Commission weighing whether Maryland’s rehabilitation division should stay under DOE hears warnings about disruption and $3.4M staffing shortfall

At its sixth meeting the Commission to Study the Division of Rehabilitation Services heard technical assistance on the legal and administrative steps required to move the state’s vocational rehabilitation program out of the Maryland State Department of Education and debated whether to pursue a transfer or instead strengthen the program inside MSDE.

Scott (meeting facilitator) opened the session by framing two central questions: whether DORS should remain within MSDE or be transferred to another state agency, and whether DORS should have a governing board separate from the State Board of Education. Melissa Deal, a technical-assistance adviser from George Washington University, told commissioners that federal rules under WIOA and RSA are deliberately prescriptive to protect consumers and the non‑delegable functions of VR programs — including eligibility determinations, verification of employment outcomes and the allocation of VR funds.

Scott summarized the agency snapshot: federal FY22 VR funding for the state was reported as $48,623,940, with a state match of $13,159,985; per‑person federal funding was presented as about $77.97. He said category 1 services are open, category 2 was closed but the state has been bringing people off the wait list, and that the category‑2 waitlist figures were cited in the transcript at roughly 2,777–2,780 individuals. Scott added that DORS has about 136 VR counselors in field offices and that MSDE has taken steps to stabilize and recruit staff.

Commissioners pressed for practical details about a hypothetical transfer. Scott said a prior 2019 analysis estimating what it would take to move DORS to the Department of Disabilities identified 32 additional back‑office positions — 17 fiscal staff and 15 human resources and people‑support roles — and estimated roughly $3.4 million in personnel costs to create equivalent administrative capacity outside MSDE. Scott clarified that the $3.4 million figure covers personnel only; facility costs, new IT development or other operational expenses would be additional and depend on where the staff are housed.

The group discussed how much indirect funding MSDE currently retains. Scott said MSDE’s negotiated indirect cost recoveries from DORS grants are approximately $2.5 million to $3.0 million a year; commissioners noted that a transfer would require renegotiation of an indirect cost rate with the U.S. Department of Education and could create a shortfall that state funds would need to cover.

Melissa and commissioners reviewed lessons from other states (Utah, Texas, Colorado, Connecticut, Arkansas, Michigan and others). Deal warned that even with careful planning moves commonly cause short‑term disruption: delays accessing federal grant awards (G5), reporting and reconciliation problems, case‑management transitions and compliance risks tied to non‑delegable VR functions. “There’s a tremendous amount of disruption,” she said of most moves, and commissioners cited examples of staff loss and months‑long interruptions to payments and services in some states.

Commissioners and DORS staff also discussed representation and customer service. Jade and others urged stronger representation of people with disabilities in governance; Jody Boone, director of the Office of Field Services, described the agency’s regional supervisory structure and pointed commissioners to contact information on the DORS website for escalation when counselors are unresponsive. Members debated telework policy and its effect on recruitment and retention; an MSDE representative corrected an assertion that Superintendent Choudhury required a return to office, saying that the earlier return‑to‑work decision was made under a previous superintendent and that DORS has seen a substantial applicant pool and reduced vacancies since Superintendent Choudhury’s arrival.

Rather than endorse a move, several commissioners urged prioritizing internal reforms: clearer policies, standardized customer service, improved outreach and messaging, better representation on oversight bodies and technical fixes that would reduce system friction. Scott and MSDE staff offered to collect commissioners’ written recommendations ahead of the next meeting so the final report can propose concrete, implementable language rather than broad directives.

No formal transfer decision was made at the meeting. The commission scheduled a follow‑up meeting in March to continue deliberations and to review written recommendations; a motion to adjourn was made, seconded and carried at 3:13 p.m.

The meeting included multiple presentations of technical and comparative evidence, direct cost estimates for a hypothetical transfer and repeated cautions from federal‑policy experts that transfers commonly create short‑term service disruption unless a transfer agreement and federal notifications are handled meticulously.