Vocational Rehabilitation
Better Measures and Monitoring Could Improve the Performance of the VR Program Gao ID: GAO-05-865 September 23, 2005The Department of Education (Education) provides more than $2.5 billion annually to the states for a federal-state vocational rehabilitation (VR) program to help individuals with disabilities become employed. This program is among a large number of federal programs intended to assist people with disabilities. In 2003 GAO placed federal disability programs on its list of high-risk programs because many of these programs have not kept up with scientific advances and economic and social changes. GAO prepared this report under the Comptroller General's authority as part of an effort to assist policy makers in determining how federal disability programs could more effectively meet the needs of individuals with disabilities and addressed it to each committee of jurisdiction. In this report, GAO assesses the (1) extent to which state VR agencies assist individuals in achieving employment, and (2) performance measures and monitoring practices Education uses to manage this decentralized program and achieve legislative goals.
Of the more than 650,000 individuals exiting the state VR programs in fiscal year 2003, one-third (217,557) obtained a new job or maintained their existing job for at least 90 days after receiving services. Education's data showed that the remaining two-thirds exited the VR program without employment most often because the individual refused services or failed to cooperate with the VR counselor (46 percent of the time) or could not be located or contacted (24 percent). The VR program purchased more than $1.3 billion in services for all individuals who exited the program in fiscal year 2003, two-thirds of which were used to provide services to individuals exiting with employment. Employment, earnings, and the amount of purchased services received while in the VR program varied significantly by individuals' disability type and other characteristics. In addition, state VR agencies varied substantially in the employment rates they achieved, the characteristics of individuals they served, their frequency of providing certain services, and their service expenditures. Education's performance measures are not comprehensive, and its monitoring of state VR agencies has not resulted in timely feedback. Education does not comprehensively measure the performance of certain key populations, such as students transitioning from school to work, and tracks only the individuals who exit the program, not those still receiving services. In addition, Education's performance measures do not take into consideration all the variation among the state VR agencies or allow for comparisons with other workforce programs. Education's monitoring reports, which are its primary means of providing feedback to state VR agencies, are frequently late and based on data that are more than 2 years old. Consequently, state VR agencies do not receive the timely feedback needed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their programs. In managing the performance of the VR program, Education also does not censure poorly performing state VR agencies, reward strong performance, or take full advantage of opportunities to disseminate best practices. Education recently decided to eliminate its regional offices, which conducted most of the monitoring of state VR agencies, making the details of the future monitoring process unclear.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-05-865, Vocational Rehabilitation: Better Measures and Monitoring Could Improve the Performance of the VR Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-865
entitled 'Vocational Rehabilitation: Better Measures and Monitoring
Could Improve the Performance of the VR Program' which was released on
September 23, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2005:
Vocational Rehabilitation:
Better Measures and Monitoring Could Improve the Performance of the VR
Program:
GAO-05-865:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-865, a report to congressional committees:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Education (Education) provides more than $2.5 billion
annually to the states for a federal-state vocational rehabilitation
(VR) program to help individuals with disabilities become employed.
This program is among a large number of federal programs intended to
assist people with disabilities. In 2003 GAO placed federal disability
programs on its list of high-risk programs because many of these
programs have not kept up with scientific advances and economic and
social changes. GAO prepared this report under the Comptroller
General‘s authority as part of an effort to assist policy makers in
determining how federal disability programs could more effectively meet
the needs of individuals with disabilities and addressed it to each
committee of jurisdiction. In this report, GAO assesses the (1) extent
to which state VR agencies assist individuals in achieving employment,
and (2) performance measures and monitoring practices Education uses to
manage this decentralized program and achieve legislative goals.
What GAO Found:
Of the more than 650,000 individuals exiting the state VR programs in
fiscal year 2003, one-third (217,557) obtained a new job or maintained
their existing job for at least 90 days after receiving services.
Education‘s data showed that the remaining two-thirds exited the VR
program without employment most often because the individual refused
services or failed to cooperate with the VR counselor (46 percent of
the time) or could not be located or contacted (24 percent). The VR
program purchased more than $1.3 billion in services for all
individuals who exited the program in fiscal year 2003, two-thirds of
which were used to provide services to individuals exiting with
employment. Employment, earnings, and the amount of purchased services
received while in the VR program varied significantly by individuals‘
disability type and other characteristics. In addition, state VR
agencies varied substantially in the employment rates they achieved,
the characteristics of individuals they served, their frequency of
providing certain services, and their service expenditures.
Individuals Exiting the VR Program, Fiscal Year 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Education‘s performance measures are not comprehensive, and its
monitoring of state VR agencies has not resulted in timely feedback.
Education does not comprehensively measure the performance of certain
key populations, such as students transitioning from school to work,
and tracks only the individuals who exit the program, not those still
receiving services. In addition, Education‘s performance measures do
not take into consideration all the variation among the state VR
agencies or allow for comparisons with other workforce programs.
Education‘s monitoring reports, which are its primary means of
providing feedback to state VR agencies, are frequently late and based
on data that are more than 2 years old. Consequently, state VR agencies
do not receive the timely feedback needed to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of their programs. In managing the performance of the VR
program, Education also does not censure poorly performing state VR
agencies, reward strong performance, or take full advantage of
opportunities to disseminate best practices. Education recently decided
to eliminate its regional offices, which conducted most of the
monitoring of state VR agencies, making the details of the future
monitoring process unclear.
What GAO Recommends:
Education agreed that better measures and monitoring could improve the
performance of the VR program, as GAO recommended. These
recommendations included aligning performance measures with program
goals and developing a better monitoring process that includes timelier
feedback to state VR agencies.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-865.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Robert E. Robertson at
(202) 512-7215 or robertsonr@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
One-Third of Individuals Exited the VR Program Nationwide with
Employment, although Employment Rates Varied Significantly among State
VR Agencies:
Education's VR Performance Measures Are Not Comprehensive, and Its
Monitoring of State VR Agencies' Performance Has Not Resulted in Timely
Feedback:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: State VR Agency Exit and Employment Rates, Fiscal Year
2003:
Appendix III: State VR Agency Population Proportions by Primary
Impairment, Fiscal Year 2003:
Appendix IV: Social Security Beneficiaries' Employment Rates by State
VR Agency, Fiscal Year 2003:
Appendix V: State VR Agency Percentages of Total Agency Service Budget
Spent on Each Service Category, Fiscal Year 2003:
Appendix VI: State VR Agency Total Administrative Costs as a Percentage
of Total Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003:
Appendix VII: State VR Agency Average Total Expenditures in Fiscal Year
2003 Per Person Exiting with Employment in Fiscal Year 2003:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Performance Indicators and Performance Targets for State VR
Agencies:
Table 2: Time in Program, Number of Services, and Cost of Services by
Type of Exit from the VR Program, Fiscal Year 2003:
Table 3: Percentage of Individuals in the VR Program Receiving Services
by Each of the 22 Service Categories Tracked by Education, Fiscal Year
2003:
Table 4: Transitioning Students Exiting the VR Program with Employment
after Services under an Employment Plan, Fiscal Year 2003:
Table 5: Per Capita Service Costs by Each Type of State VR Agency,
Fiscal Year 2003:
Table 6: Blind or Visually Impaired Individuals Exiting with Employment
from Blind State VR Agencies versus Combined State VR Agencies, Fiscal
Year 2003:
Figures:
Figure 1: Individuals Exiting the VR Program, Fiscal Years 1997-2003:
Figure 2: Individuals Exiting the VR Program, Fiscal Year 2003:
Figure 3: Reasons for Individuals Exiting the VR Program without
Employment, Fiscal Year 2003:
Figure 4: Primary Impairments of Individuals Exiting the VR Program,
Fiscal Year 2003:
Figure 5: Rates of Exit from the VR Program by Primary Impairment
Group, Fiscal Year 2003:
Figure 6: Median Hourly Wage by Impairment Group among Individuals
Exiting the VR Program with Employment who did Not Require Ongoing
Support Services, Fiscal Year 2003:
Figure 7: Employment Status of Individuals Exiting the VR Program in
Fiscal Year 2003 Who Previously Participated in the VR Program:
Abbreviations:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:
IEP: individualized education program:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
PART: Program Assessment Rating Tool:
RSA: Rehabilitation Services Administration:
VR: vocational rehabilitation:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 23, 2005:
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi:
Chairman:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John A. Boehner:
Chairman:
The Honorable George Miller:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
The Department of Education (Education) provides more than $2.5 billion
annually to the states for a federal-state vocational rehabilitation
(VR) program to help individuals with disabilities become employed,
consistent with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In fiscal year 2003,
these state programs provided services to more than 1 million
individuals with disabilities. Although Education provides more than
three-quarters of the program's funding, states have significant
latitude in how they administer their VR programs.
In the past several years, key legislative changes have been enacted
relating to the VR program. For example, the Rehabilitation Act was
reauthorized as part of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998,
when VR became 1 of 17 mandated partners in state workforce investment
systems. In addition, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act of 1999 expanded the types of rehabilitation services
available to Social Security disability beneficiaries by providing for
privatized services in a market previously dominated by the public VR
program.
More recently, in 2003, we placed the modernization of federal
disability programs on our list of high-risk programs because many of
these programs have yet to incorporate scientific advances and economic
and social changes that have redefined the relationship between
impairments and the ability to work.[Footnote 1] In addition, these
programs have faced long-standing challenges in ensuring the timeliness
and consistency of decisions related to benefits and services for
people with disabilities. We have prepared this report under the
Comptroller General's authority as part of a continued effort to help
policy makers better understand the extent of support provided by
federal programs to people with disabilities and to assist them in
determining how these programs could more effectively meet the needs of
individuals with disabilities in the 21st century. As it may prove
helpful in the deliberation of committees with jurisdiction over VR
issues, we have addressed this report to each of these committees. In
this report, we assess (1) the extent to which state VR agencies assist
individuals in achieving employment and (2) the performance measures
and monitoring practices Education uses to manage this decentralized
program and achieve legislative goals.
To perform our review, we analyzed data from two datasets maintained by
Education, one a record of the cases for all individuals who exited the
VR program after their cases were closed during fiscal year 2003 (the
most recent year for which data were available for us to use in time
for production of this report) and the other a record of the
expenditures for each state VR agency in fiscal year 2003. We
determined that the data we used were sufficiently reliable for our
purposes by performing electronic testing for obvious errors in
accuracy and completeness, reviewing available documentation, and
interviewing Education and state VR agency officials knowledgeable
about the data. We also reviewed relevant laws, regulations,
Education's policy documents relating to the VR program, and the
required state plans for each state VR agency's program. Further, we
interviewed key program officials at the national and regional levels,
selected state VR agency officials, and advocates for people with
disabilities. Finally, we conducted site visits to state VR agencies in
California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Virginia.
We selected these sites to achieve a mix of state VR agency structures,
operations, and performance as well as to achieve geographic diversity.
We conducted our review from August 2004 through September 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. For a
more complete explanation of our methodology, see appendix I.
Results in Brief:
Of the more than 650,000 individuals exiting the state VR programs in
fiscal year 2003, one-third (217,557) obtained a new job or maintained
their existing job for at least 90 days after receiving customized
services. Education's data showed that the remaining two-thirds exited
the VR program without employment most often because the individual
refused services or failed to cooperate with the VR counselor (46
percent of the time) or could not be located or contacted (24 percent).
The VR program purchased more than $1.3 billion in services for all
individuals who exited the program in fiscal year 2003, two-thirds of
which was used to provide services to individuals exiting with
employment. Employment, earnings, and the amount of purchased services
received while in the VR program varied significantly by individuals'
type of disability and other characteristics. In addition, state VR
agencies varied substantially in the employment rates they achieved,
the characteristics of individuals they served, their frequency of
providing certain services, and their service expenditures. For
example, state VR agency employment rates ranged from 20 to 74 percent
in fiscal year 2003.
Education's performance measures are not comprehensive, and its
monitoring of state VR agencies has not resulted in timely feedback.
Education does not comprehensively measure the performance of certain
key populations, such as students transitioning from school to work,
and tracks only the individuals who exit the program, not those still
receiving services. In addition, the performance targets Education sets
for state VR agencies do not take into consideration all the
demographic or economic variations among states. Further, Education's
performance measures do not allow for comparison of the VR program with
other workforce programs. Education's monitoring reports, which are its
primary means of providing feedback to state VR agencies, are issued
over 2 years after performance data have been collected. Consequently,
state VR agencies do not receive the timely feedback needed to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of their programs. In managing the
performance of the VR program, Education also does not censure poor
performers, reward strong performers, or take full advantage of
opportunities to disseminate best practices to the state VR agencies.
As part of its larger reorganization, Education recently decided to
eliminate its regional offices, which conducted most of the monitoring
of state VR agencies, making the details of the future monitoring
process unclear.
We are making several recommendations to Education so that it can
improve its oversight of state VR agencies and help them most
effectively target their resources to achieve better employment rates.
In this regard, we recommend that Education reevaluate its performance
measures to ensure better alignment with program goals and develop a
better monitoring process that includes timelier and more effective
feedback to state VR agencies. In commenting on the report, Education
indicated that it is in full agreement that better measures and
monitoring could improve the performance of the VR program. In
addition, Education highlighted initiatives either planned or under way
to improve the management of the VR program.
