RSA-227 for FY-2025: Submission #49

Provide some examples of some interesting cases during the past fiscal year. 1. A strong self-advocate demands due process and the opportunity to earn a more competitive wage 

SH, a 24-year-old Autistic man requested a training grant to fund his MBA degree. His DVR counselor denied SH’s request without providing appropriate written notice or the opportunity to appeal the denial. SH wanted more than just an accounting job. He wanted a leadership position and the ability to earn a more competitive wage, so he requested this as his IPE goal. By the time SH reached out to the CAP, he had completed his first semester of graduate study and was struggling financially. He believed that the DVR denial was incorrect, but his self-advocacy efforts had been unsuccessful. SH requested CAP assistance.  After reviewing records, the CAP advocate determined SH’s right to due process was violated. His attempt to exercise informed choice and revise his IPE goal was not honored and although his requests were denied, DVR did not issue a denial letter.  The advocate advised SH to request a denial letter and agreed to represent him throughout the steps of due process, including providing representation at an administrative law hearing if necessary.  With CAP’s help, SH negotiated an informal resolution in which DVR agreed to approve a training grant to fund the remainder of his MBA in accounting as well as retroactive reimbursement for previous semesters.

2. Improved DVR Communication to Implement the Self Employment Toolkit

MR, a 48-year-old female SSDI recipient with both physical and mental health disabilities sought assistance from CAP in fiscal year 2023 when DVR denied her IPE self-employment goal to manage her own food truck and catering business. AB had made steady progress toward her goal after CAP assisted her to reach an informal agreement with DVR. In fiscal year 2025, MR contacted CAP again because she reached a standstill with DVR.  She and her VRC were struggling to get through the final steps of Wisconsin’s new Self-Employment Toolkit 3.0 policy.  MR did not understand the new policy and was doubting that her VRC wanted her to succeed. A CAP advocate informed MR about the changes to the self-employment policy, including the option to request a new business support consultant service. The advocate also supported MR to request this new service and reach a communication plan with her VR counselor to foster better trust, collaboration, and clear accountability. With this plan in place, MR agreed to sign releases so her VR counselor could provide more support in the final stages of the approval and funding of her business plan. With CAP assistance, MR’s collaboration with DVR was back on track and moving through the final steps necessary for her business to successfully launch.    


3. Short-Term Assistance regarding Due Process Concerns, Reasonable Accommodations, and Policy Interpretation

EF is a 53-year-old male SSDI recipient with diagnoses of ADHD and bipolar disorder. EF was in the process of appealing a denial of a service request for his self-employment IPE goal. He contacted the CAP for assistance with a prehearing phone conference scheduled in four days. EF also reported concerns with the new Self-Employment Toolkit policy and issues with the staff and practices in DVR Workforce Development Area 6.

The CAP Advocate provided client education on the due process steps and resources to support his self-advocacy, including a copy of DVR’s Self-Employment Toolkit 3.0 policy. CAP also coached EF on how to ask for reasonable accommodations during the pre-hearing conference and followed up by providing resources to assist him in making these requests.

EF called the CAP Advocate back to say the pre-hearing conference went well. DVR agreed to give EF a passing score on the Business Assessment Scale and a green light to proceed. He did not have to complete additional management classes to move to the next step. EF reports he is pleased with the outcome and felt well-prepared for the pre-hearing conference.

4. Building a strong workforce by empowering Wisconsin’s ASL learners


A. DA is a 38-year-old, who is a deaf native speaker of American Sign Language, and an SSDI recipient. DA requested the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) to provide a training grant to help fund the remaining two years of his undergraduate degree at an out-of-state university, where instruction would be in his native language. His goal is to complete his degree in business and earn a more competitive wage. Without comprehensive funding, attendance at the out-of-state university would not be possible.

A DRW advocate advised DA that as a social security recipient, DVR cannot require him to pay for services included in his Individual Plan for Employment (IPE). DVR failed to properly follow this policy in the calculation of DA’s prior training grants. DRW further advised DA that per Rehabilitation Services Administration guidance, out-of-state support can include room and board, travel expenses and other expenses not incurred for in-state schooling. Based on this information, DA requested that DVR include travel expenses as a line item under secondary services on his IPE. The DRW advocate represented DA in the negotiations on the calculation of the training grant and exception request needed to fund the full cost of attendance plus travel expenses.

Based on advocacy efforts, DVR agreed to pay the full cost of attendance, plus comprehensive travel expenses to include four roundtrip airfares or mileage to and from school, plus meals, for academic year 2025-26. DVR confirmed that DA’s 2026-2027 academic year expenses will be funded at this comprehensive level assuming he made academic progress.

B. RS is a 32-year-old female, who is deaf, a native ASL speaker, and an SSDI recipient. RS contacted the CAP because DVR refused to fund her virtual training program to become a credentialed licensed counselor.  Upon completing a records review, the CAP confirmed that a denial letter was not issued when RS’s initial request for funding was made.  The CAP advised RS of her rights to due process regarding denial of her training grant.  The CAP then negotiated an informal resolution to the denial in which DVR agreed to pay for the program.