Re: [Rehab] Question about Policy Change re Work Authorizations for Immigrants Seeking Services from a State VR Agency
Hi Daphne, Thank you for your thoughtful response. I realize that I may have presented the policy as being narrower than what it actually was. I'm going to try to explain that further, but I also want to ask you, at the end of that explanation, to tell me please if New Mexico has a similar explicitly written policy or if it is functionally carried out through the system of practice. For me, this is not about the state agency director's character or style, but purely a question of policy. I want to stay focused on policy. In Minnesota, my understanding, as a member of the State Rehabilitation Council for the Blind, is that the agency has been directed by RSA to implement the language that I quoted to affect all service delivery, including VR, older blind services, and our Disability Innovation Fund (DIF) grant that specifically provides services for "New Americans," which is a term that includes immigrants and refugees. One of the easy solutions could have been to serve people under non-work types of cases, such as independent living cases, so that no employment goal would be necessary. This is completely off the table. This policy, as it has been explained to us, essentially mandates that any person who (a) is neither a permanent legal resident nor a US Citizen, and (b) does not hold federal work authorization, must be sent back out the door with no services of any kind. One of the Councilmembers asked a very interesting question. Since work authorizations expire or can be revoked, will we have a process by which we will need to keep re-verifying that people's work authorizations are neither expired nor revoked? To implement this policy, we would need to set up some kind of recurring re-verification process to ensure that anyone we are serving does not lose their work authorization. Here's an idea that came up for me from listening to public comment. How possible could it be for VR agencies and/or community partners to get involved in helping blind people apply for federal work authorization? I don't want this to go down the road of sheltered workshops, but what if we found some way that we could help people who need work authorization to find a sponsoring employer and help them apply? After that, they could become eligible for blindness-related services and keep moving forward. Now that I have explained this to be broader than even the subject that I used for the initial email, does this policy sound different than what you already thought was commonplace? Also, even if it were only about VR services, does New Mexico have an explicit policy, maybe with language you can share that we could consider copying or Minnesota-nizing, that says the same thing narrowly limited to VR? Does it include a policy for how often the work authorization needs to be re-verified? Thank you all, Justin Justin MH Salisbury, MEd, NOMC, NCRTB English Pronouns: He/Him/His Email: President@Alumni.ECU.edu ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin_Salisbury LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-salisbury ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1786-2786 “Until the lion learns how to write, every story will glorify the hunter.” Chinua Achebe -----Original Message----- From: Rehab <rehab-bounces@nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Daphne Mitchell via Rehab Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2025 1:49 PM To: blind rehabilitation professionals mailing list <rehab@nfbnet.org> Cc: Daphne Mitchell <dauroramitchell@gmail.com>; Edward Bell via NOMC <members@lists.nbpcb.org> Subject: Re: [Rehab] Question about Policy Change re Work Authorizations for Immigrants Seeking VR Services Hi Justin, Since I entered my career in VR over 15 years ago, work authorization in the United States has been a requirement for individuals in the receipt of employment services. The passage of WIOA in 2014 further clarified the standard with the dissolution of the homemaker outcome and the inclusion of language that services provided must be in support of the participant’s employment outcome. It’s important to remember that although we (the blind community) think of any service being attained from the state services for the blind as VR, that’s simply not true. Each federal award has different criteria for who may access the programs being funded, and the state agency is responsible for enforcing the terms they agreed to when accepting the federal award. Failing to adhere to regulatory mandates would open the door to expenditures being deemed disallowable because services would be considered nonauthorized. The agency would then be forced to reimburse the US Treasury for expenditures found to fall in this category – potentially totaling Hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Generally, the receipt of Independent Living Services and Pre-ETS do not require work authorization. WIOA brought tremendous overhaul to the delivery of the public VR program. In my opinion, most state agencies were stymied by figuring out which regulation to tackle first. I venture most agencies landed on focusing on WIOA performance measures that would lead to financial sanctions if not met. Getting a handle on delivering Pre-ETS, tracking measurable skill gains, implementing Section 511, and properly tracking employment after exit were the initiatives occupying agency leadership. Right as agencies were getting the hang of their new reality, 2020 said hold my beer. Agencies had to pivot to the challenges of the simultaneous crises of implementing remote service delivery models; decline in participants engaging with VR; loss of agency and CRP employees; and ultimately finding solutions to legally obligate federal awards. Now that the overall public VR program has spent the federal grant, and state agencies can collectively breathe again, I am not surprised that Minnesota SSB is only now having an opportunity to discuss an official policy adoption for a matter that has been effectively addressed by practice. Although I do not have a personal relationship with the Minnesota SSB director, I have observed her professionally and believe she will work with the blind community to responsibly design a policy that meets mandatory regulations and best serves the blind of Minnesota. Daphne On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 2:51 PM Blaine Deutscher via Rehab <rehab@nfbnet.org> wrote:
Good afternoon This topic is very interesting to me as I'm looking at coming to the US and becoming certified in SD training. I knew to work in the states you need a work visa if your not a permanent resident or US citizen. This also applies for people looking to do apprenticeship training. Blaine Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 25, 2025, at 1:28 PM, Justin Salisbury via Rehab < rehab@nfbnet.org> wrote:
Good afternoon, friends and colleagues!
