Vocational Rehabilitation Program (Combined or General)

2. Assessment of the Needs of Individuals with Disabilities for Transition Services and Pre-ETS & the Extent to Which Such Services Are Coordinated with Local Education Agencies, Other Education Systems (to include Juvenile Services Education System, Maryland School for the Deaf, and Maryland School for the Blind), and Workforce Partners

DORS would like to continue to assess the current 2019 need for Pre-ETS statewide, as well as the availability of such services. As a result of WIOA, DORS is now required to set aside at least 15 percent of the federal allotment to provide Pre-ETS to students with disabilities between the ages of 14 and 21, and are to be available to all students with disabilities regardless of the severity of their disability.

Pre-ETS are very specific in nature and include the following: 

• Job exploration counseling 
• Work-based learning experiences 
• Counseling on opportunities for enrollment in comprehensive transition or post-secondary educational programs 
• Workplace readiness training to develop social and independent living skills 
• Instruction in self-advocacy, including peer mentoring

DORS continues to review proposals submitted by community rehabilitation programs (CRP), secondary schools, workforce partners, and colleges and universities, desiring to offer Pre-ETS as a fee-for-service. The current statewide number of partners providing DORS-funded Pre-ETS programing is listed below:

• Region 1 (Western Maryland) has 26 CRPs, one secondary school, two colleges, four workforce partners, and 11 other partners (to include centers for independent living, community work incentives coordinators (CWIC), and out-of-state programs for students who are deaf). 
• Region 2 (Southern Maryland & Lower Eastern Shore) has 28 CRPs, six secondary schools, three colleges, one workforce partner, and 13 other partners (to include centers for independent living, CWICs, and out-of-state programs for students who are deaf).
• Region 3 (Baltimore City) has 14 CRPs, two secondary schools, one college, two workforce partners, and 11 other partners (to include centers for independent living, CWICs, and out-of-state programs for students who are deaf).
• Region 5 (Central Maryland & Upper Shore) has 25 CRPs, three secondary schools, two colleges, two workforce partners, and 12 other partners (to include centers for independent living, CWICs, and out-of-state programs for students who are deaf).
• Region 6 (D.C. Metro) has 23 CRPs, two secondary schools, no colleges, two workforce partners, and ten other partners (to include centers for independent living, CWICs, and out-of-state programs for students who are deaf).

DORS seeks to use this Needs Assessment to acquire a better understanding of the numbers of potentially eligible VR consumers who will be participating in these services over the next few years, as well as, which Local Education Agencies (LEA) are already providing these services, and where there may be opportunities for collaboration.

METHODOLOGY: SURVEY OF LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES (LEA) AND OTHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS

Surveys were sent to each of the LEAs and other educational systems to determine:

1. Which of the five Pre-ETS programs are currently provided by the schools as part of secondary transition.
2. Of those services provided, which can be further enhanced by partnering with DORS.
3. Which services are not currently available in their respective geographical areas.
4. Is the coordination of transition services between DORS and the LEA and other education systems perceived as sufficient to meet the needs of all students with disabilities within that LEA and other education systems?

Twenty-three LEAs and other education systems indicated that they refer students to DORS. The information summarized below represents the responses received from 20 of the local education agencies surveyed, Maryland School for the Deaf, Maryland School for the Blind, and the Juvenile Services Education System.

NEEDS/CONCERNS IDENTIFIED

• Coordination of transition services between DORS and the LEAs or other education systems was not sufficient to meet the needs of all students with disabilities.
• There is a disconnect between the time a DORS referral is made and actual contact with families.
• Not all students with disabilities are being reached by DORS (specifically with students and families speaking languages other than English).
• There is a lack of communication between DORS Transition Counselors and LEA Transition Facilitators or IEP chairs.
• There is a limited number of Pre-ETS programs for all disability populations in rural areas.
• There are not enough DORS Transition Counselors to work with all students with disabilities.
• CRP partners working with students have limited training and experience in providing services to students.
• Once Pre-ETS programs are in place for students, DORS outreach regarding VR services is limited (not all of the eligible VR students are applying for VR services).
• School staff often have difficulties accessing DORS Transition Counselors for participation in student IEP meetings.
• There are limited Pre-ETS programs that are available for students who are Blind or Visually Impaired.
• There are limited Pre-ETS programs that are available for students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.
• Education systems that have worked with students across the state have had the experience of DORS transition counselors operating differently depending on the area of the state.
• DORS transition counselors with large caseloads limit their capacity to partner with LEAs and other education systems or participate in student IEP meetings.
• There is a lack of communication with LEAs and other education systems regarding the local availability of specific Pre-ETS programs.
• DORS appears to be restricted due to the supplanting concerns in its ability to provide services to 18-21 year old students, specifically services during the school day.
• There are limited updates and communication from DORS regarding status of student referrals and services that they may receive through DORS.

