earning less than minimum wage.  DOR continues to focus on providing consumers with education and training services that will lead to long-term employment in skilled positions with benefits.  As a result of these efforts, DOR is very close to achieving indicator 1.5.  

b.	CIWG encourages DOR to effect a major outreach to Disabled Student Services Programs at colleges and universities.

DOR agrees with this recommendation.  One of the main components of each districts’ strategic plan is outreach to underserved/unserved populations.  DOR is also taking action to implement the KPMG procurement re-engineering recommendations and to streamline our service delivery processes so that we are more attractive to these collegiate populations.  The Cooperative Education Programs Unit is working closely with the district contract administrators to incorporate these outreach strategies in Workability III and Workability IV agreements.

CIWG recommends the centralized re-introduction of Status 899 with a clear tape-to-tape run between the Department of Rehabilitation and the Employment Development Department.

DOR disagrees with the recommendation to restore Status 899.  However, we do agree to improve the communication between DOR and EDD.  Under Status 899, consumers were not listed on the SVRC’s caseload, but rather were listed on a statewide caseload.  

Because the Status 899 caseload was statewide, it required a great deal of staff effort at Central Office to maintain.  Consumers listed on the 899 caseload were ignored and many remained on the list for years.  As a result, Status 899 was eliminated and the cases reverted back to the SVRC of record.  The SVRC is responsible for tracking consumers who have lost contact but may be working.  A mechanism is currently in place that enables SVRCs to obtain EDD earnings information for these consumers through the Centralized Services Section in Central Office.  Lana Fraser, Assistant Deputy Director of Workforce Development is working with representatives from EDD to streamline the sharing of EDD wage data.  While it appears that EDD will not allow a clear tape-to-tape run between DOR and EDD, we believe that streamlining the current data sharing methods will satisfactorily meet this recommendation. 

c.	CIWG recommends the statistical return of Status 12 (Status 12 indicates the vocational plan has been developed but not yet implemented).

DOR agrees that cases closed from plan status prior to services being initiated should not be counted as Status 28 closures.  The Field Computer System (FCS) does not recognize Status 12 cases.  Centralized Services Section and Information Systems Services Section (ISS) performed an analysis and determined that FCS could not be changed to recognize Status 12 without major disruption.  As part of the recently enacted RSA 911 reporting changes, ISS created a program that reviews all Status 28 closures and identifies cases in which no services were provided.  These cases are then appropriately re-coded as Status 30 closures and are reported to RSA. 

The annual closure statistics and performance indicator data are adjusted to reflect the reduction in Status 28 closures.  This enables DOR to satisfy this recommendation.

e. CIWG recommends review and discussions at the district management team level of potential 28 closures.

DOR agrees with this recommendation.  In February 2002, DOR began providing detailed Targeted Management Information Statistical (TMIS) reports to District Administrators, supervisors and Senior Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors (SRVCs). These reports identify potential 28 closures and afford SVRCs an opportunity to discuss these cases with their supervisor and make every effort to avoid a 28 closure.
 
f.	 CIWG encourages DOR to have ongoing conversations with RSA regarding indicator 1.5.

DOR agrees with this recommendation.  The REPS Section analyzed the impact of indicator 1.5.  DOR has expressed our concerns with the RSA Regional Office in San Francisco.  DOR will also submit suggested revisions to RSA as part of the public comment process on the 2003 re-authorization of the Rehabilitation Act. 

Recommendation 4

The SRC forwarded a recommendation regarding the federal Standards and Performance Indicators to RSA Commissioner Joanne Wilson in a November 20, 2001 letter (Appendix 7b.) That letter followed DOR Director Campisi’s letter of October 30, 2001 to the Commissioner on the same subject (Appendix 7c).

The SRC informed Commissioner Wilson of its involvement and interest in a variety of activities and discussions on this topic, independently and with the Department.  The Council also expressed its strong support for Director Campisi’s suggestions regarding the Evaluation Standards and Performance Indicators specified in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.

The Council shared with Commissioner Wilson its opinion that the DOR’s suggestions, as set forth in Director Campisi’s letter, were well-articulated and most worthy of consideration, especially in light of the unique circumstances and challenges faced by California as a result of our diverse employment and economic landscapes.  The SRC went on to state that these become especially critical factors during times of economic uncertainty.  

