RSA-227 for FY-2025: Submission #38

Provide some examples of some interesting cases during the past fiscal year. Case 1. A client with an intellectual disability sought vocational rehabilitation (VR) funding to attend InclusiveU at Syracuse University, a comprehensive inclusive postsecondary program for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. For several years, the client was a volunteer assistant in an elementary school gym and loved the work. Staff had expressed interest in hiring him into a paid position but indicated that they could not hire him unless he had some form of post-secondary education and a certificate demonstrating program completion. The client and the family did research on potential options for obtaining a certificate and became very interested in InclusiveU. The school at which he volunteered confirmed that a general certificate from InclusiveU would be sufficient for hiring purposes and that the certificate would not have to be focused in a specific subject area.
When speaking to CAP, the client identified InclusiveU as a critical pathway toward his long-term employment goal, citing the four-year program’s fully inclusive campus experience, structured academic and employment-focused supports, and strong emphasis on independent living and workforce preparation. The program offers a certificate of completion through Syracuse University’s School of Education and would include both academic coursework and employment-related training to align with the client’s employment goal of teaching physical education. The tuition was over $50,000 per year.
The client had contacted CAP after the VR agency denied funding, citing cost concerns and questioning whether InclusiveU constituted vocational training within the scope of VR services, in part because the program does not result in a credential tied to a single, specific occupation. As an alternative, the agency suggested that the client attend the EXCEL program at Bridgewater State University, a two-year inclusive postsecondary program offered at a Massachusetts state institution that offers similar support for students with developmental disabilities. EXCEL was identified as a more feasible option because it was likely eligible for funding through the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), whereas DDS funding was unlikely to be available for InclusiveU. EXCEL was also the only Massachusetts program that was an option based on both his age and the fact that the other programs were not commutable and did not have a residential option. EXCEL was not within commuting distance but had residential placement in a dormitory.
While EXCEL offers valuable academic and social supports, the client expressed that InclusiveU was a better fit due to differences in program length, campus integration, employment development opportunities, and alignment with his specific career interests and independence goals. The client also raised concerns about independent living and safety, noting that InclusiveU provides trained support staff available to students in residence halls on a 24/7 basis, whereas comparable residential supports were not available at Bridgewater State at the time. Nevertheless, CAP suggested exploring potential solutions and supports that might make the EXCEL program workable. Noting that the biggest concern the client and family had was the lack of 24/7 support in the dormitory, CAP suggested that if the programs were somewhat comparable, it was worth exploring whether there may be alternative options to getting more support in the dormitory at EXCEL (e.g. getting funding to hire another student to be available). The client and family were adamant that they wanted to pursue InclusiveU exclusively.
CAP agreed to represent the client but explained the various challenges with the case and set proper expectations. The challenges included getting VR to pay for a four-year costly private school program when there is a public school option and proving that the program aligns to a specific vocational goal when it only offers a general certificate and doesn’t have a clear course of study. The focus of the discussion was how to address those barriers and best frame the issue in consideration of the applicable VR regulations. While there was no disagreement about the quality of the program, CAP noted the challenge substantiating that it was the only suitable/workable program that would correspond to the client’s identified employment goal, particularly since he didn’t have a job offer from the school where he was previously a volunteer. CAP discussed all the variables and worked with the client on how to emphasize that the proposed training would support a specific employment outcome at an elementary school and was consistent with his disability-related limitations, career interests, and informed choice.
CAP represented the client at the Administrative Review. The agency ultimately did not agree to fund InclusiveU, maintaining its position that the program did not lead to a sufficiently specific employment outcome and that a comparable program existed in the state system with the potential for additional supports through DDS. The case did raise important policy considerations regarding access to inclusive postsecondary education options. It also reinforced the role of informed choice and individualized determination in VR decision-making, particularly for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities pursuing nontraditional pathways to employment.

Case 2. An individual with a TBI sought VR’s assistance to establish an ecommerce business with a unique focus. In short, the business would be an online platform for selling a range of merchandise with an added component of connecting people with disabilities to vendors that sell disability related products and services. The client was seeking funding from VR to purchase merchandise for sale under the category of initial stocks and supplies.
The client initially worked on this self-employment goal with one VR office that supported their idea, even when they had specific questions and logistic concerns. Subsequently the case was transferred to a different office who did not support the business idea and existing business plan and questioned whether the type of merchandise they needed purchased would even be considered stocks and supplies given that it was existing merchandise for resale.
After working with VR for nearly two years the client reached out to CAP due to lack of progress. They reported that the VR staff did not support their business idea and did not believe it was realistic. They wanted the client to pare down the scope of the business by removing the disability angle, and this was very offensive to the client as they were very passionate about the disability related aspect of their business. They reported that VR staff continually come up with a range of reasons for not supporting the business and that the reason for not supporting it kept changing. The most recent reason was a procurement-related barrier to purchasing merchandise (initial stocks and supplies).
