Located in:
- Program-Specific Requirements for Vocational Rehabilitation (Combined or General)
The Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services Portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan [13] must include the following descriptions and estimates, as required by section 101(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by title IV of WIOA:
__________
[13] Sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA
- a. Input of State Rehabilitation Council
All agencies, except for those that are independent consumer-controlled commissions, must describe the following:
- a. Input of State Rehabilitation Council
a. 1. Input provided by the State Rehabilitation Council, including input and recommendations on the VR services portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan, recommendations from the Council's report, the review and analysis of consumer satisfaction, and other Council reports that may have been developed as part of the Council’s functions;
Current Narrative:
The State Rehabilitation Council (SRC) reviewed the Missouri Vocational Rehabilitation’s (MVR) services portion of the Combined State Plan for the Title I and VI B programs. On behalf of the Council, Bob Hosutt, SRC chairperson, submitted the following comments and suggestions:
1. The SRC Planning Committee, acting for the SRC, had an opportunity to review and comment on MVR’s services portion of the Combined State Plan. We are in support of your plan.
2. We applaud MVR’s response to the passage of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Your commitment to cooperating, collaborating and coordinating with other components of the statewide workforce development system is commendable. Improving partnerships and supporting individuals, including youth and students, with disabilities to obtain competitive integrated employment benefits everyone.
3. We would like to commend MVR’s work on its goals and priorities. The SRC recommends that MVR continue to work on strategies to assist them in reaching current goals and priorities and provide updates on its performance at future Council meetings.
4. The SRC agrees that MVR’s goal of increasing employment outcomes for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is needed. We support your strategies to develop training in serving individuals with ASD as well as to collaborate with the Department of Mental Health and other agencies.
5. The SRC appreciates MVR’s efforts to keep categories open and eligible applicants in service. The SRC does recognize that rising costs and limited funding may necessitate the closing of categories and the institution of a moving waiting list for services. The SRC believes that any waiting list is undesirable and will result in more individuals becoming dependent on public assistance and increase the number of individuals who drop from the program before services are provided. The SRC will work with MVR on strategies to reduce or eliminate the waiting list and will ask for updates at the Council meetings.
6. The SRC expresses its concerns over MVR’s proposal to discontinue sharing 50% of the cost for sign language interpreters, real-time captioning and note-taking with institutions of higher education (IHEs) for VR-eligible students. Ceasing the shared cost of these services could adversely affect students with disabilities who require such accommodations.
7. The SRC would like to acknowledge MVR’s work on establishing baselines for the performance accountability measures under section 116 of WIOA and for your collaboration with partners to determine a performance indicator for effectiveness in serving employers.
8. The SRC shares with MVR a concern that accessing employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities can be challenging. SRC continues to support MVR’s efforts to find solutions by encouraging innovation and job creation and focusing on high quality employment outcomes.
The SRC had opportunities in the past year to provide input on other important matters with your agency, such as goals, priorities, strategies, customer survey results and MVR’s outcomes and performance data. The SRC provided recommendations on policy revisions and state rule changes. It collaborated with other disability-related councils and participated in public hearings. The SRC held hearing decision reviews and approved a candidate for a hearing officer position.
The SRC appreciates the opportunity to work with MVR on these matters of importance to individuals with disabilities in the state of Missouri.