RSA-227 - Annual Client Assistance Program (CAP) Report


General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameMaryland Division of Rehabilitation Services -DORS
Address2301 Argonne DR
Address Line 2
Zip Code21218
Website Address
Toll-free Phone1-800-638-6243
Toll-free TTY1-800-638-6243

Operating Agency (if different from Designated Agency)

NameMaryland Division of Rehabilitation Services -DORS
Address2301 Argonne DR
Address Line 2
Zip Code21218
Website Address
Toll-free Phone1-800-638-6243
Toll-free TTY1-800-638-6243

Additional Information

Name of CAP Director/CoordinatorThomas Laverty
Person to contact regarding reportThomas Laverty
Contact Person Phone410-554-9363

Part I. Agency Workload Data

A. Information and Referral Services (I&R)

Multiple responses are not permitted.

1. Information regarding the Rehabilitation Act203
2. Information regarding Title I of the ADA6
3. Other information provided69
4. Total I&R services provided (Lines A1+A2+A3)278
5. Individuals attending trainings by CAP staff (approximate)0

B. Individuals served

An individual is counted only once during a fiscal year. Multiple counts are not permitted for Lines B1-B3.

1. Individuals who are still being served as of October 1 (carryover from prior year)31
2. Additional individuals who were served during the year112
3. Total individuals served (Lines B1+B2)143
4. Individuals (from Line B3) who had multiple case files opened/closed this year. (In unusual situations, an individual may have more than one case file opened/closed during a fiscal year. This number is not added to the total in Line B3 above.)2

C. Individual still being served as of September 30

Carryover to next year. This total may not exceed Line I.B3. 17

D. Reasons for closing individuals' case files

Choose one primary reason for closing each case file. There may be more case files than the total number of individuals served to account for those unusual situations, referred to in Line I.B4, when an individual had multiple case files closed during the year.

1. All issues resolved in individual's favor100
2. Some issues resolved in individual's favor (when there are multiple issues)4
3. CAP determines VR agency position/decision was appropriate for the individual13
4. Individual's case lacks legal merit; (inappropriate for CAP intervention)1
5. Individual chose alternative representation0
6. Individual decided not to pursue resolution2
7. Appeals were unsuccessful1
8. CAP services not needed due to individual's death, relocation, etc.3
9. Individual refused to cooperate with CAP4
10. CAP unable to take case due to lack of resources0
11. Other (please explain)

E. Results achieved for individuals

1. Controlling law/policy explained to individual14
2. Application for services completed.6
3. Eligibility determination expedited4
4. Individual participated in evaluation3
5. IPE developed/implemented37
6. Communication re-established between individual and other party25
7. Individual assigned to new counselor/office16
8. Alternative resources identified for individual5
9. ADA/504/EEO/OCR/ complaint made0
10. Other0
11. Other (please explain)

Part II. Program Data

A. Age

As of the beginning of the fiscal year. Multiple responses are not permitted.

1. 21 and under22
2. 22 - 4045
3. 41 - 6472
4. 65 and over4
5. Total (Sum of Lines A1 through A4. Total must equal Line I.B3.)143

B. Gender

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Female74
2. Male69
3. Total (Sum of Lines B1 and B2. Total must equal Line I.B3.)143

C. Race/ethnicity

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race5
For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native0
3. Asian1
4. Black or African American77
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander1
6. White55
7. Two or more races1
8. Race/ethnicity unknown3

D. Primary disabling condition of individuals served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Blindness (both eyes)3
2. Other visual impairments5
3. Deafness11
4. Hard of hearing5
5. Deaf-blind2
6. Orthopedic impairments25
7. Absense of extremities1
8. Mental illness50
9. Substance abuse (alcohol or drugs)0
10. Mental retardation5
11. Specific learning disabilities (SLD)19
12. Neurological disorders9
13. Respiratory disorders1
14. Heart and other circulatory conditions0
15. Digestive disorders0
16. Genitourinary conditions0
17. Speech Impairments0
18. AIDS/HIV positive0
19. Traumatic brain injury (TBI)6
20. All other disabilities1
21. Disabilities not known0
22. Total (Sum of Lines D1 through D21. Total must equal Line I. B3.)143

E. Types of individuals served

Multiple responses permitted.