The SRC echoed Director’s Campisi’s suggestions for modifications to Performance Indicators 1.1 and 1.5, and recommended that Performance Indicator 1.3 be calculated with the federal, rather than the California state minimum wage for federal fiscal year 2000-2001.  

Commissioner Wilson responded to the SRC in the same manner she did the DOR, stating that she would like the performances to continue in place for a while longer before determining whether to implement changes to the Performance Indicators.  (Appendix 7d.)

 Recommendation 5

The SRC voted unanimously to join the DOR in its support of Assembly Bill 3035, legislation that directs state and local multi-member bodies to provide meeting notices, agendas and materials distributed at public meetings in alternative formats on request.

Recommendation 6

The DOR published a brochure entitled GUIDE TO SERVICES, which is available in all DOR field offices to applicants and consumers of DOR services.

The SRC recommended to the DOR that it place its GUIDE TO SERVICES in all local One-Stop Centers, and the DOR has agreed to do so.

Recommendation 7

The SRC supported a DOR application for a Workforce Investment Act (WIA) grant this year.  

The DOR was awarded this nearly-one million dollar grant, which is comprised of three parts: (1) training in the new Workforce Accommodation Specialist Program. This program provides university level certificate training to 28 students (preference will be given to DOR consumers) in a distance-learning mode; (2) development of an online benefits planning program. The RFPs were released for this component on July 15, 2002; and (3) discretionary funds will be awarded for auxiliary aids in the one-stops.  