I currently live in Minnesota, where our state VR agency serving the blind is considering some policy changes. One of them is a bit confusing to me, so I'm reaching out to ask if people here have any experience with this kind of policy change and if you have anything to share. I think I've been told that this policy change has been directly handed down to us from RSA, so, if that's the case, then I think people all over the country should be in the same boat. I just haven't heard any public discourse in NFB spaces about it and want to be informed before I do or say anything on this proposed policy change.
The proposal is to add this requirement: "If a person is not a legal permanent resident or U.S. Citizen, they must provide evidence of work authorization (such as a nonimmigrant work visa or Employment Authorization Document) before eligibility can be determined. If no evidence can be provided, the case is closed from application without an eligibility determination."
I wonder what kinds of ethical dilemmas this will cause for anyone holding a CRC or any certifications from the NBPCB or ACVREP.
On the one hand, there may be people who come to the United States looking for VR services so that they can become confident and skilled enough to go out and get a work authorization. I think I've worked with students who had some kind of medical visa which allowed them to come to the US for healthcare, and then we gave them adjustment-to-blindness training, which helped them to go apply for a work visa. That wasn't in Minnesota, but it could be possible anywhere, I would suppose. Such a policy change would seem to eliminate that phenomenon from happening again.
On another hand, there could be people here on other kinds of visas, like international students who are here on F-1 student visas, who might benefit from receiving some access technology instruction.
On another hand, we could have people who are here on still other kinds of visas that do not allow them to work, who then become blind, who could benefit from VR services. These folks may apply for work visas, but do we want to make them wait until the work visa goes through before we can start serving them?
It also occurs to me that other federal policy changes could be under consideration that might allow a person to get a work visa if they're coming here for VR services, but I doubt that.
What do folks here know about these kinds of policy changes?
Thanks in advance,
Justin
Justin MH Salisbury, MEd, NOMC, NCRTB English Pronouns: He/Him/His Email: President@Alumni.ECU.edu<mailto:President@Alumni.ECU.edu> ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin_Salisbury<; https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Just in_Salisbury&source=gmail-imap&ust=1727538746000000&usg=AOvVaw3uZJqqJk T2wSVxJDa9dD7W
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-salisbury<; https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-salisbury&source=gmail-imap&ust=1727538746000000&usg=AOvVaw0XtyTG9WXXQ8TWe6UeU4Nz
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1786-2786
"Until the lion learns how to write, every story will glorify the hunter." Chinua Achebe
_______________________________________________ Rehab mailing list Rehab@nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/rehab_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Rehab:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/rehab_nfbnet.org/deutscherblaine%40gmail.c...
_______________________________________________ Rehab mailing list Rehab@nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/rehab_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Rehab:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/rehab_nfbnet.org/dauroramitchell%40gmail.c...
_______________________________________________ Rehab mailing list Rehab@nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/rehab_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Rehab: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/rehab_nfbnet.org/president%40alumni.ecu.ed...