1. Applicants of VR Program21
2. Clients of VR Program122
3. Applicants or clients of IL Program0
4. Applicants or clients of other programs and projects funded under the Act0

F. Source of individual's concern

Multiple responses permitted.

1. VR agency only143
2. Other Rehabilitation Act sources only0
3. Both VR agency and other Rehabilitation Act sources0
4. Employer0

G. Problem areas

Multiple responses permitted.

1. Individual requests information0
2. Communication problems between individual and counselor28
3. Conflict about services to be provided50
4. Related to application/eligibility process19
5. Related to IPE development/implementation48
6. Other Rehabilitation Act-related problems0
7. Non-Rehabilitation Act related0
8. Related to Title I of the ADA0

H. Types of CAP services provided

Choose one primary CAP service provided for each case file/service record.

1. Information/referral4
2. Advisory/interpretational8
3. Negotiation58
4. Administrative/informal review55
5. Alternative dispute resolution3
6. Formal appeal/fair hearing0
7. Legal remedy0
8. Transportation0

Part III. Narrative


B. Sources of Funds Expended

The information detailed in this section and the next was provided by the Division of Rehabilitation Services (DORS) Branch Chief for Fiscal Operations.

FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2012 SOURCE OF FUNDING TOTAL EXPENDITURES SPENT ON INDIVIDUALS Federal Funds 193,411 State Funds 0 All Other Funds 0 Total from all sources 193,411 Budget for Current and Following Fiscal Years

The CAP budget detailed in Section II C reflects the application of funds expected to be received from the federal formula grants.

CATEGORY STATE FISCAL ‘13 STATE FISCAL ‘14 WAGES & SALARIES 98,542 113,973 FRINGE BENEFITS - FICA, UNEMPLOYMENT, ETC. 50,072 54,697 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES 3,004 3,000 POSTAGE -0- -0- TELEPHONE 1,000 1,000 RENT -0- -0- TRAVEL 8,237 6,260 COPYING 5,000 5,000 BONDING/INSURANCE 92 88 EQUIPMENT RENTAL/PURCHASE 1,040 1,218 LEGAL SERVICES 26,143 29,275 INDIRECT COSTS 0 0 MISCELLANEOUS* (includes interpreter services) 6,248 6,256 TOTAL BUDGET 199,378 220,767

D. Person —Years


There were two (1.83) full-time permanent, professional position dedicated to the delivery of CAP services during FY 2012. A CAP employee left on July 24, 2012.

Total Professional Person Years: 1.83

Clerical: 0

CAP received no clerical support during FY 2012.

Total Professional and Clerical Person Years: 1.83

E. Summary of Presentations

Twelve 12 information and outreach efforts were made regarding CAP and other rehabilitation programs and projects during FY 2012, reaching approximately 272 individuals. Attendees included a diverse mixture of individuals with disabilities, family members, rehabilitation professionals, and other interested parties.

CAP presented to consumers at the Workforce and Technology Center (WTC) as a guest speaker in the Employee Development Services Class, reaching approximately 13 individuals.

CAP attended all 5 of the VR Public meetings, and discussed CAP services. Approximately 100 individuals were in the audience of these public meetings. CAP presented to the staff of three of Maryland’s Centers for Independent Living. These Centers included Independence Now, Accessible Resources for Independence and Independent Marylanders Achieving Growth through Empowerment regarding the scope of VR and IL services, and the CAP program. Approximately 18 individuals attended these presentations. CAP attended numerous meetings of the Statewide Independent Living Council, and the IL Partners meetings, as staff support to assist in the development and improvement in the SILC, and periodically discussed CAP information and provided advocacy related input. Approximately 12 individuals attended each of these meetings. One presentation was made to the Maryland State Rehabilitation Council (MSRC) regarding the CAP FY 2011 Annual Report, as well as systemic advocacy issues. This presentation addressed approximately 25 individuals/council members and meeting attendees.