Background:
Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 authorizes a federal-state VR
program to provide services to persons with disabilities so that they
may prepare for and engage in gainful employment.[Footnote 2] Education
provided an estimated $2.6 billion in fiscal year 2005 in grants to the
states and territories based on a formula that considers the state's
population and per capita income. Grants to individual states ranged
from about $9 million to nearly $250 million. Four of the five
territories received less than $3 million each. The act generally
requires states to match federal funds at a ratio of 78.7 percent
federal to 21.3 percent state dollars.
Each state and territory designates a single VR agency to administer
the VR program, except where state law authorizes a separate agency to
administer VR services for individuals who are blind. Education
provides a single Title I grant to each state. States authorizing a
separate blind VR agency decide how the grant will be apportioned
between the general VR agency and the blind VR agency. Education tracks
the performance of 80 state VR agencies--24 states have separate blind
and general agencies; and 26 states, the District of Columbia, and five
territories each have a single combined agency. The 80 state VR
agencies are housed in various departments of state government, such as
state departments of labor or education, or they may be free-standing
agencies or commissions.[Footnote 3] State VR agencies also vary in
their operations and locations. For example, some agencies provide
services through several offices located throughout the state, while
others provide services through one central location.
Education collects information about all individuals who exit each
state VR agency's program during a particular fiscal year, as reported
by the 80 state VR agencies. The record for each individual exiting the
program includes information such as whether or not each individual
became employed, the weekly earnings and hours worked for individuals
if they exited the VR program with employment, the types and costs of
services they received, and demographic factors, such as impairment
type, gender, age, race and ethnicity, public benefits, and income from
work at the time of application. Education also collects summary
information on agency expenditures in a number of categories from each
state VR agency.
Education tracks individuals in terms of seven types of case closures,
which can be collapsed into four categories, for individuals who:
* exited without employment, during the application phase (including
individuals who were found ineligible; individuals who could not be
determined to be eligible or ineligible for various reasons such as
they could not be located or contacted, they failed to cooperate or
they refused services; and individuals who were found eligible, but
were placed on a waiting list);
* exited without employment, with limited services (including
individuals who were found eligible, but who left the program before an
employment plan could be developed, or agreed to an employment plan,
but left before receiving services under that plan);[Footnote 4]
* exited without employment, after receiving services under an
employment plan; and:
* exited with at least 90 days of employment, after receiving services
under an employment plan.
Education considers several types of work activities to meet its
definition of employment. First, Education counts as employment the
paid work activity of an individual, who may or may not require ongoing
support services, in an integrated work setting, that is, a setting
typically found in the community where individuals both with and
without disabilities interact.[Footnote 5] Second, Education counts
self-employment as employment, whether the business is managed by the
eligible individual or the state VR agency. Finally, Education
considers certain types of unpaid work activity to be employment, such
as homemakers whose work activity is keeping house for themselves or
others in their households and unpaid workers in a family business or
family farm.
While the total number of individuals exiting the VR program has
increased slightly over the past several years, the number of
individuals exiting with employment has remained relatively stable.
(See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: Individuals Exiting the VR Program, Fiscal Years 1997-2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
State VR agencies that determine they will not be able to serve all
eligible individuals who apply for services are required to state the
order in which they will select individuals for services. Agencies
using an order of selection process must develop criteria for ensuring
that individuals with the most significant disabilities will be
selected first for services. Thirty-nine of the 80 state VR agencies
were using an order of selection process in fiscal year 2003. Beginning
fiscal year 2004, 42 of the agencies are using an order process.
The Rehabilitation Act requires state VR agencies to enter into
cooperative agreements with other entities that are part of the state's
workforce investment system. This workforce investment system includes
a One-Stop system, which is required to provide a number of employment-
related services to job seekers and employers at a single location. The
act also requires state VR agencies to coordinate with public education
officials to facilitate the transition of students with disabilities
from school to work. Students with disabilities receive special
education and related services from their school under an
individualized education program (IEP). Beyond these required
interactions, state VR agencies may also enter into third-party
cooperative agreements with other state or local agencies to coordinate
the services provided to their common program participants.
Education must abide by several statutes and executive branch
directives to measure and monitor the performance of the VR program.
The 1998 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act required that Education
establish and publish evaluation standards and performance indicators
for the VR program. The standards and indicators were supposed to
include outcome and related measures of program performance that
facilitate the accomplishment of the purpose and policy of the act. The
act also gave Education the authority to reduce or suspend payments to
state VR agencies that have performance falling below a certain level
and fail to enter into a program improvement plan or substantially
comply with the terms and conditions of such a plan. The act also
directed Education to conduct annual review and periodic on-site
monitoring of state VR agencies to determine, in part, whether they
were complying with the standards and indicators. Education performs
this monitoring function through the 10 regional offices of its
Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA).
In response to the 1998 amendments, Education established new
performance measures in June 2000 that consisted of two standards for
evaluating the performance of the state VR agencies, one relating to
the agencies' performance in assisting individuals in obtaining,
maintaining, or regaining high-quality employment and the other
relating to the agencies' performance in ensuring that individuals from
minority backgrounds have equal access to services. In addition,
Education published performance indicators that establish what
constitutes minimum compliance with these evaluation standards and
required performance targets for each indicator. Six performance
indicators were published for the employment standard, and one was
published for the minority service standard. State VR agencies must
meet or exceed performance targets in four of the six categories for
the first standard and meet or exceed the performance target for the
second standard in order to have passing performance. Table 1 provides
details on these standards and indicators.
Table 1: Performance Indicators and Performance Targets for State VR
Agencies:
1. Employment standard:
1.1;
Performance Indicator: Change in employment--the number of individuals
exiting the VR program with employment in the current performance year
compared with the number exiting with employment in the prior
performance year;
Performance target: General or combined state VR agencies: Equal or
exceed previous performance year;
Performance target: Blind state VR agencies[A]: Equal or exceed
previous performance year.
1.2;
Performance Indicator: Employment rate-- percentage of individuals
receiving services under an employment plan who exit the VR program
with employment;
Performance target: General or combined state VR agencies: 55.8%;
Performance target: Blind state VR agencies[A]: 68.9%.
1.3;
Performance Indicator: Competitive employment rate--percentage of
individuals exiting the VR program with employment who were
competitively employed[B];
Performance target: General or combined state VR agencies: 72.6%;
Performance target: Blind state VR agencies[A]: 35.4%.
1.4;
Performance Indicator: Significant disability rate--percentage of
individuals exiting the VR program with competitive employment who have
significant disabilities[C];
Performance target: General or combined state VR agencies: 62.4%;
Performance target: Blind state VR agencies[A]: 89.0%.
1.5;
Performance Indicator: Wage Ratio--ratio of the average hourly earnings
of individuals exiting the VR program with competitive employment to
the average hourly earnings for all employed individuals in the state;
Performance target: General or combined state VR agencies: 0.52;
Performance target: Blind state VR agencies[A]: 0.59.
1.6;
Performance Indicator: Increase in self-support--the difference between
the percentage of individuals exiting the VR program with competitive
employment who report their own income as the largest single source of
economic support at the time they exit the VR program and the
percentage who report their own income as the largest single source of
economic support at the time they apply for VR services;
Performance target: General or combined state VR agencies: 53.0;
Performance target: Blind state VR agencies[A]: 30.4.
2. Equal access to services standard:
2.1;
Performance Indicator: The service rate for all individuals with
disabilities from minority backgrounds as a ratio to the service rate
for all non-minority individuals with disabilities[D];
Performance target: General or combined state VR agencies: 0.80;
Performance target: Blind state VR agencies[A]: 0.80.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
[A] Blind state VR agencies must report each year the aggregated data
for the 2 previous years for performance indicators 1.1 through 1.6.
[B] Education defines competitive employment as work that is performed
on a full-time or part-time basis in an integrated setting for which
the individual is compensated at or above the minimum wage but not less
than the customary wage and level of benefits paid by the employer for
the same or similar work performed by individuals without disabilities.
Education also counts in this category individuals whose earnings from
self-employment are equivalent to at least the minimum wage.
[C] The Rehabilitation Act defines a significant disability as one that
seriously limits one or more functional capacities and can be expected
to require multiple VR services over an extended period of time.
[D] Education defines service rate as the result obtained by dividing
the number of individuals who exit the VR program after receiving one
or more services under an employment plan by the total number of
individuals who exit the VR program.
[End of table]
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) also requires
federal executive branch agencies such as the Department of Education
to set goals, measure their performance, and report on their
accomplishments. Agencies are required to develop annual performance
plans that use performance measurement to reinforce the connection
between the long-term strategic goals outlined in their strategic plans
and the day-to-day activities of their managers and staff. Among its
performance goals for fiscal year 2005, Education is assessing its
performance in assisting state VR agencies to achieve required
performance targets on one performance target--1.2.
In 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed that the
performance of a range of federal job training and employment programs
be measured consistently to allow for the comparison of results across
these programs. These common measures would be consistent with the
common goals of these programs, that is, to improve participants'
employment and earnings and focus on measures of outcomes and
efficiency. OMB identified the VR program as one of the federal
programs that would be targeted for using the common measures.
Using its Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), OMB assessed the
effectiveness of the VR program in 2003 as part of its effort to hold
federal agencies accountable for accomplishing results. The PART
evaluation looks at four areas of assessment--program purpose and
design, strategic planning, management, and results and accountability.
Programs are rated in one of five categories: effective, moderately
effective, adequate, ineffective or results not demonstrated. OMB will
use the rating and relating findings to make decisions about budget and
policy. OMB rated the effectiveness of the VR program as adequate and
made recommendations to Education for improving program management and
performance measures. As part of its assessment, OMB reviewed
Education's performance indicators 1.2, 1.3, and 1.5.
One-Third of Individuals Exited the VR Program Nationwide with
Employment, although Employment Rates Varied Significantly among State
VR Agencies:
More than 217,000 individuals with disabilities exited the state VR
programs with employment in fiscal year 2003 after receiving customized
services. This group represents one-third of the 650,543 individuals
who left the program nationwide in fiscal year 2003 after submitting an
application for services. The most common reasons that the remaining
two-thirds of the individuals left the program without a job were that
the individual refused services, failed to cooperate, or could not be
located or contacted. State VR agencies collectively purchased more
than $1.3 billion in services for all individuals who exited the
program in fiscal year 2003, two-thirds of which was used to provide
services to individuals exiting with employment. Employment, earnings,
and the amount of purchased services received while in the VR program
varied significantly by individuals' type of disability and other
characteristics. In addition, the state VR agencies varied
substantially in the employment rates they achieved, the
characteristics of individuals they served, their frequency of
providing certain services, and their service expenditures.
One-Third of Individuals Exited the VR Program Nationwide with
Employment in Fiscal Year 2003:
Of the more than 650,000 individuals exiting the VR program in fiscal
year 2003, one-third (217,557) obtained a new job or maintained their
existing job for at least 90 days after receiving customized
services.[Footnote 6] (See fig. 2.) Most of these individuals (94
percent) exited the program with jobs that paid at least their state's
minimum wage, but about half of them worked less than 40 hours per
week. Overall, individuals who exited the VR program with employment
earned a median income of $271 per week, or the equivalent of $14,092
per year. In addition, 30 percent of these individuals (65,832) were
already working when they applied to the program, and they increased
their median earnings from $225 to $300 per week between program entry
and exit.[Footnote 7] One state VR agency official noted that this
figure may, however, underestimate the actual value of VR services
extended to individuals working at both program entry and exit. For
example, the VR program will pay for services such as vehicle
modifications and repairs necessary to help some individuals maintain
transportation to and from existing jobs, but these individuals
typically do not experience any earnings increase between program entry
and exit.
Figure 2: Individuals Exiting the VR Program, Fiscal Year 2003 (n =
650,643):
[See PDF for image]
Note: Numbers do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
[End of figure]
Overall, two-thirds (433,086) of individuals exited the VR program
without employment at some point following their initial application to
the program.[Footnote 8] Of those who exited without employment in
fiscal year 2003, most did so because they refused services or failed
to cooperate with their VR counselor (46 percent of the time) or could
not be located or contacted (24 percent). (See fig. 3.) One state VR
agency official told us that the VR program has historically closed a
large number of cases because individuals cannot be located or
contacted. However, she also noted that individuals with disabilities
coming to the VR program are often a transient population with high
rates of poverty and other multiple barriers--issues that can require
more time and priority than notifying VR counselors that they have
moved.
Figure 3: Reasons for Individuals Exiting the VR Program without
Employment, Fiscal Year 2003 (n=433,086):
[See PDF for image]
Note: Numbers do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
[A] Because these individuals could not be located or contacted, their
employment status was actually unknown at the time of their VR case
closure. It is possible that some of these individuals may have found
work between their last contact with the VR program and when the
program actually closed their case.
[B] The category of "Other" includes individuals who exited because of
institutionalization, transfer to other state VR agencies, death,
transportation problems, unavailability of extended services, extended
employment, or "all other" reasons (in 17 percent of all cases). There
is no separate category for individuals who were unable to find a job
or keep a job.