METHODOLOGY: DATA COLLECTED WAS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL PRE-ETS APPLICANTS STATEWIDE UTILIZING BOTH DATA PROVIDED BY MSDE AND DATA FOUND ON THE MARYLAND REPORT CARD.

High School Students with Individualized Education Plans (IEP) in 2018 (Source: MSDE)

Total Number of Students Potentially Requesting Pre-ETS in FY 2019: 27,232.

This number is not inclusive as the number of high school students with 504 plans in 2018 was not available at this time.

NEEDS/CONCERNS IDENTIFIED

• It is anticipated based on data collected that the number of students accessing DORS services will increase each year.
• It is anticipated that DORS will not be able to access all students with 504 plans due to limited collaboration between DORS and school staff monitoring 504 plans.
• It is anticipated that the number of students with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities accessing DORS services will increase each year as a result of WIOA requirements related to Section 511 and the closing of the 14c programs.
• It is anticipated that DORS transitioning caseloads will continue to grow each year.

METHODOLOGY: SURVEY OF LOCAL WORKFORCE PARTNERS

Surveys were sent to each of the local workforce partners to determine

1. How and if the local workforce partners are collaborating and partnering with DORS to serve transitioning youth and students with disabilities.
2. What DORS assistance or services are expected to benefit transitioning youth and students with disabilities served by workforce partners.
3. What services are being offered to transitioning youth and students with disabilities through the workforce partners.

The information summarized below represents the responses received from seven of the local workforce partners surveyed:

• Anne Arundel County
• Baltimore County
• Carroll County
• Frederick County
• Howard County
• Montgomery County
• Upper Shore

All seven respondents currently collaborate or partner with DORS in some way to provide services to students with disabilities.  Six of the respondents refer transitioning youth and students with disabilities to DORS for services, but it was noted that these referrals are not submitted often.

Of those individuals who responded to the survey, their comments are noted below regarding collaboration with DORS:

• During the course of the year, DORS staff meets with workforce partners to discuss strategies to better serve transitioning youth in the area.
• DORS collaborates with Anne Arundel and Montgomery Counties for Maryland’s Disability Employment Initiative grant.
• Frederick and Howard Counties and the Upper Shore partner with DORS to provide summer youth experiences for transitioning youth and students with disabilities.
• DORS staff meets with Carroll County’s AJC at least twice per month.
• Baltimore County and DORS have coordinated meetings regarding consumer services.
• DORS provides Baltimore County with regular referrals.

NEEDS/CONCERNS IDENTIFIED

• Increase the number of DORS referrals from the workforce partners.
• DORS needs to provide education and disability awareness regarding how to work with specific populations to the workforce partners.
• DORS needs to provide technical assistance regarding summer youth experiences and work experience placement for students with disabilities to the workforce partners.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• DORS needs to continue to expand the availability of Pre-ETS statewide specifically in rural areas for students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, Blind or Visually Impaired, and intellectually or developmentally disabled. Instructional areas should focus on self-advocacy and counseling on opportunities for enrollment in comprehensive transition or post-secondary educational programs.
• DORS needs to align its staffing and caseload assignments to have sufficient DORS Transition Counselors available to coordinate the provision of Pre-ETS and collaboration with LEAs and other education systems.
• DORS needs to revisit best practices in outreach to students and families who speak languages other than English.
• DORS needs to improve its practices in connecting potentially eligible students to the VR program in their next-to-last year of high school.
• Local agreements between DORS and LEAs should be updated to address concerns (e.g., identifying a communication process regarding student’s referrals and Pre-ETS available in the local area).
• DORS needs to identify quality assurance concerns in the provision of Pre-ETS through workforce partners.
• DORS should continue to provide staff training and information dissemination to ensure that staff are operating within standard policies and procedures across the state.
• DORS should collaborate with 504 coordinators in each LEA to address the difficulties of accessing students with 504 plans.