SRC MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES
```````
Deborah Corey is the Vocational Coordinator at the Community Research Foundation.  She has lectured at CSU Fullerton, and Long Beach City College.  Ms. Corey served on a curriculum development committee for a disabilities study and as an educational consultant for the San Diego Regional Center, where she provided assistance and guidance for adults and teens with developmental disabilities and mental illness. 

Guy Deaner has 30 years experience in the field of rehabilitation counseling.  He is a professor of Rehabilitation Counseling at CSU Sacramento, where he coordinates the Center for Counseling and Diagnostic Services.  Dr. Deaner is a member of the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association and the National Rehabilitation Association. He earned his Ph.D. at the University of Arizona.
 
Lori Hartwell operates her own company, Hartwell Communications, and founded the Renal Support Network, a non-profit organization, in 1993.  She has lived with renal disease for 30 years.  Ms. Hartwell underwent dialysis for 12 years; her third kidney transplant took place in 1990.  She consistently strives to eliminate low expectations of people who have a chronic illness.

Gil Johnson is Director of National Employment Programs for the American Federation for the Blind.  His previous positions include Deputy Director for the State of Illinois Bureau of Blind Services, Director of Programs of San Francisco’s Lighthouse for the Blind, and Rehabilitation Supervisor and Counselor for the California Department of Rehabilitation.

Anthony Lewis is a Rehabilitation Counselor for the California Department of Rehabilitation. Mr. Lewis is a member of the Orientation Center for the Blind Advisory Committee National Federation of the Blind. He served on the Alameda Mayor’s Committee for the Disabled to 2000. Mr. Lewis is a former counselor at the California School for the Blind.

Patricia Longo is former Vice-Chair to the SRC.  She is an active member and former national spokesperson of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).  Mrs. Longo is a family member of persons with disabilities, who has also served in a variety of state and local appointed and elected positions.
 
Suzanne Malson is the Director of the Section 121 Native American Vocational Rehabilitation Program for the Fort Mojave Tribe. She previously served as an Employment Specialist at CSU Sacramento      where she worked with people with disabilities transitioning into the workforce. Ms. Malson served in the Peace Corps and is a recipient of the Lynn Reyer Award for Tribal Community.

Kent Mickelson has several years of experience as executive director for non-profit organizations, and currently is the Executive Director for the Center for Independence of the Disabled. He is the former Executive Director for the Modesto Independent Living Center and the Delano Senior Citizens Services. Mr. Mickelson also served as Director of Disabled Services Sacramento Project.  

Jennifer Olson is Chair of the SRC, and a deaf attorney.  She is also Special Projects Administrator and one of four leadership team members at the National Center on Deafness at CSU Northridge.  Her division is composed of five federal grant projects, the focus of which includes employment, outreach and training for institutions serving deaf and hard of hearing people. 

Patricia O’Sullivan makes accessibility and accommodations for Agilent Technology’s 39,000 employees worldwide. She is a member of the Governor’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities and the California Business Leadership Network Ms. O’Sullivan has also participated in a number of student mentoring programs.  

D. Joseph Pak, MBA, is the External Affairs Director of SBC Pacific Bell.  He is a seasoned telecommunications veteran with over 23 years in a variety of positions with the company.  Mr. Pak worked in the business office, sales, computer operations, marketing, and service management prior to assuming his current position.  He refers to himself as a proud Californian who is also a former Department of Rehabilitation client.

Elizabeth (Ann) Savage is the Director of Development for the Los Angeles Conservation Corps, which serves more than 6,000 children, youths and teens. She is also a member of the State Workforce Investment Board.  Ms. Savage formerly served as the LACC’s Director of Grants and the Public Counsel Law Center She was Team Leader for the City Volunteer Corps in New York from 1986 to 1988.   

Sam Seaton is Vice Chair of the SRC, and Vice President of Rehabilitation Services for PRIDE Industries, a non-profit organization creating jobs for people with disabilities. PRIDE provides value added outsourcing solutions in a number of local and governmental service industries.  Mr. Seaton previously held positions as Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor and Director of Rehabilitation at PRIDE.

Don Senger is the former SRC Chair. A retired Wells Fargo Bank officer, he has been an advocate on behalf of persons who are deaf and hard of hearing. He is a member of Self Help for Hard of Hearing People (SHHH), and is a past president. Mr. Senger co-chairs Californians for Television Access, and has represented and advocated for these groups before the FCC, PUC and other governmental entities.

Robert Sifuentes is the Legislative and Monitoring Specialist for the State Council on Developmental Disabilities.  Previously, he worked as the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer at the California Energy Commission.  Mr. Sifuentes is a member of the Disabled in State Service and served as its president for two terms.  Mr. Sifuentes is widely known as a leader in the disability rights community.