[End of figure]
Of those who exited during the application phase in fiscal year 2003,
the majority (105,955) left before an eligibility determination could
be made, and relatively few (26,563) left because the VR program found
them ineligible. Specifically, Education's data show that 20 percent of
individuals who exited during the application phase were found
ineligible: 2 percent had disabilities deemed too significant to
benefit from services, and 18 percent had no disabling condition,
impediment to employment, or need for VR services.
Overall, the VR program invested nearly two-thirds ($872 million) of
its $1.3 billion in purchased services on individuals who achieved or
retained employment upon exiting the program in fiscal year 2003. State
VR agencies also spent nearly $200 million on individuals who
subsequently exited the program without employment because they failed
to cooperate or refused services, and $112 million was spent on those
whom state VR agencies were unable to locate or contact. As shown in
table 2, individuals' average length of time in the program, number of
services, and cost of purchased services received varied by each of the
four exit categories. However, the amounts of purchased services
reported by state VR agencies do not reflect the total cost of services
provided to individuals in the VR program.[Footnote 9] For example,
state VR agencies do not report the cost of counselor time spent with
each individual or the cost of services arranged for by the state VR
agency but paid for by other sources.[Footnote 10] In addition, the
amounts of purchased services do not reflect the amounts that
individuals are required to pay for certain services at the majority of
state VR agencies if they demonstrate the financial ability to do
so.[Footnote 11]
Table 2: Time in Program, Number of Services, and Cost of Services by
Type of Exit from the VR Program, Fiscal Year 2003:
Time in program; Median;
Exited without employment, during the application phase (n = 132,518):
77 days;
Exited without employment, after limited services (n = 145,868): 252
days;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan (n =
154,700): 667 days;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan (n =
217,557): 465 days.
Time in program; Mean;
Exited without employment, during the application phase (n = 132,518):
142 days;
Exited without employment, after limited services (n = 145,868): 349
days;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan (n =
154,700): 880 days;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan (n =
217,557): 699 days.
Number of services (purchased and not purchased); Median;
Exited without employment, during the application phase (n = 132,518):
0;
Exited without employment, after limited services (n = 145,868): 1;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan (n =
154,700): 3;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan (n =
217,557): 4.
Mean;
Exited without employment, during the application phase (n = 132,518):
0.6;
Exited without employment, after limited services (n = 145,868): 1.4;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan (n =
154,700): 3.5;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan (n =
217,557): 4.2.
Cost of all purchased services; Median;
Exited without employment, during the application phase (n = 132,518):
0;
Exited without employment, after limited services (n = 145,868): $16;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan (n =
154,700): $900;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan (n =
217,557): $2,010.
Mean;
Exited without employment, during the application phase (n = 132,518):
$109;
Exited without employment, after limited services (n = 145,868): $280;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan (n =
154,700): $2,659;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan (n =
217,557): $4,008.
Total cost of all purchased services;
Exited without employment, during the application phase (n = 132,518):
$14 million;
Exited without employment, after limited services (n = 145,868): $41
million;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan (n =
154,700): $411 million;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan (n =
217,557): $872 million.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
[End of table]
Services received by individuals in the VR program varied both by
whether they exited the program with employment after receiving
services under an employment plan and whether they were employed at
entry to the program. Regardless of whether they were working at
application, individuals who received services under an employment plan
but exited the VR program without employment received fewer job-related
services, such as job search, job placement, or on-the-job supports
than individuals who exited with employment. (See table 3.) In general,
individuals not working when they applied to the VR program received
more services than those who were already working when they applied to
the program. However, individuals already working were more likely to
receive diagnosis and medical treatment of their impairment as well as
rehabilitation technology.
Table 3: Percentage of Individuals in the VR Program Receiving Services
by Each of the 22 Service Categories Tracked by Education, Fiscal Year
2003:
Assessment;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 69%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 68%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 66%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 66%.
Vocational counseling and guidance;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 65;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 65%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 60%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 60%.
Job placement assistance;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 41%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 20%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 21%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 16%.
Diagnosis and medical treatment of impairment;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 38%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 56%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 35%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 40%.
Job search assistance;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 37%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 19%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 22%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 16%.
Transportation services;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 31%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 16%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 29%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 20%.
Other services;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 27%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 20%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 20%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 17%.
On-the-job supports;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 21%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 12%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 12%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 9%.
Maintenance;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 17%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 11%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 12%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 11%.
Occupational or vocational training;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 17%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 14%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 12%.
College or university training;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 15%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 10%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 14%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 17%.
Job readiness training;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 15%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 11%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 5%.
Information and referral;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 14%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 15%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 11%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 12%.
Miscellaneous training;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 14%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 10%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 11%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 10%.
On-the-job training;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 6%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 2%.
Rehabilitation technology;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 6%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 19%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 4%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 7%.
Disability-related augmentative skills training;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 3%.
Technical assistance services;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 4%.
Basic academic remedial or literacy training;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 2%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 1%.
Interpreter services;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): 1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): 1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): 1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): 1%.
Personal attendant services;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): < 1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): < 1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): < 1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): < 1%.
Reader services;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 151,711): < 1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 65,832): < 1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not
working at application (n = 136,006): < 1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
Working at application (n = 18,652): < 1%.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
[End of table]
Individuals may also benefit from the VR program in important
nonmonetary ways, aside from employment and earnings. For example,
regardless of whether individuals leave the VR program with employment,
they may increase their educational level, psychological or physical
functioning, productivity in the work setting, independence for self or
family members, or integration into the community as a result of
receiving VR services. However, Education does not collect data on any
nonmonetary benefits that individuals achieve through the VR program
aside from educational gains and identification of homemakers and
unpaid family workers. Moreover, it is difficult to measure the actual
influence of the VR program in assisting individuals to obtain these
benefits, employment in general, or any wage increases.[Footnote 12]
Rate of Employment, Earnings, and Purchased Services Varied by
Individuals' Impairments and Other Characteristics:
Individuals exiting the VR program in fiscal year 2003 had a variety of
primary impairments, and individuals with mental or psychosocial
impairments (including depression, schizophrenia, and drug and alcohol
abuse, among others) constituted the largest group. (See fig. 4.) About
40 percent of all individuals exiting the VR program in fiscal year
2003 also had secondary impairments.[Footnote 13]
Figure 4: Primary Impairments of Individuals Exiting the VR Program,
Fiscal Year 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[A] All individuals classified as having no impairment exited during
the application phase.
Note: Figure reflects all records containing impairment information (n
= 617,770). Five percent of the records were missing impairment
information. Numbers do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
[End of figure]
Individuals with mental or psychosocial impairments collectively
realized the lowest rate of employment (30 percent). In contrast, deaf
and blind individuals, each collectively comprising 5 percent of the
total VR population, achieved the highest rates of employment
nationwide, at 63 percent and 52 percent respectively. (See fig. 5.)
Officials at three state VR agencies we visited told us that the
availability of state-funded supports and follow-along services were
influential in placing and keeping individuals in jobs, especially for
individuals with mental impairments.
Figure 5: Rates of Exit from the VR Program by Primary Impairment
Group, Fiscal Year 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: N = 604,051. Five percent of the records were missing impairment
information. In addition, 2 percent showed that there was no
impairment. All numbers do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
[End of figure]
Individuals with cognitive impairments (including mental retardation
and specific learning disabilities) collectively achieved the lowest
median rate of earnings, compared with those for all other impairment
groups exiting the VR program with employment, as shown in figure
6.[Footnote 14]
Figure 6: Median Hourly Wage by Impairment Group among Individuals
Exiting the VR Program with Employment who did Not Require Ongoing
Support Services, Fiscal Year 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Individuals exiting the VR program in fiscal year 2003 after having
previously participated in the VR program did not necessarily gain
employment after their repeat involvement. More than 96,000 individuals
(15 percent) exited the VR program in fiscal year 2003 with a prior VR
case closure during the previous 3 years. As figure 7 shows, nearly
three-quarters of those who previously exited the program without
employment failed to achieve employment after their repeat involvement
with the VR program.
Figure 7: Employment Status of Individuals Exiting the VR Program in
Fiscal Year 2003 Who Previously Participated in the VR Program
(n=96,165):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Individuals also received varying amounts of purchased services from
state VR agencies, depending on their type of disability. For example,
among those who exited in fiscal year 2003 with employment and did not
require ongoing support services, blind or other visually impaired
individuals received more in purchased service dollars ($2,889 at the
median) than any other impairment group, while individuals with
cognitive ($1,385) and mental impairments ($1,566) received the least.
Officials at several state VR agencies for the blind told us that blind
and visually impaired individuals generally require more expensive
services, such as assistive technology, than individuals with other
types of disabilities.
Individuals receiving Social Security disability benefits at
application to the VR program comprised one-quarter (159,739) of the
total VR population and collectively achieved a lower rate of
employment nationwide than nonbeneficiaries in fiscal year
2003.[Footnote 15] Specifically, 29 percent of beneficiaries exited the
VR program with employment in fiscal year 2003 as opposed to 36 percent
of nonbeneficiaries. In addition, more Social Security disability
beneficiaries required ongoing support services at their jobs, for
earnings that were less than half that of nonbeneficiaries ($140 versus
$300 per week at the median).[Footnote 16] Beneficiaries exiting with
employment (47,142) also received a median $2,765 in purchased services
during their time in the VR program, or nearly $1,000 more than
nonbeneficiaries at the median. Separately, beneficiaries' receipt of
VR services did not necessarily reduce their dependence on Social
Security disability benefits. For example, among individuals receiving
SSDI benefits at their time of exit from the VR program with employment
in fiscal year 2003, more than 82 percent of blind and visually
impaired beneficiaries and 65 percent of nonblind beneficiaries did not
have jobs that were paying enough to disqualify them from receiving
continued SSDI benefits, if the work was sustained at that
level.[Footnote 17]
Individuals who transitioned from special education services at their
schools into the workplace (transitioning students) achieved about the
same rate of employment as other individuals with impairments who were
under age 22 when they applied to the VR program.[Footnote 18] (See
table 4.) However, the latter group was in the VR program almost twice
as long and received more than double the amount of purchased services
than transitioning students, and enrolled in or completed a greater
degree of postsecondary education than transitioning students. This
might be related to the fact that more than 70 percent of the
transitioning students had cognitive impairments (as opposed to 36
percent among their same-age counterparts),[Footnote 19] of which more
than half were specific learning disabilities.
Table 4: Transitioning Students Exiting the VR Program with Employment
after Services under an Employment Plan, Fiscal Year 2003:
Employment rate[A];
Transitioning students: individuals under age 22 with IEPs at program
entry who exited with employment (n = 27,223): 35%;
Nontransitional students: individuals under age 22 without IEPs at
program entry who exited with employment (n = 24,956): 34%.
Median time in VR program;
Transitioning students: individuals under age 22 with IEPs at program
entry who exited with employment (n = 27,223): 652 days;
Nontransitional students: individuals under age 22 without IEPs at
program entry who exited with employment (n = 24,956): 1,047 days.
Median cost of purchased services;
Transitioning students: individuals under age 22 with IEPs at program
entry who exited with employment (n = 27,223): $1,192;
Nontransitional students: individuals under age 22 without IEPs at
program entry who exited with employment (n = 24,956): $2,970.
Percent who gained postsecondary education between program entry and
exit;
Transitioning students: individuals under age 22 with IEPs at program
entry who exited with employment (n = 27,223): 14%;
Nontransitional students: individuals under age 22 without IEPs at
program entry who exited with employment (n = 24,956): 37%.
Median wage at time of exit;
Transitioning students: individuals under age 22 with IEPs at program
entry who exited with employment (n = 27,223): $6.75/hour;
Nontransitional students: individuals under age 22 without IEPs at
program entry who exited with employment (n = 24,956): $8.00/hour.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
[A] This employment rate is derived from the universe of individuals
under age 22 at program entry, with or without IEPs, who exited the VR
program in fiscal year 2003.
[End of table]
State VR Agencies Varied Significantly in the Rates of Employment They
Achieved, the Populations They Served, and Their Service Expenditures:
The 80 state VR agencies' employment rates ranged from 20 to 74 percent
in fiscal year 2003. (App. II lists all agencies' employment and other
exit rates.) Collectively, the separate state VR agencies for the
blind, which exclusively serve blind or other visually impaired
individuals, achieved an employment rate of 49 percent.[Footnote 20]
This compared with a collective employment rate of 32 percent among the
general agencies and 35 percent among the combined agencies. A study
commissioned by Education found that a wide range of agency and
external factors may help explain state VR agencies' varied employment
rates.[Footnote 21] Specifically, variables found to help facilitate
higher employment rates included an agency's emphasis on employment,
access to ongoing support service programs, and an agency's proportion
of individuals with mental retardation, visual impairments, or existing
employment at the time of application to the VR program. Conversely,
poor labor market conditions, particularly high unemployment rates,
were reported as being among the most influential hindrances to an
agency's performance.