3.  Assessment of the Needs of Transitioning Youth with Disabilities Entering Two- and Four-year Colleges & the Extent to Which Such Services Are Coordinated with College Disability Support Services Staff

DORS would like to evaluate how effectively the Agency collaborates with Disability Support Services (DSS) staff to meet the needs of transitioning students with disabilities entering, or planning on entering, two- and four-year colleges.

METHODOLOGY:  DISABILITY SUPPORT SERVICES PROFESSIONALS SURVEY

An on-line survey of LDSS professionals was used to evaluate how effectively DORS collaborates with LDSS staff to meet the needs of transitioning students with disabilities.  This survey was sent directly to members of the Maryland Association of Higher Education and Disability (MD-AHEAD).  Twenty-two individuals provided responses to the survey questions.

NEEDS/CONCERNS IDENTIFIED

• DORS staff need to understand which assessment data from student high school records meets the requirements of LDSS staff.
• Many students making the transition to college are not aware of the DORS program until they enter college and then they are placed on the DORS wait list.
• Although 91 percent of those surveyed, indicated that they do refer consumers for DORS services, 34 percent do not partner with DORS staff.
• 79 percent of the LDSS professional staff surveyed indicated they are unaware of others in their system that may refer students to DORS.
• It appears there is a disconnect between the colleges’ career centers, LDSS and DORS to ensure students receive career counseling and job placement assistance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Consider establishing a liaison relationship with each LDSS office to strengthen the partnership between DORS field staff and LDSS staff in both two- and four-year colleges, as not all college LDSS professionals are familiar with DORS services and supports. This liaison with the college should be the DORS transition counselors for that county.
• DORS college liaisons should also connect with the college career center.  A relationship should be established to provide career counseling and job placement assistance.
• Consider strengthening the Pre-ETS outreach to transitioning students with disabilities to ensure supports are in place prior to these consumers attending college.
• Training should be provided to college personnel regarding DORS services and supports.  This training should also identify which college staff refers consumers to DORS.
• Upon consumers entering college, DORS staff should ensure updated, valid disability documentation which supports requested reasonable accommodations.

4. Assessment of the Needs of Students, and Parents of Students, Eligible for Pre-Employment Transition Services & the Extent of Which Information Regarding Getting a Job, the Job Market, Job Shadowing and Related Activities, College or Training Opportunities, and Skills Learned and Skills Still Needed Have Been Provided to these Students and Parents.

METHODOLOGY: SURVEY OF STUDENTS AND PARENTS

Surveys were sent via email to students, and parents of students, eligible for Pre-ETS. The goal was to determine whether students and parents feel that they are receiving information regarding:  getting a job, the job market, participation in job shadowing or related activities, college or training, skills learned, and skills needed in order to obtain a job post high school.

NEEDS/CONCERNS IDENTIFIED

• There appear to be limited methods available for transitioning youth and students with disabilities to learn self-advocacy skills and the opportunity to practice such skills.
• There appear to be limited programs available to provide transitioning youth and students with disabilities with information about college and other training options.
• There appear to be limited opportunities for transitioning youth and students with disabilities to gain the skills needed to obtain employment or complete a skills training or college program.
• There is a lack of information received regarding the various jobs of interest for a student in their community.
• There is a need for opportunities for “real life” work experiences.
• There is a need to educate parents about summer youth programs, and paid and volunteer work experiences.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• DORS should consider partnering with transition coordinators to facilitate workshops for transitioning youth and students with disabilities to educate them regarding college or training options. Assistance with enrollment could also be provided.
• During summer Pre-ETS programs within the Agency, a program to assist transitioning youth and students with disabilities with learning life skills such as self-advocacy and communication should be offered.
• Additional Pre-ETS programs through the Agency could be provided to assist transitioning youth and students with disabilities with obtaining skills to acquire or complete job training.
• To address the parent concerns regarding the lack of information about the various jobs of interest for a student in their community, local DORS offices should host a job fair with employers who can provide students with information regarding various jobs.
• Increase the number of work experience opportunities for transitioning youth and students with disabilities.
• The Agency needs to increase its efforts to ensure that the parents are provided with sufficient information regarding summer youth experiences, and paid and volunteer work experiences.

(2) Identify the need to establish, develop, or improve community rehabilitation programs within the State; and

(2) Assessment of the Need to Establish, Develop, or Improve Community Rehabilitation Programs within the State

The success of DORS’ consumers is due in many instances and respect to the partnerships DORS has established with CRPs, which provide a number of direct services throughout the state, and WTC, which provides a number of direct services to consumers referred by DORS counselors. Efforts are made throughout the year to ensure that there is a sufficient number of CRPs to provide employment services to consumers statewide.