Robert Snowden, Ph.D., has been a special education consultant for the California Department of Education for 11 years. He was a Workability I Coordinator for the DOE and participated in a number of research projects.  Dr. Snowden previously worked as a vocational coordinator and special education teacher for the Fremont Union High School District.  He earned his masters degree from CSU San Jose and his doctorate of philosophy in education from USF.

Anthony Tusler is a disability issues writer, consultant, trainer, and advocate.  He was the founding director of the Disability Resource Center at Sonoma State University, helped to found the Institute on Alcohol, Drugs, and Disability, and co-founded of a local independent living center.  He has served on numerous national boards and advisory committees for federal agencies and national groups.

Kimberly Wilder is Manager of Advocacy and Education Services at the Community Access Center for Independent Living, and managed its Client Assistance Program for three years.  Previously, as Special Programs Manager, she developed the Employment Seeking Skills Program for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.  She has served on a variety of local advisory boards, including the Access Committee to the Local Workforce Investment Board and the General Plan Advisory Council to Riverside County.

 STATE REHABILITATION COUNCIL
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 2002

Executive/Planning Committee (E/PC)	
Jennifer P. Olson, Chair			
Sam Seaton, Vice Chair						
Don Senger, Immediate Past Chair, SRC
Anthony Tusler, Chair, P&PR Committee
Lori Hartwell, Chair, EOC Committee
Patricia Longo, Immediate Past Vice Chair, SRC
 
Melanie Hessing, SRC Executive Officer and
Eva Collier, Research Analyst (Staff Liaisons)

Employment & Marketing Committee (E&MC)
Lori Hartwell, Chair
Robert Snowden, Co-Chair
Gil Johnson
D. Joseph Pak
Ann Savage
Sam Seaton
Deborah Corey
Patricia O’Sullivan
Kent Mickelson

Lana Fraser, Asst. Deputy Director, Workforce Dev. (Staff Liaison)

Policy and Program Review Committee (P&PRC)
Anthony Tusler, Chair
Patricia Longo
Don Senger
Robert Sifuentes
Suzanne Malson
Anthony Lewis
Guy Deaner

Beverly Netters, Chief, Human Resources (Staff Liaison)

SRC COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

PPRC (Policy & Program Review Committee)
EPC (Executive Planning Committee)
EMC (Employment and Marketing Committee)

Coordination			Evaluation    			Monitoring	
(EPC) Strategic			P&PRC) Draft annual	     	(P&PRC) Comprehensive Planning/ Goals 		         Report to the Governor,	system of personnel 
and Priorities			Performance			Development (CSPD)
				
(EPC) State Plan                  (EMC)Workforce Investment 	(P&PRC) Eligibility,
 				Act (WIA) and One-Stop	Order of Selection,	
Centers				Informed choice, 
									Applicant Documentation

(EPC) Facilitate			(P&PRC) State Wide Needs	(EPC) Schedule Quarterly  coordination among		Assessment (SNAP)		SRC Meeting  DOR, SILC, and ILCS											
	
(EPC) Coordinate with	 	(EMC) Marketing the 		(EMC) Employment
other SRC’s 			Department Business 		Tools/Resources
/Employer Interface		

(EPC) Approve & 		(EMC) Employment Outcomes;(EMC) District visits & transmit annual 			Availability of health and 		One-Stop visits
report to the Governor		other Employment benefits				
& RSA													

				(EMC) Ticket to Work (TTWIA) (EPC) Training Activities

				(P&PRC) Consumer Satisfaction	(EPC) Membership,
				 Survey					 budget, procedures 

(P&PRC) Services provided by	 (EPC) SRC  Policies Agencies to Vocational        and Procedures
				Rehabilitation Consumers							

 SRCASSIGNMENTS TO DOR INTOERNAL WORKGROUPS

MEMBERS NAME			WORKGROUP NAME

Anthony Tusler					Communications

Guy Deaner					Communications

Jennifer Olson					Rehabilitation Counselor
							(Deaf) Class Specification
Robert Snowden					Employer Outreach

Patty O’Sullivan					Employer Outreach

Joe Pak						Employment 2002   Symposium

Don Senger					Exemplary Practices

Pati Longo						Exemplary Practices

Kim Wilder						Exemplary Practices

Joe Pak						Self Employment

Robert Sifuentes					Self Employment

Kim Wilder 					Ticket to Work

Gil Johnson					Ticket to Work

Lori Hartwell					Ticket to Work

Sam Seaton					Workforce Investment
							Act Management
Lori Hartwell					Workforce Investment
							Act Management
Kent Mickleson					Assistive Technology
							Loan Guarantee Program

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION ORGANIZATION

Please See “DOR Organizational Structure” Attachment

Distribution of $151,927,877 Case Service
Expenditures for Vocational Rehabilitation
Fiscal Year 2001 - 2002

Training                                                                 36%
Job Coaching                                                        19%
Transportation                                                         9%
Diagnostic & Evaluation                                          9%
Restoration                                                              2%
Supported Employment Services                            1%
Supplemental Allowance                                         1%
Other Services                                                       23%

Types of Training Provided
Fiscal Year 2001 - 2002

Academic                                                               12%
Misc. Training                                                          9%