The 39 state VR agencies using an order of selection process
collectively achieved a slightly lower rate of employment in fiscal
year 2003 than the group of 41 agencies not using an order of selection
process. Specifically, the collective employment rate was 32 percent
among agencies with orders and 35 percent among agencies without
orders. In addition, both groups had a wide range of employment rates
among individual agencies. Specifically, state VR agencies' rates of
employment ranged from 20 to 62 percent among agencies with orders and
from 21 to 74 percent among agencies without orders. State VR agencies
with orders are required to give priority acceptance to the category of
applicants with "most significant" disabilities, and accept categories
of applicants with "significant" and "nonsignificant" disabilities with
decreasing priority. As a result, while we expected the group of
agencies with orders to experience more individuals exiting during the
application phase, the rate of individuals exiting during the
application phase was 21 percent among agencies with orders as opposed
to 19 percent among agencies without orders. Moreover, agencies with
orders varied in how they administered their order of selection
policies. For example, agencies with orders opened and closed their
priority service categories at varying points during the year,
depending on their available resources and population projections, thus
affecting the proportion of individuals being accepted into their
programs with most significant or significant disabilities. Further,
agencies with orders varied in how they defined a most significant
disability and how many service categories they expected to serve
during a particular fiscal year.[Footnote 22] Specifically, according
to the state plans submitted to Education by state VR agencies for
fiscal year 2003, 2 of the 39 agencies with orders expected to serve
only individuals with most significant disabilities. In contrast, 11
agencies had orders of selection in place for fiscal year 2003, which
indicated they could not serve all eligible individuals, yet they
expected to serve all eligible individuals who applied to their program
during fiscal year 2003.
State VR agencies' proportion of individuals in each impairment
category varied significantly. (App. III shows the proportion of
individuals in each impairment category by agency.) For example, the
incidence of individuals with mental or psychosocial impairments at
combined or general state VR agencies ranged from 1 percent to more
than 50 percent. Education officials told us that one of the reasons
for such variation may be state VR agencies maintaining third-party
cooperative agreements with certain outside entities, such as state
mental health institutions, which result in higher proportions of
individuals in their VR population with corresponding impairments.
State VR agencies also varied in the proportion of Social Security
disability beneficiaries they served, from 7 to 66 percent, and
Education and state VR agency officials told us that this proportion
can influence an agency's overall employment rate and average hourly
earnings among those exiting with employment. In addition, although
beneficiaries' employment rate nationwide was 29 percent, their
collective employment rates at individual state VR agencies ranged from
9 to 68 percent. (See app. IV for a list of each agency's employment
rate.) Moreover, agency officials in two states told us that because
their state legislatures passed Medicaid buy-in programs, they expected
increasing numbers of Social Security disability beneficiaries to begin
working or earning higher wages because they no longer feared the loss
of important health care benefits, which many automatically received as
disability beneficiaries.[Footnote 23]
State VR agencies also varied in the extent to which they worked
closely with the One-Stop system in their states, although Education's
data did not completely capture this variation. Education's data showed
limited interaction overall between state VR agencies and One-Stop
centers. For example, it showed One-Stop centers providing services to
less than 1 percent of all individuals who exited the VR program
nationwide in fiscal year 2003. In addition, Education's data indicated
that 3 percent of all individuals who exited the program in fiscal year
2003 were initially referred to the program by a One-Stop center.
However, these data understate the extent of integration by state VR
agencies in some states with One-Stop centers or WIA program
partners.[Footnote 24] For example, all of Minnesota's VR offices are
co-located at One-Stop centers,[Footnote 25] and officials at each of
the other state VR agencies that we visited told us they had at least
some staff colocated at One-Stop centers on an itinerant basis. State
VR agency officials in Minnesota cited a number of benefits to office
colocation, such as additional services being more readily available,
and credited the leadership both within their state parent agency at
the Department of Employment and Economic Development and within local
regions for the successful colocation of their VR offices. In contrast,
officials at most of the other state VR agencies that we visited told
us that their interaction with the One-Stop centers in their state was
limited and that individuals in their VR programs did not receive very
many, if any, services at the One-Stop centers, for a variety of
reasons. They told us that these reasons included delayed or late
implementation of One-Stop centers in their state, leasing and other
legal problems relating to office colocation, lack of physical
accessibility at some One-Stop centers, and the lack of specialized
training or services available at One-Stop centers necessary to help
individuals with disabilities to obtain or advance in employment.
While state VR agencies varied in the proportions they spent on
different service categories, there were general trends across all
agencies with respect to expenditures on certain services.[Footnote 26]
Overall, agencies largely focused on assessment, guidance, counseling,
and job placement, but did not focus as much on certain other services,
such as postemployment services, transportation, or personal assistance
services. (See app. V for a list of the percentages spent by each state
VR agency on each service category.) Specifically, state VR agencies
spent half of their collective total caseload "service budgets" in
fiscal year 2003 on assessment, guidance, counseling, and
placement.[Footnote 27] In contrast, they spent less than 1 percent on
postemployment services for individuals who previously exited the VR
program with employment but required additional services to maintain or
advance in their existing jobs. State VR agency officials told us that
VR counselors are generally not recognized, in terms of achieving an
employment exit, for providing postemployment services. However,
Education and several state VR agency officials told us that
postemployment services are important for some individuals to maintain
their employment. For example, services such as updated computer-
assistive technology or software help to coordinate with an employer's
new computer system or ongoing mental health services help individuals
with mental impairments to cope with new psychosocial issues that arise
while on the job.
State VR agencies varied in the proportion of their total fiscal year
2003 budgets that they spent on providing services, from 43 to 95
percent. Their remaining expenditures were for administrative costs,
which varied from 5 to 57 percent of their total budgets.[Footnote 28]
(See app. VI for a list of each state VR agency's administrative costs
as a percentage of total expenditures.) The 24 blind state VR agencies
collectively spent more of their total budgets on administrative costs
than did the collective group of general agencies or combined
agencies.[Footnote 29] This may be because of the cost of maintaining
separate blind VR agencies that on average serve fewer individuals than
the general or combined agencies. In addition, the group of blind
agencies had the highest per capita cost overall for assisting
individuals to achieve employment. Specifically, blind agencies spent
an average of $42,392 for every person that exited one of their VR
programs with employment in fiscal year 2003, compared with an average
of $13,640 at the general agencies and $21,501 at the combined
agencies.[Footnote 30] (See table 5.) For each state VR agency's
average total expenditure per person exiting its program with
employment in fiscal year 2003, see appendix VII.
Table 5: Per Capita Service Costs by Each Type of State VR Agency,
Fiscal Year 2003:
Average expended per person served in fiscal year 2003;
Blind state VR agencies (n = 24): $8,601;
General state VR agencies (n = 24): $2,908;
Combined state VR agencies (n = 32): $3,998.
Average expended per person exiting with employment in fiscal year
2003;
Blind state VR agencies (n = 24): $42,392;
General state VR agencies (n = 24): $13,640;
Combined state VR agencies (n = 32): $21,501.
Average percentage of persons exiting with employment of all persons
served in fiscal year 2003;
Blind state VR agencies (n = 24): 23%;
General state VR agencies (n = 24): 22%;
Combined state VR agencies (n = 32): 20%.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
[End of table]
Officials at one separate state VR agency for the blind that we visited
said their agency's specialization allows them to understand and
rehabilitate blind and visually impaired individuals better than
combined VR agencies that do not have as specialized a focus on
individuals with these impairments. However, blind and visually
impaired individuals collectively achieved a 50 percent employment rate
when served at blind state VR agencies, compared with a 56 percent
employment rate when served at combined state VR agencies.[Footnote 31]
Moreover, blind and visually impaired individuals exiting the VR
program with employment in fiscal year 2003 received less in purchased
services while in the program and slightly lower weekly earnings when
they exited from blind state VR agencies as compared with combined
agencies. (See table 6.)
Table 6: Blind or Visually Impaired Individuals Exiting with Employment
from Blind State VR Agencies versus Combined State VR Agencies, Fiscal
Year 2003:
Median earnings at closure;
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting blind state VR agencies
with employment (n = 8,210): $180/week;
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting combined state VR
agencies with employment (n = 8,527): $195/week.
Median hours worked at closure;
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting blind state VR agencies
with employment (n = 8,210): 21 hours/week;
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting combined state VR
agencies with employment (n = 8,527): 25 hours/week.
Median cost of purchased services;
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting blind state VR agencies
with employment (n = 8,210): $1,800;
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting combined state VR
agencies with employment (n = 8,527): $2,645.
Median number of services;
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting blind state VR agencies
with employment (n = 8,210): 4;
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting combined state VR
agencies with employment (n = 8,527): 4.
Median time in program;
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting blind state VR agencies
with employment (n = 8,210): 401 days;
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting combined state VR
agencies with employment (n = 8,527): 486 days.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
[End of table]
Education's VR Performance Measures Are Not Comprehensive, and Its
Monitoring of State VR Agencies' Performance Has Not Resulted in Timely
Feedback:
Education's VR performance measures are not comprehensive in that they
count only individuals exiting VR programs and fail to measure key
populations. Moreover, the targets Education sets for performance do
not take into consideration regional differences in VR populations or
allow for comparisons across workforce programs. Education's monitoring
reports--state VR agencies' primary source of feedback--are frequently
late and based on data that are more than 2 years old. As a result,
state VR agencies are not getting the kind of timely feedback they need
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their programs.
Education's recent decision as part of its restructuring efforts to
eliminate its regional VR offices, which had conducted most of the
monitoring of state VR agencies, has made the details of the future
monitoring process unclear.
VR Performance Measures Are Not Comprehensive, Do Not Take into Account
State Variations, and Do Not Allow for Comparison with Other Workforce
Programs:
Education's performance measures have a number of weaknesses, as they
are not comprehensive, do not take into account demographic and
economic variations among states, and do not incorporate common
measures to allow for comparison of workforce programs across executive
branch agencies. For example, Education cannot use the current
performance measures to comprehensively evaluate the state VR agencies'
performance because the measures do not include data on the individuals
still receiving services in the VR system, who made up nearly 40
percent of the state VR agencies' service population in fiscal year
2003. Instead, Education's performance measures reflect only the
individuals who exit the program.[Footnote 32] Education does not track
specific information on the services provided, costs, and related data
until after individuals exit the program, although this information is
generally collected by each state VR agency. As a result, Education
cannot determine how well the program is accomplishing its purpose of
assisting individuals with disabilities to maximize their employment,
economic self-sufficiency, independence, and inclusion and integration
into society. Additional measures could also add to the balance of
performance measurement to ensure that the organization's various
priorities are covered and to prevent skewed incentives.[Footnote 33]
In fact, a study commissioned by Education reported that because the VR
employment rate includes only those who exited the VR program, some
agencies avoid closing out certain cases in order to meet the
performance target for that year.[Footnote 34]
The performance measures also do not isolate data on certain key
populations of VR participants. For example, there are no separate
performance targets for transitioning students or individuals receiving
postemployment services. As a result, Education does not know the
extent of these populations, the services provided to them, or the
results they achieve. While Education focused on transitioning students
in its fiscal year 2003 monitoring guide and held a national conference
on transitioning students in June 2005, it does not use the data
captured on this population in performance measures or evaluate the
results and resources necessary to assist them. In contrast, according
to Education officials, Education wants to move away from counting
homemakers as a category of employment but continues to measure
performance in this area, including homemakers in its employment
outcome. In addition, Education does not capture individual-level data
related to postemployment services, which some state VR agencies told
us are important in helping former participants maintain their
employment, despite the need for these measures to help assess the
impact of these services.
Education has set uniform performance targets for state VR agencies to
meet that do not take into account demographic and economic variations
within states. For example, one performance measure intended to measure
the quality of job placement compares the average wage of individuals
exiting the VR program with employment to the average wage of the
general population within a state overall, rather than to the
population in similar types of jobs or industries. Recognizing that the
VR population is different from the general population, Education set
the performance target for general and combined state VR agencies as a
0.52:1 ratio to the average state wage. However Education's performance
target still does not capture variations in wages within states, which
are outside the agencies' control and can affect agencies' ability to
achieve performance levels. For example, some states, such as
California, have wide variations in wages across the state because of
high wages in certain areas that might skew the wage and make it more
difficult to perform well on this indicator. In addition, a study
commissioned by Education found that equaling or exceeding achievement
on another performance measure intended to compare the number of
individuals exiting VR services in the current year with that in the
prior is "very difficult to achieve in times of declining resources and
a poor labor market," both of which may vary by region or
state.[Footnote 35] Unlike the Department of Labor (Labor), which
negotiates performance levels for its job training and employment
programs under WIA, Education does not currently negotiate performance
targets for performance measures with each state VR agency. The same
study recommended that Education evaluate the degree to which adoption
of alternatives to average state wage, such as entry-level wages,
median wage or national mean wage, might improve this performance
measure. Education has considered negotiating performance targets by
state but has not implemented negotiations.