CAP presented at the Annual Conference of Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children. The session that included the CAP presentation was titled, Helping Foster Youth Plan for After High School. This presentation addressed approximately 100 individuals and covered the structure and services provided by the Division of Rehabilitation Services and the Client Assistance Program. CAP presented to 20 individuals, consumers and family members, at the Arc of Prince George County Maryland. They were provided with information on services available through the Division of Rehabilitation Services and the Client Assistance Program.

F. Advisory Boards

The CAP Director has an active role on the Maryland State Rehabilitation Council (MSRC). The CAP Council member serves on two sub-committees, the Public Relations and Quality Assurance subcommittee, and the Policy and Planning subcommittee. The CAP Director is the Committee Chair of the MSRC Policy and Planning committee.

The CAP Director also serves on the DORS Policy Review Committee, where policy issues are examined and debated. This membership facilitates CAP input into the policy development process.

G. Outreach to Un-served and Underserved Populations

CAP attended all scheduled MSILC meetings to provide outreach to IL consumers, applicants, and referral sources.

CAP attended all DORS Public Meetings for purposes of outreach to attendees. These meetings are attended by both stakeholders, and clients and families. CAP presented to the Conference of Court Appointed Special Advocates to establish a relationship with the foster care system.

H. Systemic Advocacy CAP has significant opportunity to advocate for consumers on a systemic level as a member of the Maryland State Rehabilitation Council, and through participation on the Division’s Policy Review Committee. Additionally, the CAP Director has frequent contact and ready access to all members of the DORS Executive leadership and administration for purposes of systemic advocacy. CAP participation on other committees listed in section F also allowed for CAP to have significant input into systemic advocacy issues. CAP systemic advocacy issues during FY 2012 included:

1. Maryland Division of Rehabilitation Services (DORS) funding and budget issues were the priority systemic advocacy issue for CAP in FY 2012 as they had been for the previous year; those serious concerns are anticipated to continue into FY 2013. Currently, individuals classified as having a significant disability have an approximate 15 month wait for services. The waiting list is now also a matter of human resource limitations, as well as budget, because of state government budget problems and hiring delays and restrictions for all state agencies. The Maryland Division of Rehabilitation Services currently has 50 vacancies overall with 26 in counseling positions.

2. CAP is working with the State Rehabilitation Council and the Division of Rehabilitation Services in the completion of the statewide needs assessment of un-served and underserved individuals for the 2014 State Plan for VR services. CAP continues to work with the Council on the expansion of the VR satisfaction surveys to include both web-based options and in-process data. Administrators are regularly attentive and responsive to system issues identified by CAP, and CAP appreciates the level of participation in policy and program development afforded to CAP, as well as the serious consideration given to CAP’s suggestions and opinions. J. Interesting Cases 1. A 38 year old African American female with orthopedic impairments and a history of substance abuse contacted the Client Assistance Program and requested help in getting the VR agency to provide funding for the training that had been agreed to and included on her Individualized Plan for Employment.

She explained that she was being told by her vocational counselor that she could not attend the branch of the training program that she wished to attend. Her vocational counselor stated that if she wanted to receive funding from the Division of Rehabilitation Services (DORS) she had to attend the training site that they felt was best for her to attend. She indicated that she did not want to attend this training site as it was in the inter city and did not provide the structure and focus she was looking for. She requested to attend the same training program provided by the same institution and costing the same amount at a different geographic location. The Client Assistance Program contacted DORS to discuss this individuals concern about not being allowed to attend the location she had chosen to complete the agreed to training. DORS initially agreed to the requested change in training locations for this individual. However, they subsequently contacted the Client Assistance Program and stated they had changed their decision and would not now agree to the Client’s request. The Client Assistance Program contacted this individual’s and advised them of the Division of Rehabilitation Services decision not to allow them to attend training at their chosen location. CAP then reviewed with them the options available to appeal this denial of service. This individual asked for help from the Client Assistance Program in completing a letter appealing this decision by the Division. CAP worked with the client to complete the appeal letter. The Division of Rehabilitation Services contacted the Client Assistance program after receiving the Client’s appeal letter and reviewing the information in her record of services. The Division indicated that the Client would be supported by the Division in attending the training site of her choice.