Personal & Vocational Adjustment                          5%
Business School                                                      5%
Vocational School                                                    4%
On-the-job                                                                1%

This chart shows the number and percent of individuals who received services (July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002) identified by their   primary disability.

DISABILITY CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION
State Fiscal Year 2001-2002

Disability Category			Total Number		Percent

Orthopedic/Limb Loss			31,973			  27.4%
Psychiatric/Substance Abuse	27,048			  23.2%
Learning Disorder			22,081			  18.8%
Developmentally Disabled		13,835			  11.8%
Blind/Visually Impaired			  8,850			    7.5%
Deaf/Hearing Impaired			  6,299			    5.4%
Other						  3,942			    3.3%
ATBI						  1,925			    1.6%
Not Reported				     623			    1.0%

        RSA EVALUATION STANDARDS
AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

These are the standards by which the Rehabilitation Services Administration evaluates designated state units on an annual or biannual basis.  There are two standards, the first evaluating employment outcomes and the second evaluating the service rate to minorities.

Evaluation Standard One has six indicators, three of which are designated as primary indicators (1.3, 1.4, and 1.5).  To meet criteria for Standard One, a Designated State Unit (DSU) must meet two of the three primary indicators and four of the total six indicators. 

To pass the evaluation standards, a DSU must meet both Standard One and Standard Two.

EVALUATION STANDARD 1 - Employment Standards

1.1	Increased Outcomes - The number of individuals exiting the VR program who achieved an employment outcome during the current performance period compared to the number of individuals who exited the VR program after achieving an employment outcome during the previous performance period.

Required Performance Level:  DSU must equal or exceed previous performance period.

1.2	Success Ratio - Of all individuals who exit the VR program after receiving services, the percentage who are determined to have achieved an employment outcome.

Required Performance Level:  For the general and combined DSU's the level is 55.8%, for agencies serving the blind, the level is 68.9%.

1.3	Minimum Wage (primary indicator) - Of all individuals determined to have achieved an employment outcome, the percentage who exit the VR program in competitive, self-, or BEP employment with earnings equivalent to at least minimum wage.

Required Performance Level:  For the general and combined DSU's the level is 72.6%, for agencies serving the blind, the level is 35.4%.
 
1.4	Significant Disabilities (primary indicator) - Of all individuals who exit the VR program in competitive, self-, or BEP employment 
with earnings equivalent to at least the minimum wage, the percentage who are individuals with significant disabilities.

Required Performance Level:  For the general and combined DSU's the level is 62.4%, for agencies serving the blind, the level is 89.0%.

1.5	Wages Compared To State Levels (primary indicator) - The average hourly earnings of all individuals who exit the VR program in competitive, self-, or BEP employment with earnings levels equivalent to at least the minimum wage as a ratio to the State's average hourly earnings for all individuals in the State who are employed (as derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics report "State Average Annual Pay" for the most recent available year).

Required Performance Level: For the general and combined DSU's the level is a ratio of 0.52, for agencies serving the blind, the level is 0.59.

1.6	Increase In Self-Supporting Earnings - Of all individuals who exit the VR program in competitive, self-, or BEP employment with earnings equivalent to at least the minimum wage, the difference between the percentage who report their own income as the largest single source of economic support at the time they exit the VR program and the percentage who report their own income as the largest single source of support at the time they apply for VR services.

Required Performance Level: For the general and combined DSU's the level is a mathematic difference of 53.0, for agencies serving the blind, the level is a difference of 30.4.

EVALUATION STANDARD 2 - Equal Access to services

2.1	Services To Minorities - The service rate for all individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds as a ratio to the service rate for all non-minority individuals with disabilities.

Required Performance Level: All agencies must attain a ratio of 0.80.  If a DSU's performance on Indicator 2.1 does not meet or exceed the required level, or if fewer than 100 individuals from a minority population have exited the VR program during the reporting period, the DSU must describe the policies it has adopted or will adopt and the steps it has taken or will take to ensure that individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds have equal access to VR services.

Joanne Wilson, Commissioner	State Rehabilitation Council
November 20, 2001					  2000 Evergreen Street
U.S. Department of Education		           Sacramento, CA  95815	
Office of Special Education and			  (916) 263-8681 V/TTY
Rehabilitation Services				  (916) 263-0386 FAX	
Rehabilitation Services Adminsitration
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC  20202

					
Dear Commissioner Wilson:

Recently, California Department of Rehabilitation Director Catherine Campisi, Ph.D., sent you a letter (copy attached).  On behalf of the State Rehabilitation Council (SRC), I’d like to take this opportunity to express our strong support for her suggestions regarding the Evaluation Standards and Performance Indicators specified in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. 
The SRC has been involved in a variety of activity and discussions, independently and with the Department, which relate to these matters.

It is the opinion of California’s SRC that Director Campisi’s suggestions are well-articulated and most worthy of your consideration, especially in light of the unique circumstances and challenges faced by California as a result of our diverse employment and economic landscapes.  These become especially critical factors during times of economic uncertainty, such as those we all currently face Vis a Vis the indicators.  The SRC echoes Director’s Campisi’s suggestions for modifications to Performance Indicators 1.1 and 1.5, and appreciates the opportunity to convey our support for them to you.

Joanne Wilson Commissioner
November 20, 2001
Page 2

Further, the SRC recommends that Performance Indicator 1.3 be calculated with the federal, rather than the California state minimum wage for federal fiscal year 2000-2001.  

If the California state minimum wage is used, we believe it most appropriate to use $5.75 as a minimum wage for cases closed before January 1, 2001 and $6.25 for those closed after that date.  (California's state minimum wage increased from $5.75 to $6.25 on January 1, 2001.)  California would be unfairly penalized on Performance Indicator 1.3 if $6.25 were applied to the entire federal fiscal year. We appreciate the opportunity to share our views on this matter, and thank you in advance for your consideration. 

					Sincerely,

					Don Senger
					SRC Chair

Enclosure

cc:  Gilbert “Doc” Williams, RSA, Region IX 
       Catherine Campisi, Ph.D., Director, CA DOR

Joanne Wilson, Commissioner			Director’s Office
U.S. Department of Education			2000 Evergreen Street
Office of Special Education and       		Sacramento, CA  95815
Rehabilitative Services					(916) 263-8987 Voice	
Rehabilitation Services Administration		(916) 263-7474 Fax
0 Maryland Avenue, S.W.				(916) 263-7477 TTY		
Washington, DC  20202                       							

									October 30, 2001
				
Dear Ms. Wilson:

I write to express concerns about aspects of the Evaluation Standards and Performance Indicators as specified in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.  Generally, the indicators adopted by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) are a valid measure of the performance of designated state units in obtaining gainful employment and providing services equitably to all individuals.  There are two areas, however, where the California Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) requests that RSA consider modifications.
	
Performance Indicator 1.5.  In Performance Indicator 1.5, the mean hourly earnings of individuals with employment outcomes are compared to the mean hourly earnings of all workers in a state.  The use of the mean in these calculations - as compared to the median - provides an inflated index due to the positively skewed nature of the earnings distribution.  All states will be affected negatively by use of the mean, especially those having high average annual earnings such as California.  A small proportion of very high earnings in the technology and entertainment industries in California raises the mean to well above most earning levels.  

Joanne Wilson Commissioner
October 30, 2001
Page 2

The use of the median is preferable because it is not affected by a few very high scores, and more reflective of overall earnings in the states. 

I strongly urge the use of the median hourly earnings instead of the mean to calculate Performance Indicator 1.5.

Performance Indicator 1.1.  I am also concerned with Performance Indicator 1.1.  This indicator requires that the number of employment outcomes must equal or exceed the number obtained in the previous fiscal year.  Such a requirement disregards factors such as funding cuts or economic downturn that impede our ability to serve consumers.  The rationale of this indicator is less clear than the other indicators.  I recommend the deletion of Performance Indicator 1.1 from Evaluation Standard One.

Please let me know if you need additional information.  Thank you for considering these suggestions for improvement.

						Sincerely,

						CATHERINE CAMPISI, Ph.D.
						Director

cc:	Gilbert “Doc” Williams, RSA, Region IX

 State Rehabilitation Council
2000 Evergreen Street
Sacramento, CA 95815
Phone (916) 263-8681
Fax     (916) 263-0386
   TTY     (916) 263-8684

Department of Labor-ETA				        January 25, 2002
Division of Federal Assistance
200 Constitution Avenue, NW Room 8-4203
Washington DC, 20210

Dear Grant Review Panel:
  
The Department of Rehabilitation and its consortium of partners have submitted a grant application for your review. This grant offers an opportunity for the Department and others to participate in California's Workforce Investment system in such a way as to remain a model system in the provision of services to individuals with disabilities.

The California State Rehabilitation Council (SRC) supports this application and is available to assist the Department in its continuing and dedicated efforts to deliver quality vocational rehabilitation services to our consumers.

Sincerely,

Paul Frye, Chair
State Rehabilitation Council

cc:  Catherine Campisi, Director
      California Department of Rehabilitation
      Members, California SRC