In contrast to other federal workforce programs, Education's VR program
has not yet adopted the OMB-required common measures that allow for
comparison of these programs across agencies, but agency officials told
us that they are working toward meeting this requirement. OMB's PART
review recommended that Education collect the necessary data to support
new common measures among workforce programs.[Footnote 36] Labor
created a set of common measures for job training and employment
programs, which affect programs in Labor, Education, and several other
agencies,[Footnote 37] and apply to programs serving adults and to
those serving youth.[Footnote 38] Labor required most of its programs
to implement the common measures by July 1, 2005, and is working with
Education to come to an agreement on the measures and the data it will
use.[Footnote 39] While Labor's state programs generally have access to
the data necessary to compute the common measures as they are collected
by state labor departments,[Footnote 40] some state VR agencies have
more difficulty obtaining the data because access sometimes requires
establishment of data-sharing agreements. In addition, some states have
privacy laws protecting the confidentiality of these data, which may
further limit the ability of state VR agencies to collect them.
Finally, some state VR agency officials expressed concerns that common
measures will invite unfair comparisons between VR and other WIA
partner programs. For example, they told us that these comparisons
would not be fair or valid for state VR agencies because the
populations they serve are unique and require a different mix of
services or more resources than the populations served by general
workforce programs.
Education has not reviewed or revised its performance measures as
required under the Rehabilitation Act, although Education plans to
evaluate them within the next year. Specifically, the act requires
Education to review and, if necessary, revise the evaluation standards
and performance measures every 3 years. However, Education has not done
so since the measures were first regulated in fiscal year 2000.
Although Education's existing performance measures are generally
consistent with the program's purpose to promote the employment of
individuals with disabilities, OMB's PART review, Education's own
study,[Footnote 41] and many of the state VR agency officials that we
contacted, have recommended that Education modify some VR performance
measures, eliminate some measures, or add to its existing measures.
Education Does Not Effectively Monitor and Manage the Performance of
State VR Agencies:
In monitoring and managing the performance of state VR agencies,
Education does not provide timely feedback, censure poorly performing
agencies, or take full advantage of opportunities to promote the
sharing of best practices among state VR agencies. Education provides
feedback to state VR agencies through on-site monitoring visits and
reports of annual reviews of performance, many of which are not issued
on a timely basis. According to Education officials, as of July 2005
its regional offices had not issued 10 of the 80 monitoring reports
expected for fiscal year 2003 and an additional 4 reports are still in
process. Further, at least 32 of the 66 monitoring reports issued as of
July 2005 were issued 6 months or more after the monitoring
reviews.[Footnote 42] In an effort to address the timeliness and
quality of its monitoring reports, Education discontinued its practice
of having regional commissioners approve reports and now requires all
reports to be approved and issued by Education headquarters staff.
However, as of July 2005 Education had issued 7 out of the 80 state VR
agency monitoring reports for its revised fiscal year 2004-2005 time
frame.[Footnote 43]
Education's process for monitoring state VR agencies has been impeded
by the use of old data.[Footnote 44] As part of its performance
assessment of state VR agencies, Education requires them to submit
performance data by December 1, or 60 days after the end of the fiscal
year. Until recently, Education took more than a year to identify and
correct errors in the data and produce reliable data for its regional
offices to use in monitoring. As a result, regional offices end up
using 2-year-old data when conducting monitoring reviews and issuing
reports. In addition, Education consistently processes its VR data too
late to meet the deadline of November 15 that OMB established in
implementing GPRA for executive branch agencies to issue annual reports
on program performance for the previous fiscal year. OMB's 2006 PART
review recommended that Education improve program management using
existing performance data and make these data available to the public
in a timelier manner. Education has shown improvement by issuing fiscal
year 2004 performance data 5 months after it collected the data,
although it still has not met OMB's deadline.
Education does not consistently censure poorly performing or reward
high-performing state VR agencies. The Rehabilitation Act requires
state VR agencies that fail to meet the performance targets for 1 year
to develop a program improvement plan and allows Education to withhold
funds from a poorly performing state VR agency--the most severe
sanction prescribed by the Rehabilitation Act--in cases where agencies
fail to meet the performance targets for 2 or more consecutive years.
However, failing agencies do not always develop program improvement
plans nor does Education follow up to ensure their completion. In
addition, Education has never withheld funds from a poorly performing
state VR agency despite the fact that some agencies failed the
performance targets for 2 or more consecutive years, including two
agencies in fiscal year 2003. Education could not tell us the extent to
which agencies have or have not developed improvement plans because of
failing targets. Further, while Education does not have authority to
provide financial rewards for high-performing state VR agencies, it has
not developed other means for rewarding high performance, even though
other federal workforce and education programs have developed
performance incentives.[Footnote 45] For example, Labor awards
incentives and imposes sanctions on workforce programs based on
negotiated performance goals as allowed under WIA.
Beyond the monitoring process, Education relies on the regional offices
to promote the sharing of best practices among state VR
agencies.[Footnote 46] Meetings organized by the regional office
provide opportunities for state VR agencies in the region to share
information on best practices. Education also uses its Web site to
disseminate information on best practices. However, as of July 2005
Education's Web site related to featured practices contained two
practices submitted by state VR agencies, and the site is not
frequently updated. Further, Education collects a large repository of
data and the results of performance measures, but it does not review
them to identify best practices among the state VR agencies.[Footnote
47] Education also hosts several national conferences, which provide a
venue for state VR agency staff to share information with one
another.[Footnote 48] In addition, Education hosts e-mail list services
relating to issues such as the Social Security Administration's Ticket
to Work program, deafness, mental illness, and informational issuances.
Decision to Eliminate Regional Offices Has Made Details of the Future
Monitoring Process Unclear:
In early 2005, Education decided to restructure its VR program. As part
of the restructuring, Education decided to eliminate its regional
offices, which had conducted most of the monitoring of state VR
agencies to date. According to Education officials, the restructuring
was necessary to align the program in a manner to help meet the
priorities of the administration and the Secretary. As part of its
restructuring plan, Education included an interim monitoring plan that
did not contain many details. Education has created a steering
committee to look at how monitoring might be accomplished under the new
structure and held a conference in August 2005 in order to create a
blueprint for monitoring, but it has not completed a final monitoring
plan and does not expect to have one in place until about one year
after the conference.
In the absence of a final monitoring plan, VR agency officials in
several states expressed concern that the elimination of the regional
offices may make the monitoring process more difficult for a number of
reasons. Specifically, they expressed concern that:
* Education's proposed reduction of its RSA staff will leave an
insufficient number of staff to provide any significant feedback and to
carry out the monitoring functions,[Footnote 49]
* the reduction in staff would result in a loss of institutional
knowledge on the details of their particular program, and:
* the elimination of the regional offices will make it difficult to
have a knowledgeable single point of contact within Education.
When announcing its decision to restructure, Education stated that it
plans to devote as many staff as necessary to monitor state VR agency
performance. In addition, an Education official said that the plans are
to continue its annual reviews of the agencies, but it will conduct on-
site monitoring review visits less frequently than the annual reviews
done in the past. Education also announced that it will assign a single
point of contact to each state VR agency under its new structure.
Conclusions:
Many people with disabilities face a number of barriers to entering or
returning to the workforce, and ultimately achieving independence. The
VR program was conceived to provide the comprehensive and intensive
services needed to overcome these barriers, and indeed more than
200,000 individuals with disabilities were working in fiscal year 2003
after receiving VR services. However, twice as many individuals left
the VR program in fiscal year 2003 without getting a job, and
individual state VR agencies varied widely in the proportion of
individuals who exited their programs with jobs as compared with those
who did not.
Education designed its system of performance measures to focus on the
group of individuals who exit the VR program with employment. In doing
so, it has made evaluating state VR agencies' performance with respect
to the rest of the service population difficult. Little is known about
the hundreds of thousands of individuals who received services but had
not left the program by the end of fiscal year 2003 because Education
does not require the state VR agencies to report detailed information
about them. As a result, it is difficult for Education to assess
performance in areas such as the timeliness, cost, and quality of the
services provided to this population. In addition, this system fails to
account for performance relating to special populations, such as
transitioning students, that Education has encouraged the state VR
agencies to serve. Further, its performance measures do not take into
account demographic and economic variations among states. As a result,
it is difficult for Education to assess whether or not state VR
agencies are effectively and efficiently serving these individuals.
Whatever system of performance measures Education chooses to use, it
will have little impact on changing the performance of state VR
agencies unless Education provides timely and effective feedback to the
agencies regarding their performance. Without timely information, state
VR agencies may delay in undertaking necessary corrective action to
improve performance. Further, in the absence of incentives for good
performance or consequences for poor performance, state VR agencies may
not find sufficient reasons for performing at the level that Education
sets out for them. Yet Education's provision of constructive feedback
has been hindered because of untimely or incomplete monitoring reports.
Until recently, the time Education needed to analyze performance data
also contributed to delays in providing feedback. Although Education
significantly reduced the time it needed to analyze fiscal year 2004
data, it has yet the meet OMB's reporting requirements related to GPRA.
Further, Education has missed opportunities for providing feedback by
failing to require that some poorly performing agencies develop
performance improvement plans.
While Education has begun planning for alterations to its monitoring
process to provide better and timelier feedback to state VR agencies,
there are too few details at this point to be able to assess whether
the new process will achieve this intent. As it deliberates on these
changes, it will be important for Education to consider the input of
all stakeholders in the current monitoring process. In addition, it
will be important to consider such issues as how frequently monitoring
visits should be made and how much data the monitoring staff will need
to conduct such reviews.
Finally, with the elimination of the regional offices, officials in
each of the 80 separate VR agencies may find it more difficult to learn
about best practices used by other agencies. Education will need to
explore alternative means to share information about best practices in
an efficient manner.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve Education's performance measures and its monitoring of state
VR agencies, we recommend that the Secretary of Education:
* Reevaluate Education's performance measures to determine whether they
reflect the agency's goals and values and ensure that sufficient data
are collected to measure the performance of this program. As part of
this evaluation, Education should consider:
* developing additional measures to evaluate performance relating to
individuals who remain in the VR program as well as to certain special
needs populations, such as transitioning students;
* revising performance measures to account for additional factors such
as the economy and demographics of the states' populations or adjusting
performance targets for individual state VR agencies to address these
issues, while also considering the costs and benefits associated with
collecting additional data; and:
* continuing its work to develop performance measures in line with
OMB's common measures.
* Take steps to continue improving the timeliness of the performance
data Education collects and analyzes to ensure that data are available
for timely feedback to state VR agencies as well as to comply with the
GPRA reporting requirements established by OMB.
* Ensure that Education's new plan for the monitoring of state VR
agency performance addresses issues such as the timeliness of
monitoring reports and the frequency of on-site visits that will be
necessary to adequately gauge performance.
* Ensure that it consistently applies its existing consequences for
failure to meet required performance targets or consider developing new
consequences that it will be willing to apply in such situations.
Further, Education should consider whether developing incentives such
as recognition for successful performance would provide a more useful
tool for encouraging good performance.
* Develop alternative means of disseminating best practices among state
VR agencies in light of the elimination of the regional offices, such
as a central repository of best practices information.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Education for comment. In
commenting on the report, Education indicated that it is in full
agreement that better measures and monitoring could improve the
performance of the VR program. However, Education did not specifically
comment on each recommendation.
In addition, Education highlighted initiatives either planned or under
way to improve the management of the VR program. Several of these
initiatives addressed issues raised in our report for which we
recommended changes. In particular, Education agreed with our findings
on performance measures and indicated that the department is currently
working to address these issues. Education also described the steps it
is taking to implement a new system for monitoring state VR agencies.
Further, the agency indicated that it will broaden the dissemination of
the information it produces and will publicize the availability of its
monitoring and analytic work products. Moreover, Education acknowledged
that it will do more to highlight performance related to certain key
populations such as transitioning students.
While acknowledging the importance of monitoring and feedback,
Education pointed out that state VR agency performance is influenced by
a number of factors that are beyond Education's control. It also
pointed out that the state VR agencies are aware of their own patterns
of expenditures and outcomes and that the most fundamental
opportunities for improvement are at the state level. We recognize the
challenge Education faces in managing a program that is carried out
through agencies that are not under its direct control. However, we
believe that, by establishing better performance measures and
implementing a better monitoring system that includes dissemination of
comparative information about the performance of state VR agencies,
Education will be in a better position to manage this decentralized
program.
Education also expressed concern that the manner in which we calculated
the employment rate for individuals exiting the VR program might be
confusing because it differs from the way in which Education calculates
this rate. We believe that it is important to report the outcomes of
all the individuals who exited the VR program in fiscal year 2003
because more than 40 percent of those who applied for services left the
program before receiving services and because a low percentage of the
individuals who left before receiving services were found ineligible.
Education also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated
as appropriate. Education's comments are provided in appendix VIII.
Copies of this report are being sent to the Department of Education,
appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. The
report will also be made available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this
report are listed in appendix IX.
Signed by:
Robert E. Robertson:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the extent to which state vocational rehabilitation (VR)
agencies assist individuals in achieving employment, we primarily used
the Department of Education's (Education) Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA) RSA-911 case service dataset from fiscal year
2003, which was the most recently available in time for us to use in
production of this report. We used Education's RSA-2 expenditure
dataset from fiscal year 2003 to compute service expenditures and to
compute the information in appendix V, appendix VI, and appendix VII.