CAP’s first action in the case was to reach out to the legal department to inquire about whether there was truly a procurement-related barrier, noting that the client had been given a number of varied reasons to date for not funding the business. The legal department confirmed that there was in fact a procurement issue relative to state rules with the VR agency purchasing merchandise for a client to resell but recognized that if the matter went to fair hearing or was reviewed by RSA, they may be told that they would have to bypass the rule. They then said that a more significant issue for them at the time was that the client did not have a business yet and they would not just purchase items for the client before there was an existing business. They noted that the client had stated that the only assistance they were seeking was for VR to purchase merchandise, not to assist in establishing a business, which is something they were willing to do.
CAP shared with the client that it seemed that they might be able to get over the procurement hurdle, but it did not appear that they could ask VR to pay for supplies if there is no existing business, and that VR was willing to assist in establishing the business. The client, who has a confidential identity maintained that they could not establish a business that would reveal their identity. From there the client maintained that the business could only be established as a business trust to protect their identity. The VR agency disagreed that they could fund this type of business structure and CAP spent months attempting to negotiate a solution without success before determining that we had reached an impasse. The VR agency insisted that the only appeal option was a fair hearing, maintaining that the case was too complicated to be resolved at Administrative Review. They would not agree to participate in mediation
At the end of the fiscal year, CAP was still evaluating whether the case warranted representation at Fair Hearing. The case was extremely complicated in consideration of history and the level of detail associated with the four major hurdles involved: business trust, procurement rules, business plan dispute, and potential impact of business income on the specific benefits that the client received. Additionally, the case had evolved in such a way that CAP had only been focusing on the first hurdle and had not yet even had the opportunity to research the other hurdles. To do that would require a substantial time commitment. Considering CAP was down one CAP Advocate and was in the middle of hiring a replacement, it was necessary to strongly consider whether CAP had the resources to devote to the level of preparation needed for a fair hearing within such a short period of time.
Case 3. A VR client with mental illness contacted CAP due to significant concerns with his assigned VR counselor, including lack of transparency, communication breakdowns, and trust issues related to the development and execution of their Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE). At the time of CAP involvement, the client’s VR case was at risk of closure and the client sought to appeal the agency’s decision and request assignment to a different counselor.
The communication between the client and VR staff had become very strained over time and by the time CAP became involved, it seemed that the relationship was beyond repair. When CAP investigated the matter to determine whether the issue could be resolved informally, VR staff insisted that the case should close because the client was incapable of being civil and cooperative and the case was not progressing. This news only made the client angrier. For those reasons, CAP could not negotiate an informal solution and ultimately agreed to represent the client at the Administrative Review to appeal the decision to close the case.
The decision of the appeal was that the client’s case would stay open and that they would be reassigned to a new counselor. Given the past communication history, CAP had concerns that the case would continue to stall. CAP had observed significant problems with the client’s behavior and ability to control their temper and worked closely with them to ensure that they understood their rights as well as their obligations around communication. From there, CAP advocacy focused on ensuring meaningful client participation in planning, restoring trust in the VR process, and maintaining access to services rather than terminating the case.
CAP facilitated the transition to a new counselor by participating in joint meetings with the client and the newly assigned counselor, clarifying expectations, emphasizing transparency in service delivery, and supporting constructive communication between the parties. The newly assigned counselor reported that CAP’s involvement was helpful in establishing clear expectations and supported the development of a positive and productive working relationship with the client. CAP continued to participate in meetings for some time to ensure that the relationship was going well.
Following reassignment, the client successfully re-engaged in VR services. The new counselor implemented clearer communication practices, reviewed the IPE collaboratively with the client, and supported career exploration, job search activities, and related services consistent with the client’s interests and strengths. The working relationship improved substantially, services proceeded without further dispute, and the case moved forward productively. CAP involvement was instrumental in preventing case closure, resolving the appeal, and restoring effective service delivery.
Case 4. A client with a psychiatric disability sought services from VR to pursue self-employment in the construction field. The client had worked in the field previously but was seeking advanced training to work in managerial position in the field.
The client’s case was closed by the agency under “unavailable for services” following communication difficulties and disagreement about service delivery. The main difficulty stemmed from the fact that the client did not want to turn on their camera during virtual meetings. The client wanted to continue exploring their vocational goal and asked CAP to assist in challenging the case closure and seeking continued VR services with appropriate accommodations. The client maintained that their request to remain off camera during meetings was a matter of reasonable accommodation.
CAP provided consultation regarding VR rights and appeal options, coordinated with the client and her therapist at the client’s request, and filed an appeal requesting an Administrative Review. CAP participated in the review and advocated that the client could benefit from services if provided in a manner consistent with her disability-related needs and vocational goal.
As a result of the Administrative Review, the agency reversed the case closure, agreed to transfer the client to a different VR office, and determined that the client could benefit from continued services. The agency also agreed to provide accommodations going forward related to meeting format and to continue career exploration and benefits counseling to support development of the client’s self-employment goal.