2. A 22 year old white female and her mother contacted the Client Assistance Program and asked for help in requesting that the Division of Rehabilitation Services reopen her closed case and provide services to help her find employment. The client recently received a letter from her vocational counselor advising her that her case with the Division of Rehabilitation Services was being closed because of her lack of contact with the Division. She explained that both her and her Mother had been trying unsuccessfully to contact her vocational counselor for some time. The client’s mother feels that her daughter would benefit from job placement and job coaching services.

CAP contacted the Division of Rehabilitation Services and advised the counselor that this individual was asking that her case be reopened and that the Division provide job placement and job coaching services. CAP explained that the individual had been trying to contact VR to schedule an appointment to discuss services from the agency. The counselor recommended that a meeting with the individual be held to discuss the services she was requesting from the Division. CAP attended a meeting held between the Division of Rehabilitation Services counselor and the Client and her Mother. DORS agreed to reopen the individual’s record of services and to complete an amended Individualized Plan for Employment. This Individualized Plan for Employment would include the provision of job placement and job coaching services. The Client Assistance Program maintained contact with the Client and her mother to assure that the plan of services was completed and to provide ongoing information about structure of and services available through the Division. 3. A 20 year old male who was deaf contacted the Client Assistance Program and asked for help in appealing the Division of Rehabilitation Services denial to provide funding assistance for him to live on campus and attend summer classes while attending the University. He explained to CAP that DORS was denying the funding for these services based on their program policies. However, he explained that the courses he was planning on attending for the summer semester were courses he needed to complete the requirements for his degree and would not result in an addition expense for DORS. He also explained that he was requesting to live on campus as a way to eliminate the burden he was experiencing in time and money by commuting back and forth to class daily.

The Client Assistance Program contacted the Division of Rehabilitation Services regarding this individual’s request for funding and the possibility that an exception be made in regards to their policies governing funding for summer semesters classes and living on campus. Detailed information provided to the Client Assistance Program about the difficulties encountered by this individual was forwarded to the Division.

The Division of Rehabilitation Services reviewed the information in this Client’s record of services as well as the additional information provided by the Client regarding their commute and the summer courses they were requesting to take and chose to make an exception to their policy and fund the services.

4. A 46 year old African American female who was found eligible for services through the Division of Rehabilitation Services due to a mental illness contacted the Client Assistance Program for help in understanding and in developing her Individualized Plan for Employment. She explained that she was requesting that the Division help her obtain the services she needed to attend College. In addition to help with the cost of attending college she indicated a need for help with obtaining hearing aids and eye glasses.

The Client Assistance Program provided this individual with information on the policies used by DORS in developing an Individualized Plan for Employment and the impact that her being a recipient of Social Security Disabilities Benefits would have on plan development.

This information assisted the Client in obtaining Hearing Aids and eyeglasses with the financial help of the Division when she had been advised initially that DORS would not fund these services. The Client Assistance Program also helped this individual obtain financial help with the cost of books and supplies during her first semester of school. The Client’s financial aid for school had been delayed due to Federal Income Tax problems. CAP was able to assist the Client in getting help for the Division due to this delay in similar benefits.



This Report is Complete and Correct.Yes
Date Signed:28-Nov-12
Name of Designated Agency Official:Thomas Laverty
Title of Designated Agency Official:Director, Client Assistance Program