The RSA-911 is an individual-level dataset collected annually by
Education from each of the 80 state VR agencies regarding every
individual who exits the VR program during a particular fiscal year.
The record for each individual includes information such as whether or
not the individual exited the VR program with employment, the weekly
earnings and hours worked if the individual exited with
employment,[Footnote 50] the types of services received, and numerous
demographic factors, such as disability type, gender, age, race and
ethnicity, public benefits at program entry and exit, and any income
from work at program entry. Counselors or other staff at each state VR
agency typically input this information from each individual's case
file into their agency's data system, which ultimately produces the RSA-
911 file sent annually by that agency to Education. Education uses
standardized, electronic testing to check each agency's submitted data
for errors and anomalies before publishing them and requires agencies
to correct or verify data elements that are missing, "impossible," or
outside "reasonable" ranges.
We assessed the fiscal year 2003 RSA-911 dataset and determined that it
was sufficiently reliable for our use. Specifically, we performed
electronic testing on all 650,643 case records contained in this
dataset to identify any missing data, errors, or anomalies. In
addition, we interviewed key Education officials responsible for
collecting, verifying, and publishing RSA-911 data to better understand
their data reliability assessment process, as described above, in part.
We also performed structured interviews with key officials who work
with RSA-911 data at multiple state VR agencies to better understand
the processes by which agencies collect, safeguard, and report these
data to Education.
In order to more easily report some of our data findings, we recombined
the categories for certain RSA-911 data elements, such as type of
disability[Footnote 51] and type of exit or case closure.[Footnote 52]
We then computed descriptive statistics, including frequencies and
cross-tabulations, to produce the majority of data findings described
in this report. Using these data, we calculated the employment rate in
a different manner than Education. Education calculates the employment
rate as the percentage of individuals who exited with employment after
at least 90 days out of the group of individuals who received services
under an employment plan, but does not include those individuals who
exited without employment during the application phase or after limited
services.
We also assessed the fiscal year 2003 RSA-2 dataset and determined that
it was sufficiently reliable for our use. The RSA-2 contains aggregated
agency expenditures from each of the 80 state VR agencies as reported
in various categories, such as administration and different types of
services. We interviewed key Education officials and learned that each
state VR agency may use a different system for aggregating and
reporting its RSA-2 data to Education. Therefore, we performed
structured interviews with key officials at 15 state VR agencies in
order to assess the processes, safeguards, and overall reliability in
agency production and reporting of these data. We selected these 15
state VR agencies to interview because they collectively constituted
more than 50 percent of all total expenditures by the VR program in
fiscal year 2003 and included blind, general, and combined state VR
agencies. Among these 15 agencies, we generally found that their
processes and policies were sufficient to ensure data reliability for
the purposes of this report.
To further determine the extent to which state VR agencies assist
individuals in achieving employment as well as the extent to which
Education monitors and measures performance to manage this
decentralized VR program, we interviewed key program officials at
Education's headquarters and each regional office responsible for
monitoring the state VR agencies. In addition, we reviewed relevant
laws and regulations, Education policy documents relating to the VR
program, and the 80 state VR agency's fiscal year 2003 state plans. We
also conducted site visits to the 9 state VR agencies in California,
Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Virginia. We selected
these sites to achieve a mix of state VR agency structures (including
general, blind, and combined agencies), operations, performance, and
geographic diversity. We conducted our review from August 2004 through
September 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: State VR Agency Exit and Employment Rates, Fiscal Year
2003:
Alabama combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 9.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
22.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 54.1%.
Alaska combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.0%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
22.6%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.0%.
American Samoa combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 28.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 18.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
1.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 52.0%.
Arizona combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.3%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.4%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
35.9%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 21.5%.
Arkansas blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 21.2%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 6.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
10.2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 62.3%.
Arkansas general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 37.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 7.8%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
26.2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 28.3%.
California combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
27.5%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.1%.
Colorado combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 25.3%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
18.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 25.0%.
Connecticut blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 0.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 12.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
12.7%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 74.2%.
Connecticut general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
27.2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 34.7%.
Delaware blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.3%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
20.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 40.7%.
Delaware general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 23.1%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
20.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 38.9%.
District of Columbia combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.6%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 33.1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
17.7%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.6%.
Florida blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 31.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 5.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
23.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 39.3%.
Florida general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 25.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 21.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
24.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 28.0%.
Georgia combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 22.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 15.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
30.6%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.3%.
Guam combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 32.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 28.0%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
16.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 24.0%.
Hawaii combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
25.6%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 34.9%.
Idaho blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 18.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 14.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
18.2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 48.1%.
Idaho general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.2%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 28.8%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
22.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 32.0%.
Illinois combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
20.9%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 46.1%.
Indiana combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.9%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.8%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
26.2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.1%.
Iowa blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 8.2%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 12.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
9.7%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 69.7%.
Iowa general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 20.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 26.1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
29.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 24.2%.
Kansas combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 22.5%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
28.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.6%.
Kentucky blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 13.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
14.7%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 55.4%.
Kentucky general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.1%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
16.9%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 36.5%.
Louisiana combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 24.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 26.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
22.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 26.1%.
Maine blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 10.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
12.7%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 61.5%.
Maine general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.6%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 29.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
28.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.5%.
Maryland combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 34.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 21.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
10.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.6%.
Massachusetts blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 3.1%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 7.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
15.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 73.4%.
Massachusetts general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.9%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 41.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
21.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 23.7%.
Michigan blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 11.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
27.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 43.1%.
Michigan general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.0%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
29.2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 34.0%.
Minnesota blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.0%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
37.7%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 25.5%.
Minnesota general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 20.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 28.8%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
22.9%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 27.5%.
Mississippi combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 21.5%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 13.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
19.9%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 45.0%.
Missouri blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.6%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 8.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
37.2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 41.9%.
Missouri general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.5%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 43.0%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
8.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.1%.
Montana combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.1%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 40.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
16.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 27.3%.
Nebraska blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 58.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 7.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
13.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 20.7%.
Nebraska general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 29.0%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
25.2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 34.1%.
Nevada combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 18.6%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
26.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 27.8%.
New Hampshire combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 6.5%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 32.4%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
13.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 47.3%.
New Jersey blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.3%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 21.1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
18.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 47.5%.
New Jersey general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.2%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
21.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 32.9%.
New Mexico blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.3%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 11.1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
36.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 36.3%.
New Mexico general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 29.6%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 21.2%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
19.7%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.5%.
New York blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 8.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 12.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
17.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 62.4%.
New York general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.3%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.2%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
23.9%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 32.6%.
North Carolina blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.2%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 8.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
22.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 50.3%.
North Carolina general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 26.5%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.4%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
25.7%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 30.4%.
North Dakota combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.5%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 28.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
18.6%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 38.4%.
Northern Marianas combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 30.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 16.8%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
20.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.7%.
Ohio combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 21.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 26.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
21.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 30.8%.
Oklahoma combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 18.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 22.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
33.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 25.7%.
Oregon blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.2%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 14.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
28.9%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 43.1%.
Oregon general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.3%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 34.2%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
19.5%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.0%.
Pennsylvania combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.9%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 11.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
27.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 45.0%.
Puerto Rico combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 32.1%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 14.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
14.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 38.9%.
Rhode Island combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
22.9%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.4%.
South Carolina blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 10.6%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 5.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
26.9%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 56.6%.
South Carolina general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.9%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 10.4%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
23.2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 48.5%.
South Dakota blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 26.9%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 9.2%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
13.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 50.0%.
South Dakota general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 28.6%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 21.0%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
18.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.6%.
Tennessee combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 44.2%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 11.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
18.9%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 25.2%.
Texas blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 34.9%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 6.2%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
15.6%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 43.4%.
Texas general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 21.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 18.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
27.6%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 32.2%.
Utah combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 22.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
23.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 34.9%.
Vermont blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 2.3%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 5.4%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
23.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 69.2%.
Vermont general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 4.9%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 26.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
27.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 41.4%.
Virgin Islands combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 18.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 13.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
27.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 40.6%.
Virginia blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 8.9%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 16.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
16.6%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 57.8%.
Virginia general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.6%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 22.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
31.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 32.4%.
Washington blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
27.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 37.3%.
Washington general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 21.6%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 36.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
21.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 20.2%.
West Virginia combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 36.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
15.2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 36.4%.
Wisconsin combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 34.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 15.4%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
26.5%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 23.7%.
Wyoming combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 20.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 24.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
16.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 38.3%.
National average;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 20.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 22.4%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
23.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.4%.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: State VR Agency Population Proportions by Primary
Impairment, Fiscal Year 2003:
Alabama combined;
No impairment: 6.3%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 6.2%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.6%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.3%;
Other physical impairment: 10.2%;
Cognitive impairment: 30.1%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 23.3%.
Alaska combined;
No impairment: 4.6%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.5%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.6%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 31.8%;
Other physical impairment: 10.4%;
Cognitive impairment: 16.1%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 28.0%.
American Samoa combined;
No impairment: 2.8%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 2.8%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 2.8%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 56.9%;
Other physical impairment: 27.8%;
Cognitive impairment: 5.6%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 1.4%.
Arizona combined;
No impairment: 0.3%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 4.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.7%;
Other physical impairment: 8.5%;
Cognitive impairment: 28.9%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 35.6%.
Arkansas blind;
No impairment: 17.7%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 82.3%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
Arkansas general;
No impairment:
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.2%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.1%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 31.6%;
Other physical impairment: 23.2%;
Cognitive impairment: 24.8%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 16.2%.
California combined;
No impairment: 0.3%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 7.1%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.7%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 18.8%;
Other physical impairment: 9.1%;
Cognitive impairment: 35.5%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 24.6%.
Colorado combined;
No impairment: 5.3%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 5.5%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.7%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 25.4%;
Other physical impairment: 10.1%;
Cognitive impairment: 20.9%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 27.3%.
Connecticut blind;
No impairment;
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
Connecticut general;
No impairment: 5.1%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.6%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 12.8%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.9%;
Other physical impairment: 7.3%;
Cognitive impairment: 22.3%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 34.1%.
Delaware blind;
No impairment: 5.1%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 91.5%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 1.7%;
Other physical impairment: 1.7%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
Delaware general;
No impairment: 0.1%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.6%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.3%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 22.0%;
Other physical impairment: 9.2%;
Cognitive impairment: 31.1%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 33.8%.
District of Columbia combined;
No impairment: 11.4%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 4.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 1.9%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 7.6%;
Other physical impairment: 14.7%;
Cognitive impairment: 13.9%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 46.5%.
Florida blind;
No impairment: 1.1%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 98.8%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.1%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0% .
Florida general;
No impairment:
Blind or other visual impairment: 1.4%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 9.2%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 22.3%;
Other physical impairment: 20.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 11.1%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 35.9%.
Georgia combined;
No impairment: 7.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 4.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.4%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 16.6%;
Other physical impairment: 12.3%;
Cognitive impairment: 28.5%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 25.2%.
Guam combined;
No impairment: 1.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 6.1%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 10.1%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 28.3%;
Other physical impairment: 12.1%;
Cognitive impairment: 20.2%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 22.2%.
Hawaii combined;
No impairment: 1.6%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 6.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.3%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 14.1%;
Other physical impairment: 8.3%;
Cognitive impairment: 23.9%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 41.8%.
Idaho blind;
No impairment: 0.6%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 96.8%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 2.6%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
Idaho general;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.7%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.8%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 25.3%;
Other physical impairment: 11.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 22.5%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 36.6%.
Illinois combined;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 7.2%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.2%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 16.7%;
Other physical impairment: 11.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 32.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 26.9%.
Indiana combined;
No impairment: 4.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 5.5%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 14.2%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 22.5%;
Other physical impairment: 9.2%;
Cognitive impairment: 22.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 22.6%.
Iowa blind;
No impairment: 4.1%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 94.8%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.5%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.5%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0% .
Iowa general;
No impairment: 6.9%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.4%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.9%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.9%;
Other physical impairment: 10.8%;
Cognitive impairment: 27.5%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 32.6%.
Kansas combined;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 6.3%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.7%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 21.2%;
Other physical impairment: 10.2%;
Cognitive impairment: 24.8%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 31.8%.
Kentucky blind;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 99.8%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.2%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
Kentucky general;
No impairment: 0.3%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.1%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.1%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 21.2%;
Other physical impairment: 11.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 19.6%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 41.9%.
Louisiana combined;
No impairment: 19.8%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.7%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.2%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 15.6%;
Other physical impairment: 10.6%;
Cognitive impairment: 21.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 24.1%.
Maine blind;
No impairment: 0.3%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 98.4%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.7%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.3%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.3%.
Maine general;
No impairment: 0.2%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.2%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.9%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 21.8%;
Other physical impairment: 9.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 24.6%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 37.2%.
Maryland combined;
No impairment: 0.1%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.5%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.3%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 14.0%;
Other physical impairment: 9.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 24.3%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 42.8%.