Hello again, everyone, I write again because I still don't know of a state that has an explicit policy similar to the one proposed in Minnesota. If your state does not have such a policy, it may be helpful to know that, too. I also need to adjust the way I framed the role of RSA in communicating information about the policy change. It sounds like some folks at RSA were bothered by how I explained their role. RSA has no formal, official, on paper, documented role in this policy directive. Some individuals involved in the policymaking process may try to build support for state policy proposals like the one that I have outlined by referencing phone calls that they have had with unnamed RSA leaders without directly revealing what happens in those conversations. It is hard for me to know how to paraphrase the role of RSA when I am not in the conversations with RSA. I have been advised the following: RSA has not issued any formal guidance or directives on this matter. What has been issued is three separate press releases/notices of interpretation from DHHS, DOL, and ED on July 11th as it relates to work authorization, none of which explicitly mention vocational rehabilitation. With that said, I am still searching for information about the topic of this email chain. Key questions include: - How widespread are policies like the one proposed in Minnesota, which would require citizenship, permanent legal residency, or a work authorization for customers to receive ANY services from the state agency serving the blind? - How often do state agencies serving the blind re-verify the work authorization of their consumers/customers to ensure that those work authorizations have not expired? - In states with such a policy, if a blind person is in the United States legally but without work authorization, citizenship, or permanent legal residency, where do they receive services? - If your state has such a policy, could you please share the text of it so that it can be considered in the Minnesota discussion? Thank you all, Justin Justin MH Salisbury, MEd, NOMC, NCRTB English Pronouns: He/Him/His Email: President@Alumni.ECU.edu ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin_Salisbury LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-salisbury ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1786-2786 “Until the lion learns how to write, every story will glorify the hunter.” Chinua Achebe -----Original Message----- From: Justin Salisbury via NOMC <members@lists.nbpcb.org> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2025 10:27 AM To: blind rehabilitation professionals mailing list <rehab@nfbnet.org> Cc: Daphne Mitchell <dauroramitchell@gmail.com>; Edward Bell via NOMC <members@lists.nbpcb.org> Subject: [NOMC] Re: [Rehab] Question about Policy Change re Work Authorizations for Immigrants Seeking Services from a State VR Agency Hi Daphne, Thank you for your thoughtful response. I realize that I may have presented the policy as being narrower than what it actually was. I'm going to try to explain that further, but I also want to ask you, at the end of that explanation, to tell me please if New Mexico has a similar explicitly written policy or if it is functionally carried out through the system of practice. For me, this is not about the state agency director's character or style, but purely a question of policy. I want to stay focused on policy. In Minnesota, my understanding, as a member of the State Rehabilitation Council for the Blind, is that the agency has been directed by RSA to implement the language that I quoted to affect all service delivery, including VR, older blind services, and our Disability Innovation Fund (DIF) grant that specifically provides services for "New Americans," which is a term that includes immigrants and refugees. One of the easy solutions could have been to serve people under non-work types of cases, such as independent living cases, so that no employment goal would be necessary. This is completely off the table. This policy, as it has been explained to us, essentially mandates that any person who (a) is neither a permanent legal resident nor a US Citizen, and (b) does not hold federal work authorization, must be sent back out the door with no services of any kind. One of the Councilmembers asked a very interesting question. Since work authorizations expire or can be revoked, will we have a process by which we will need to keep re-verifying that people's work authorizations are neither expired nor revoked? To implement this policy, we would need to set up some kind of recurring re-verification process to ensure that anyone we are serving does not lose their work authorization. Here's an idea that came up for me from listening to public comment. How possible could it be for VR agencies and/or community partners to get involved in helping blind people apply for federal work authorization? I don't want this to go down the road of sheltered workshops, but what if we found some way that we could help people who need work authorization to find a sponsoring employer and help them apply? After that, they could become eligible for blindness-related services and keep moving forward. Now that I have explained this to be broader than even the subject that I used for the initial email, does this policy sound different than what you already thought was commonplace? Also, even if it were only about VR services, does New Mexico have an explicit policy, maybe with language you can share that we could consider copying or Minnesota-nizing, that says the same thing narrowly limited to VR? Does it include a policy for how often the work authorization needs to be re-verified? Thank you all, Justin Justin MH Salisbury, MEd, NOMC, NCRTB English Pronouns: He/Him/His Email: President@Alumni.ECU.edu ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin_Salisbury LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-salisbury ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1786-2786 “Until the lion learns how to write, every story will glorify the hunter.” Chinua Achebe -----Original Message----- From: Rehab <rehab-bounces@nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Daphne Mitchell via Rehab Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2025 1:49 PM To: blind rehabilitation professionals mailing list <rehab@nfbnet.org> Cc: Daphne Mitchell <dauroramitchell@gmail.com>; Edward Bell via NOMC <members@lists.nbpcb.org> Subject: Re: [Rehab] Question about Policy Change re Work Authorizations for Immigrants Seeking VR Services Hi Justin, Since I entered my career in VR over 15 years ago, work authorization in the United States has been a requirement for individuals in the receipt of employment services. The passage of WIOA in 2014 further clarified the standard with the dissolution of the homemaker outcome and the inclusion of language that services provided must be in support of the participant’s employment outcome. It’s important to remember that although