Public Comments
on Open Proposals

Subject: Feedback on 460 IAC 14.1 – Request for Restoration of Protections and Further Improvements

Dear Policy Team,

As a parent of a child with a disability, a home care provider, and an advocate for families navigating Indiana’s disability support systems, I’ve seen firsthand how clarity, strong protections, and fair processes in the VR system can make all the difference.

As someone deeply invested in the success and protection of Indiana’s Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) participants, I’m writing to share my feedback on the newly adopted rules under 460 IAC 14.1. While I appreciate the thoughtful changes made in response to public comments and recognize several important improvements, I remain concerned that some key protections, definitions, and procedures have been removed or left out. These changes could unintentionally harm individuals and families.

✅ Positive Changes Worth Noting

• Hearing aid flexibility: Medical clearance can now come from a primary care physician when appropriate, reducing delays and cost barriers.

• Transportation clarified: Rules now clearly support round-trip travel to assessments and training, and eliminate confusing limitations.

• Student aid is optional: Participants are no longer required to apply for loans, merit scholarships, or work-study in order to receive VR support.

• Family involvement language removed: Potentially discouraging language about involving family has been eliminated.

• Improved case closure language: Rules now reflect patterns of non-cooperation rather than isolated incidents.

❌ Ongoing Concerns

Despite these improvements, I urge DDRS to revisit the following omissions and structural gaps in the new rules:

1. Loss of Detailed Participant Rights and Procedural Protections
   The prior rules explicitly guaranteed rights such as informed choice, statewide service access, and family involvement. Article 14.1 reduces these protections to minimal language referencing federal law. Without a clear “Participant Rights” section, transparency, trust, and consistent practice are weakened.

2. No Required Notification of the Client Assistance Program (CAP)
   While CAP is now defined, the rules no longer require that individuals be notified of CAP availability at key decision points. This is a serious oversight that could leave families unaware of critical advocacy resources—especially during appeals or disputes.

3. Loss of Mediation and Formal Dispute Resolution Framework
   Article 14 included clear procedures for informal review, mediation, and timelines for due process hearings. Article 14.1 eliminates mediation entirely and provides only limited definitions of “administrative review” and “appeal request.” This weakens participants’ ability to resolve concerns efficiently and fairly.

4. Loss of Service-Specific Guidance
   Several entire sections from the previous rules—including those governing supported employment, assistive technology, physical restoration, and small business supports—have been removed or reduced to definitions. There is no operational guidance to ensure consistent interpretation and application of these services.

5. No Guidance on Order of Selection or Waiting Lists
   The previous rules detailed how participants would be prioritized for services during resource limitations. In Article 14.1, the “order of selection” is defined but left without any explanation of categories, decision processes, or participant communication during waitlist periods.

6. Reduced Definitions for Support Services
   Terms such as “services to family members,” “ongoing support,” and “personal assistance” have been removed or narrowed. This may result in misunderstanding, inconsistency, or denial of services that were previously well-understood.

7. Exclusion Lists without Clear Rationale
   Some services are now only mentioned in exclusion sections (e.g., 460 IAC 14.1-7-2) without explanation or cross-reference. This may lead to confusion about what is permitted, especially when services previously allowed are now absent or unclear.

💡 Ideas & Opportunities for Further Improvement

To make Indiana’s VR program a national model of equity, access, and transparency, I encourage DDRS to consider these forward-looking improvements:

• Add a formal “Participant Rights and Responsibilities” section to make protections visible and enforceable.

• Require all communications to be in plain language, written at a 6th to 8th grade reading level, and made available in accessible formats including Easy Read, American Sign Language (ASL), large print, and Spanish. Clear communication is essential for ensuring individuals with diverse cognitive, linguistic, and literacy needs can fully understand their rights, services, and decisions.

• Set timelines for eligibility, plan approval, exceptions, and dispute resolution to ensure timely and predictable services.

• Provide a status tracking system (online or by phone) so participants can follow appeals, service requests, and exceptions in real time.

• Mandate an annual plan review to allow participants to revisit goals or adjust supports as needs change.

• Offer peer navigation or lived-experience support to help participants understand their rights, choices, and options.

• Include optional family training and support services, especially for youth and individuals with significant disabilities.

• Train VR staff in trauma-informed and culturally responsive practices, and integrate these principles into service planning.

• Establish a VR Advisory Panel including participants and families to monitor implementation, identify barriers, and advise on future updates.

Request

I respectfully request that DDRS amend or supplement 460 IAC 14.1 to:

• Reinstate notification requirements for CAP at all major decision points.

• Restore a defined mediation process and reintroduce a structured dispute resolution framework.

• Publish operational guidance or a supplemental manual to clarify service-specific expectations.

• Clearly define the Order of Selection process, including prioritization categories and communication strategies.

• Address service exclusions and undefined terms to ensure clarity, consistency, and equitable access across the state.

• Consider the "Ideas & Opportunities for Further Improvement" outlined above to strengthen Indiana’s VR system for the long term.

Thank you for your work and your ongoing commitment to building a strong, equitable Vocational Rehabilitation program in Indiana. I appreciate the chance to provide input and would be happy to engage further to support future improvements.

Sincerely,
Julie McGill