Massachusetts blind;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
Massachusetts general;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.8%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.2%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 18.0%;
Other physical impairment: 10.9%;
Cognitive impairment: 18.5%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 46.6%.
Michigan blind;
No impairment: 1.7%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 97.7%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.5%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.2%.
Michigan general;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.8%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 7.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 13.0%;
Other physical impairment: 13.1%;
Cognitive impairment: 29.3%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 36.8%.
Minnesota blind;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
Minnesota general;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.2%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.7%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 16.8%;
Other physical impairment: 10.7%;
Cognitive impairment: 27.7%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 40.9%.
Mississippi combined;
No impairment: 0.1%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 10.1%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 11.4%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.3%;
Other physical impairment: 22.1%;
Cognitive impairment: 19.9%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 19.2%.
Missouri blind;
No impairment: 6.4%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 92.4%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.7%;
Other physical impairment: 0.4%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.1%.
Missouri general;
No impairment: 4.2%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 1.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.5%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 21.3%;
Other physical impairment: 13.8%;
Cognitive impairment: 24.1%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 30.2%.
Montana combined;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 4.5%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 2.5%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 34.6%;
Other physical impairment: 11.4%;
Cognitive impairment: 21.8%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 25.2%.
Nebraska blind;
No impairment: 1.3%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 98.4%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.3%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
Nebraska general;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.3%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 21.0%;
Other physical impairment: 18.7%;
Cognitive impairment: 47.6%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 9.3%.
Nevada combined;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 9.7%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.3%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 24.3%;
Other physical impairment: 12.8%;
Cognitive impairment: 17.2%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 30.7%.
New Hampshire combined;
No impairment: 0.1%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 5.6%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 10.2%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 22.9%;
Other physical impairment: 11.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 25.1%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 25.1%.
New Jersey blind;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
New Jersey general;
No impairment: 14.2%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.5%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 16.1%;
Other physical impairment: 8.8%;
Cognitive impairment: 21.9%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 32.6%.
New Mexico blind;
No impairment: 0.8%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 97.5%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.8%;
Other physical impairment: 0.8%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
New Mexico general;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 1.1%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 26.8%;
Other physical impairment: 12.1%;
Cognitive impairment: 20.6%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 33.4%.
New York blind;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
New York general;
No impairment: 0.1%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.5%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 19.9%;
Other physical impairment: 9.3%;
Cognitive impairment: 26.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 41.1%.
North Carolina blind;
No impairment: 3.7%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 96.3%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
North Carolina general;
No impairment: 1.1%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.4%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.4%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 22.3%;
Other physical impairment: 13.9%;
Cognitive impairment: 23.3%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 35.6%.
North Dakota combined;
No impairment: 0.9%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.2%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.6%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 20.9%;
Other physical impairment: 10.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 24.6%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 34.8%.
Northern Marianas combined;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 23.8%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 15.8%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 14.9%;
Other physical impairment: 31.7%;
Cognitive impairment: 10.9%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 3.0%.
Ohio combined;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 8.5%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 7.4%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 20.0%;
Other physical impairment: 14.6%;
Cognitive impairment: 21.1%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 28.3%.
Oklahoma combined;
No impairment: 4.5%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 7.4%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.3%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 23.7%;
Other physical impairment: 15.9%;
Cognitive impairment: 21.3%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 22.9%.
Oregon blind;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 95.4%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 1.5%;
Other physical impairment: 0.5%;
Cognitive impairment: 1.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 1.5%.
Oregon general;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 1.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.6%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 25.7%;
Other physical impairment: 18.5%;
Cognitive impairment: 20.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 30.2%.
Pennsylvania combined;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.5%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.6%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 21.1%;
Other physical impairment: 11.8%;
Cognitive impairment: 22.8%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 34.2%.
Puerto Rico combined;
No impairment: 7.3%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 8.5%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.3%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 24.5%;
Other physical impairment: 15.9%;
Cognitive impairment: 14.8%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 23.7%.
Rhode Island combined;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 6.2%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.2%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.0%;
Other physical impairment: 8.6%;
Cognitive impairment: 22.8%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 42.2%.
South Carolina blind;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
South Carolina general;
No impairment: 1.1%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.6%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.8%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 14.1%;
Other physical impairment: 17.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 9.5%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 52.9%.
South Dakota blind;
No impairment: 1.7%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 95.7%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.9%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.9%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.9%.
South Dakota general;
No impairment: 1.2%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.1%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.5%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 25.2%;
Other physical impairment: 10.2%;
Cognitive impairment: 27.8%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 32.0%.
Tennessee combined;
No impairment: 0.4%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.9%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 2.6%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.5%;
Other physical impairment: 12.6%;
Cognitive impairment: 33.3%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 29.7%.
Texas blind;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
Texas general;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.1%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.2%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 27.1%;
Other physical impairment: 15.9%;
Cognitive impairment: 15.6%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 36.2%.
Utah combined;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 24.0%;
Other physical impairment: 8.7%;
Cognitive impairment: 15.1%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 45.1%.
Vermont blind;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
Vermont general;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.4%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.3%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 23.5%;
Other physical impairment: 13.2%;
Cognitive impairment: 21.5%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 37.2%.
Virgin Islands combined;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 9.4%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.3%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 14.6%;
Other physical impairment: 11.5%;
Cognitive impairment: 46.9%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 11.5%.
Virginia blind;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%;
Other physical impairment: 0.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%.
Virginia general;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.6%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.4%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.3%;
Other physical impairment: 11.9%;
Cognitive impairment: 32.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 33.7%.
Washington blind;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 97.9%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.6%;
Other physical impairment: 0.6%;
Cognitive impairment: 0.6%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.3%.
Washington general;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 2.1%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.9%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 27.0%;
Other physical impairment: 8.4%;
Cognitive impairment: 30.1%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 27.6%.
West Virginia combined;
No impairment: 1.4%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.4%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 8.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 22.7%;
Other physical impairment: 14.9%;
Cognitive impairment: 26.0%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 23.5%.
Wisconsin combined;
No impairment: 26.2%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 2.2%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.0%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 22.5%;
Other physical impairment: 10.0%;
Cognitive impairment: 15.2%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 20.9%.
Wyoming combined;
No impairment: 0.0%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 2.8%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.3%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 34.5%;
Other physical impairment: 10.7%;
Cognitive impairment: 12.3%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 35.4%.
National average;
No impairment: 2.2%;
Blind or other visual impairment: 5.4%;
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.4%;
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 20.2%;
Other physical impairment: 12.4%;
Cognitive impairment: 22.6%;
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 31.7%.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Social Security Beneficiaries' Employment Rates by State
VR Agency, Fiscal Year 2003:
Alabama combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.1%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 12.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
33.5%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 42.9%.
Alaska combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
26.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.9%.
American Samoa combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 31.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 10.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
0.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 58.6%.
Arizona combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.1%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.2%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
39.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 19.3%.
Arkansas blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.2%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 7.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
14.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 64.9%.
Arkansas general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 24.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 13.2%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
44.5%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 17.4%.
California combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 9.5%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.2%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
35.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.4%.
Colorado combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 36.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
23.6%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 22.9%.
Connecticut blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 1.1%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 24.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
17.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 57.4%.
Connecticut general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 6.9%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 33.2%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
33.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 26.6%.
Delaware blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 25.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
25.6%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 35.9%.
Delaware general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 26.3%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 14.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
27.7%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.5%.
District of Columbia combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 9.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 45.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
24.2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 20.2%.
Florida blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 23.3%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 7.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
29.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 39.1%.
Florida general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 3.1%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 32.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
40.7%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 23.7%.
Georgia combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 19.2%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
37.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 30.1%.
Guam combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 45.5%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 36.4%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
9.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 9.1%.
Hawaii combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 7.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.8%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
27.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.4%.
Idaho blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 8.9%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 19.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
25.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 46.4%.
Idaho general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 7.3%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
29.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 32.0%.
Illinois combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
30.5%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 36.4%.
Indiana combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 9.1%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
35.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 28.2%.
Iowa blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 2.5%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 16.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
16.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 65.0%.
Iowa general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 29.0%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
35.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 21.0%.
Kansas combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.9%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 16.4%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
34.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.6%.
Kentucky blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 7.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.0%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
19.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 49.8%.
Kentucky general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.9%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 33.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
25.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 25.7%.
Louisiana combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 23.2%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
27.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 17.4%.
Maine blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.2%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 14.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
14.6%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 59.6%.
Maine general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 7.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
31.5%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.7%.
Maryland combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 35.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 19.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
12.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.0%.
Massachusetts blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 4.1%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 6.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
21.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 68.3%.
Massachusetts general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 9.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 44.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
25.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 20.5%.
Michigan blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.6%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 11.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
31.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 41.4%.
Michigan general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.5%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 24.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
34.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.1%.
Minnesota blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
40.9%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 24.6%.
Minnesota general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.8%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
27.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 26.0%.
Mississippi combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.2%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
27.2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 30.0%.
Missouri blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 7.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 13.8%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
47.5%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.3%.
Missouri general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 5.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 54.1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
13.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 27.2%.
Montana combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 2.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 44.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
22.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 30.2%.
Nebraska blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 26.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 12.5%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
33.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 27.8%.
Nebraska general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 3.9%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 32.0%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
36.6%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 27.5%.
Nevada combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
32.6%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 21.1%.
New Hampshire combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 5.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 32.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
16.7%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 44.9%.
New Jersey blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.6%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.2%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
21.5%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 37.7%.
New Jersey general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.6%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 32.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
30.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 24.5%.
New Mexico blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 10.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 14.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
37.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 36.5%.
New Mexico general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 28.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 18.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
24.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 28.0%.
New York blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 9.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
23.7%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 44.1%.
New York general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 8.2%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 29.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
29.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 32.8%.
North Carolina blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 8.5%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
35.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 39.0%.
North Carolina general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.3%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 25.1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
33.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 25.8%.
North Dakota combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 2.1%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
28.2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 41.8%.
Northern Marianas combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 5.6%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.8%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
50.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 16.7%.
Ohio combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 30.8%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
29.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 25.4%.
Oklahoma combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 10.1%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 29.1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
41.7%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 19.1%.
Oregon blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 10.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
38.7%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.0%.
Oregon general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.6%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 37.8%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
24.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 24.6%.
Pennsylvania combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 7.2%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 13.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
42.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 36.8%.
Puerto Rico combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 20.3%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 19.4%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
18.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 41.9%.
Rhode Island combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 8.1%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.4%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
29.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.2%.
South Carolina blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 5.5%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 6.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
33.9%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 53.9%.
South Carolina general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 16.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
34.5%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.2%.
South Dakota blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.9%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 19.4%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
32.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 35.5%.
South Dakota general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 21.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
25.7%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 34.1%.
Tennessee combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 29.7%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 20.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
25.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 24.7%.
Texas blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.2%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 8.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
24.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 49.7%.
Texas general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.5%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
37.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 22.2%.
Utah combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 1.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 25.0%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
40.0%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 34.1%.
Vermont blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 3.8%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 5.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
35.8%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 54.7%.
Vermont general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 2.5%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.2%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
30.4%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 43.9%.
Virgin Islands combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 21.1%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 21.1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
10.5%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 47.4%.
Virginia blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 7.9%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 22.3%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
19.5%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 50.2%.
Virginia general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.0%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 22.1%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
34.2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.7%.
Washington blind;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 26.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
34.2%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 27.8%.
Washington general;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 41.8%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
26.6%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 20.2%.
West Virginia combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 5.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 47.9%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
20.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 26.4%.
Wisconsin combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.6%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
32.5%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 24.5%.
Wyoming combined;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 9.4%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 22.7%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
23.1%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 44.9%.
National average;
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.6%;
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.0%;
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan:
31.3%;
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.1%.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: State VR Agency Percentages of Total Agency Service Budget
Spent on Each Service Category, Fiscal Year 2003:
Alabama combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 48%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 10%;
Postsecondary education training: 10%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 21%;
Maintenance: 4.5%;
Transportation: 1.3%;
Personal assistance services: 0.6%;
All other services: 5%;
Post-employment services: 0.1%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 5.7%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Alaska combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 57%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 5%;
Postsecondary education training: 5%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 11%;
Maintenance: 2.5%;
Transportation: 3.4%;
Personal assistance services: 0.7%;
All other services: 15%;
Post-employment services: 1.8%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.3%;
Small business enterprises: 0.4%.
American Samoa combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 15%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 9%;
Postsecondary education training: 1%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 55%;
Maintenance: 0.0%;
Transportation: 0.9%;
Personal assistance services: 0.0%;
All other services: 20%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.0%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Arizona combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 58%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 8%;
Postsecondary education training: 7%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 14%;
Maintenance: 1.7%;
Transportation: 2.2%;
Personal assistance services: 2.5%;
All other services: 7%;
Post-employment services: 2.2%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 4.6%;
Small business enterprises: 0.8%.