we (the blind community) think of any service being attained from the state services for the blind as VR, that’s simply not true. Each federal award has different criteria for who may access the programs being funded, and the state agency is responsible for enforcing the terms they agreed to when accepting the federal award. Failing to adhere to regulatory mandates would open the door to expenditures being deemed disallowable because services would be considered nonauthorized. The agency would then be forced to reimburse the US Treasury for expenditures found to fall in this category – potentially totaling Hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Generally, the receipt of Independent Living Services and Pre-ETS do not require work authorization. WIOA brought tremendous overhaul to the delivery of the public VR program. In my opinion, most state agencies were stymied by figuring out which regulation to tackle first. I venture most agencies landed on focusing on WIOA performance measures that would lead to financial sanctions if not met. Getting a handle on delivering Pre-ETS, tracking measurable skill gains, implementing Section 511, and properly tracking employment after exit were the initiatives occupying agency leadership. Right as agencies were getting the hang of their new reality, 2020 said hold my beer. Agencies had to pivot to the challenges of the simultaneous crises of implementing remote service delivery models; decline in participants engaging with VR; loss of agency and CRP employees; and ultimately finding solutions to legally obligate federal awards. Now that the overall public VR program has spent the federal grant, and state agencies can collectively breathe again, I am not surprised that Minnesota SSB is only now having an opportunity to discuss an official policy adoption for a matter that has been effectively addressed by practice. Although I do not have a personal relationship with the Minnesota SSB director, I have observed her professionally and believe she will work with the blind community to responsibly design a policy that meets mandatory regulations and best serves the blind of Minnesota. Daphne On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 2:51 PM Blaine Deutscher via Rehab <rehab@nfbnet.org> wrote:
Good afternoon This topic is very interesting to me as I'm looking at coming to the US and becoming certified in SD training. I knew to work in the states you need a work visa if your not a permanent resident or US citizen. This also applies for people looking to do apprenticeship training. Blaine Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 25, 2025, at 1:28 PM, Justin Salisbury via Rehab < rehab@nfbnet.org> wrote:
Good afternoon, friends and colleagues!
I currently live in Minnesota, where our state VR agency serving the blind is considering some policy changes. One of them is a bit confusing to me, so I'm reaching out to ask if people here have any experience with this kind of policy change and if you have anything to share. I think I've been told that this policy change has been directly handed down to us from RSA, so, if that's the case, then I think people all over the country should be in the same boat. I just haven't heard any public discourse in NFB spaces about it and want to be informed before I do or say anything on this proposed policy change.
The proposal is to add this requirement: "If a person is not a legal permanent resident or U.S. Citizen, they must provide evidence of work authorization (such as a nonimmigrant work visa or Employment Authorization Document) before eligibility can be determined. If no evidence can be provided, the case is closed from application without an eligibility determination."
I wonder what kinds of ethical dilemmas this will cause for anyone holding a CRC or any certifications from the NBPCB or ACVREP.
On the one hand, there may be people who come to the United States looking for VR services so that they can become confident and skilled enough to go out and get a work authorization. I think I've worked with students who had some kind of medical visa which allowed them to come to the US for healthcare, and then we gave them adjustment-to-blindness training, which helped them to go apply for a work visa. That wasn't in Minnesota, but it could be possible anywhere, I would suppose. Such a policy change would seem to eliminate that phenomenon from happening again.
On another hand, there could be people here on other kinds of visas, like international students who are here on F-1 student visas, who might benefit from receiving some access technology instruction.
On another hand, we could have people who are here on still other kinds of visas that do not allow them to work, who then become blind, who could benefit from VR services. These folks may apply for work visas, but do we want to make them wait until the work visa goes through before we can start serving them?
It also occurs to me that other federal policy changes could be under consideration that might allow a person to get a work visa if they're coming here for VR services, but I doubt that.
What do folks here know about these kinds of policy changes?
Thanks in advance,
Justin
Justin MH Salisbury, MEd, NOMC, NCRTB English Pronouns: He/Him/His Email: President@Alumni.ECU.edu<mailto:President@Alumni.ECU.edu> ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin_Salisbury<; https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Just in_Salisbury&source=gmail-imap&ust=1727538746000000&usg=AOvVaw3uZJqqJk T2wSVxJDa9dD7W
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-salisbury<; https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-salisb ury&source=gmail-imap&ust=1727538746000000&usg=AOvVaw0XtyTG9WXXQ8TWe6U eU4Nz
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1786-2786
"Until the lion learns how to write, every story will glorify the hunter." Chinua Achebe
_______________________________________________ Rehab mailing list Rehab@nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/rehab_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Rehab:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/rehab_nfbnet.org/deutscherblaine%40g mail.com
_______________________________________________ Rehab mailing list Rehab@nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/rehab_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Rehab:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/rehab_nfbnet.org/dauroramitchell%40g mail.com
_______________________________________________ Rehab mailing list Rehab@nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/rehab_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Rehab: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/rehab_nfbnet.org/president%40alumni.ecu.ed... _______________________________________________ NOMC mailing list -- members@lists.nbpcb.org To unsubscribe send an email to members-leave@lists.nbpcb.org
participants (1)
-
Justin Salisbury