To assess the need to establish, develop, or improve CRPs within the state and services available at WTC, DORS reviewed the results from:

1. A survey of CRP Executive Directors and CRP front line staff
2. A survey of DORS staff
3. Results from in-person interviews and focus groups of DORS staff

PREVALENCE

With regard to the CRPs working with DORS within a particular Region, data was compared from the 2016 Needs Assessment with the current 2019 data. 

While the allocation of CRPs by Region would appear to be robust, according to the data above, there still remains a number of CRPs that have become relatively inactive and/or provide little to no services in collaboration with DORS (Region 1: four providers; Region 2: seven providers; Region 3: eight providers; Region 5: five providers; and Region 6: 11 providers). Overall, it appears that there has been a substantial increase in providers per Region the past three years.  This is believed to be in part due to the increase in number of CRPs who are becoming DORS providers from BHA that also provide substance use treatment in addition to supported employment.

Methodology:  In-person interviews of DORS Staff

Several small teams led by WTC Staff Specialist for Program Evaluation and Development, Marketing, and Outreach visited offices in four Regions to elicit feedback regarding the services available at WTC.  During these visits, in-person written surveys were completed by VR counselors in conjunction with group discussion.

NEEDS/CONCERNS IDENTIFIED

• There is a need to continue to simplify the process by which referrals for services are processed and admitted to WTC.
• There is a need to continue to collaborate with DORS field staff regarding communication when consumers are discharged or receive disciplinary action.
• Transportation costs negatively affect the decision to refer an individual to attend services at WTC.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Continue to simplify the process for referring individuals to WTC.
• Examine strategies for enhanced communication between WTC and DORS field staff.
• Explore how WTC can assist with the transportation needs of consumers interested in participating in services.

METHODOLOGY: DORS STAFF SURVEYS

A survey was sent to DORS field staff regarding WTC and CRPs. Fifty-one staff responded to the survey.

90 percent of DORS staff reported that they view WTC as an effective partner in their consumer’s rehabilitation.  DORS field staff reported that the most frequently utilized WTC services include career assessment, work readiness, rehabilitation technology services, driver’s education, career training, and medical services. When asked what concerns consumers expressed to DORS field staff regarding the WTC and what reservations staff have about referring individuals to WTC, the overwhelming response was distance and transportation.

Regarding CRPs, DORS field staff identified a need for improved communication between CRPs and DORS field staff, more training for CRP staff regarding DORS policy and documentation (84 percent reported issues with timely submission of reports and invoices, 51 percent reported issues with timely submission of employment verification forms, and 46 percent reported issues with the accuracy of reports), a lack of CRPs specializing in Traumatic Brain Injury or Intellectual Disabilities, and a need for additional supports for consumers with Autism who are college bound.

A survey was sent to CRP executive directors and front line staff to elicit feedback on the relationship between DORS’ staff and the CRP community, a possible rate increase for services, and other needs.  Forty-nine responses were received.

Information from CRPs indicated:

• A continued need for increased communication between DORS’ staff and CRPs regarding a lack of notice when DORS has policy changes.
• An interest in additional training to work with specific disability populations.
• Training in DORS policy, procedures and documentation.
• Need for benefits counseling for consumers when initiating a referral prior to entering the job search process.
• Need for increased rates. 

When DORS policy changes, CRP staff prefer communication to come directly from Headquarters using a distribution list.  The second preference is to receive the information from the counselor liaison.  The least preferred methods were: the DORS’ website, and in-person communication from the DORS supervisor.

CRP staff were asked for information regarding how they thought DORS should increase their rates and what would be an appropriate percentage:

• 39 percent indicated a preference to use the projected increase for minimum wage.
• 34 percent indicated a preference to use the cost of living increase.
• 14 percent indicated that a flat rate increase would be preferable. 

A survey was posted on the DORS website for individuals to complete regarding CRPs and WTC. Forty-two individuals responded to the survey.

Of those individuals completing the survey, 45 percent were aware of WTC.  All of these individuals reported that they learned about WTC through personal contacts, DORS staff, transition fairs, family and friends.  None had learned of WTC through other means such as social media and direct marketing. Of those familiar with WTC, 58 percent were not aware that a dormitory is available for consumers.  Respondents also indicated an interest in apprenticeships, increasing the number of training programs, and expanding job search assistance.