Arkansas blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 42%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 21%;
Postsecondary education training: 7%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 23%;
Maintenance: 1.0%;
Transportation: 0.7%;
Personal assistance services: 0.1%;
All other services: 5%;
Post-employment services: 0.5%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.4%;
Small business enterprises: 0.2%.
Arkansas general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 66%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 5%;
Postsecondary education training: 19%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 6%;
Maintenance: 0.8%;
Transportation: 0.4%;
Personal assistance services: 2.0%;
All other services: 1%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.0%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
California combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 50%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 1%;
Postsecondary education training: 7%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 17%;
Maintenance: 0.3%;
Transportation: 4.3%;
Personal assistance services: 0.4%;
All other services: 20%;
Post-employment services: 0.1%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.9%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Colorado combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 60%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 6%;
Postsecondary education training: 4%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 19%;
Maintenance: 0.7%;
Transportation: 1.5%;
Personal assistance services: 0.8%;
All other services: 7%;
Post-employment services: 0.3%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.8%;
Small business enterprises: 1.3%.
Connecticut blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 37%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%;
Postsecondary education training: 15%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 17%;
Maintenance: 0.0%;
Transportation: 1.4%;
Personal assistance services: 1.0%;
All other services: 25%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 11.2%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Connecticut general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 65%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 7%;
Postsecondary education training: 5%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 4%;
Maintenance: 3.3%;
Transportation: 0.8%;
Personal assistance services: 0.3%;
All other services: 15%;
Post-employment services: 0.3%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 9.8%;
Small business enterprises: 0.1%.
Delaware blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 27%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 1%;
Postsecondary education training: 15%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 34%;
Maintenance: 0.0%;
Transportation: 0.2%;
Personal assistance services: 0.5%;
All other services: 23%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.6%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Delaware general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 59%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%;
Postsecondary education training: 8%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 26%;
Maintenance: 2.7%;
Transportation: 0.0%;
Personal assistance services: 0.4%;
All other services: 0%;
Post-employment services: 0.2%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.0%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
District of Columbia combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 47%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 7%;
Postsecondary education training: 17%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 23%;
Maintenance: 6.3%;
Transportation: 1.1%;
Personal assistance services: 0.2%;
All other services: 0%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.3%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Florida blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 37%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 11%;
Postsecondary education training: 4%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 11%;
Maintenance: 6.7%;
Transportation: 1.9%;
Personal assistance services: 0.2%;
All other services: 28%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 13.3%;
Small business enterprises: 0.4%.
Florida general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 42%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 24%;
Postsecondary education training: 4%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 9%;
Maintenance: 1.0%;
Transportation: 1.9%;
Personal assistance services: 0.0%;
All other services: 18%;
Post-employment services: 1.5%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.0%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Georgia combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 65%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 3%;
Postsecondary education training: 5%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 14%;
Maintenance: 5.5%;
Transportation: 2.6%;
Personal assistance services: 0.6%;
All other services: 4%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.9%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Guam combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 78%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 2%;
Postsecondary education training: 6%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 8%;
Maintenance: 0.0%;
Transportation: 0.3%;
Personal assistance services: 2.6%;
All other services: 3%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.5%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Hawaii combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 58%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 1%;
Postsecondary education training: 9%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 16%;
Maintenance: 0.7%;
Transportation: 1.2%;
Personal assistance services: 0.2%;
All other services: 14%;
Post-employment services: 0.1%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 8.2%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Idaho blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 46%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 7%;
Postsecondary education training: 4%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 31%;
Maintenance: 2.7%;
Transportation: 1.7%;
Personal assistance services: 0.2%;
All other services: 8%;
Post-employment services: 0.8%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 4.8%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Idaho general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 57%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 5%;
Postsecondary education training: 9%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 18%;
Maintenance: 1.3%;
Transportation: 3.2%;
Personal assistance services: 0.3%;
All other services: 6%;
Post-employment services: 0.4%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 4.6%;
Small business enterprises: 2.2%.
Illinois combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 55%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 6%;
Postsecondary education training: 7%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 19%;
Maintenance: 4.1%;
Transportation: 2.2%;
Personal assistance services: 1.2%;
All other services: 6%;
Post-employment services: 0.1%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.1%;
Small business enterprises: 0.8%.
Indiana combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 31%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 18%;
Postsecondary education training: 9%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 23%;
Maintenance: 3.1%;
Transportation: 2.3%;
Personal assistance services: 4.0%;
All other services: 10%;
Post-employment services: 0.3%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 6.0%;
Small business enterprises: 1.2%.
Iowa blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 29%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%;
Postsecondary education training: 4%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 45%;
Maintenance: 4.3%;
Transportation: 0.5%;
Personal assistance services: 1.9%;
All other services: 16%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.3%;
Small business enterprises: 1.4%.
Iowa general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 64%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 2%;
Postsecondary education training: 17%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 9%;
Maintenance: 1.0%;
Transportation: 0.8%;
Personal assistance services: 2.0%;
All other services: 5%;
Post-employment services: 0.3%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.9%;
Small business enterprises: 2.6%.
Kansas combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 53%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 9%;
Postsecondary education training: 5%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 18%;
Maintenance: 6.0%;
Transportation: 5.6%;
Personal assistance services: 1.4%;
All other services: 2%;
Post-employment services: 0.7%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.6%;
Small business enterprises: 0.1%.
Kentucky blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 50%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 14%;
Postsecondary education training: 6%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 2%;
Maintenance: 4.4%;
Transportation: 0.0%;
Personal assistance services: 0.4%;
All other services: 23%;
Post-employment services: 1.3%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.2%;
Small business enterprises: 9.9%.
Kentucky general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 59%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 3%;
Postsecondary education training: 15%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 9%;
Maintenance: 1.3%;
Transportation: 0.3%;
Personal assistance services: 0.6%;
All other services: 11%;
Post-employment services: 0.1%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 4.8%;
Small business enterprises: 0.3%.
Louisiana combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 47%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 13%;
Postsecondary education training: 15%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 16%;
Maintenance: 4.0%;
Transportation: 2.2%;
Personal assistance services: 1.6%;
All other services: 1%;
Post-employment services: 0.8%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 10.9%;
Small business enterprises: 0.6%.
Maine blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 48%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%;
Postsecondary education training: 3%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 1%;
Maintenance: 0.5%;
Transportation: 0.3%;
Personal assistance services: 0.0%;
All other services: 45%;
Post-employment services: 0.3%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.1%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Maine general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 50%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%;
Postsecondary education training: 9%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 8%;
Maintenance: 2.0%;
Transportation: 3.5%;
Personal assistance services: 0.9%;
All other services: 23%;
Post-employment services: 5.2%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 4.0%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Maryland combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 69%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 3%;
Postsecondary education training: 8%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 14%;
Maintenance: 1.4%;
Transportation: 1.1%;
Personal assistance services: 0.4%;
All other services: 3%;
Post-employment services: 0.5%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.8%;
Small business enterprises: 0.6%.
Massachusetts blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 63%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 2%;
Postsecondary education training: 5%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 20%;
Maintenance: 0.0%;
Transportation: 0.1%;
Personal assistance services: 0.4%;
All other services: 10%;
Post-employment services: 0.8%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 9.8%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Massachusetts general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 63%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 2%;
Postsecondary education training: 8%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 18%;
Maintenance: 1.1%;
Transportation: 2.0%;
Personal assistance services: 0.6%;
All other services: 6%;
Post-employment services: 0.2%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.4%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Michigan blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 54%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 2%;
Postsecondary education training: 12%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 9%;
Maintenance: 2.8%;
Transportation: 0.3%;
Personal assistance services: 7.5%;
All other services: 11%;
Post-employment services: 1.1%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 6.6%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Michigan general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 55%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%;
Postsecondary education training: 13%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 13%;
Maintenance: 3.3%;
Transportation: 4.9%;
Personal assistance services: 0.4%;
All other services: 6%;
Post-employment services: 0.4%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.1%;
Small business enterprises: 0.8%.
Minnesota blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 55%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%;
Postsecondary education training: 6%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 19%;
Maintenance: 7.9%;
Transportation: 1.3%;
Personal assistance services: 0.0%;
All other services: 11%;
Post-employment services: 0.8%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 6.6%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Minnesota general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 69%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%;
Postsecondary education training: 7%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 13%;
Maintenance: 1.3%;
Transportation: 2.8%;
Personal assistance services: 0.1%;
All other services: 7%;
Post-employment services: 0.2%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.5%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Mississippi combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 48%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 36%;
Postsecondary education training: 3%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 3%;
Maintenance: 1.7%;
Transportation: 0.4%;
Personal assistance services: 1.0%;
All other services: 7%;
Post-employment services: 0.2%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.5%;
Small business enterprises: 0.1%.
Missouri blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 30%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 7%;
Postsecondary education training: 9%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 23%;
Maintenance: 4.4%;
Transportation: 4.1%;
Personal assistance services: 0.0%;
All other services: 23%;
Post-employment services: 0.7%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.9%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Missouri general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 38%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 7%;
Postsecondary education training: 12%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 29%;
Maintenance: 5.8%;
Transportation: 3.5%;
Personal assistance services: 1.9%;
All other services: 3%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.4%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Montana combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 41%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 3%;
Postsecondary education training: 30%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 7%;
Maintenance: 1.1%;
Transportation: 2.8%;
Personal assistance services: 0.4%;
All other services: 14%;
Post-employment services: 0.5%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.4%;
Small business enterprises: 0.1%.
Nebraska blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 44%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%;
Postsecondary education training: 6%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 37%;
Maintenance: 3.4%;
Transportation: 0.5%;
Personal assistance services: 1.4%;
All other services: 6%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 6.0%;
Small business enterprises: 0.2%.
Nebraska general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 68%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%;
Postsecondary education training: 9%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 15%;
Maintenance: 0.6%;
Transportation: 1.0%;
Personal assistance services: 0.2%;
All other services: 7%;
Post-employment services: 0.8%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 5.2%;
Small business enterprises: 1.0%.
Nevada combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 53%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 10%;
Postsecondary education training: 6%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 11%;
Maintenance: 1.1%;
Transportation: 2.4%;
Personal assistance services: 1.4%;
All other services: 16%;
Post-employment services: 0.2%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.1%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
New Hampshire combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 54%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 8%;
Postsecondary education training: 10%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 12%;
Maintenance: 1.0%;
Transportation: 2.3%;
Personal assistance services: 0.1%;
All other services: 12%;
Post-employment services: 0.1%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 7.3%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
New Jersey blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 47%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 5%;
Postsecondary education training: 5%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 35%;
Maintenance: 3.0%;
Transportation: 3.3%;
Personal assistance services: 2.0%;
All other services: 1%;
Post-employment services: 0.9%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.4%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
New Jersey general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 55%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 3%;
Postsecondary education training: 10%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 20%;
Maintenance: 2.5%;
Transportation: 1.5%;
Personal assistance services: 0.0%;
All other services: 7%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 6.1%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
New Mexico blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 69%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%;
Postsecondary education training: 5%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 3%;
Maintenance: 7.1%;
Transportation: 1.2%;
Personal assistance services: 0.5%;
All other services: 15%;
Post-employment services: 0.7%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 10.7%;
Small business enterprises: 1.5%.
New Mexico general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 60%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 6%;
Postsecondary education training: 12%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 5%;
Maintenance: 2.6%;
Transportation: 3.4%;
Personal assistance services: 1.3%;
All other services: 10%;
Post-employment services: 1.1%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.7%;
Small business enterprises: 2.8%.
New York blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 25%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%;
Postsecondary education training: 6%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 64%;
Maintenance: 2.3%;
Transportation: 1.0%;
Personal assistance services: 0.0%;
All other services: 1%;
Post-employment services: 0.2%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 8.6%;
Small business enterprises: 0.1%.
New York general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 59%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%;
Postsecondary education training: 6%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 23%;
Maintenance: 1.6%;
Transportation: 3.8%;
Personal assistance services: 2.2%;
All other services: 4%;
Post-employment services: 0.3%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.9%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
North Carolina blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 62%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 22%;
Postsecondary education training: 5%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 0%;
Maintenance: 2.4%;
Transportation: 1.3%;
Personal assistance services: 1.2%;
All other services: 5%;
Post-employment services: 0.4%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.0%;
Small business enterprises: 0.1%.
North Carolina general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 41%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 29%;
Postsecondary education training: 10%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 15%;
Maintenance: 2.6%;
Transportation: 2.3%;
Personal assistance services: 0.2%;
All other services: 0%;
Post-employment services: 0.1%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.9%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
North Dakota combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 45%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 6%;
Postsecondary education training: 19%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 21%;
Maintenance: 3.4%;
Transportation: 2.7%;
Personal assistance services: 0.5%;
All other services: 2%;
Post-employment services: 0.3%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 4.3%;
Small business enterprises: 1.1%.
Northern Marianas combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 49%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 20%;
Postsecondary education training: 0%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 4%;
Maintenance: 0.4%;
Transportation: 4.6%;
Personal assistance services: 0.0%;
All other services: 22%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 19.6%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Ohio combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 53%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 6%;
Postsecondary education training: 17%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 9%;
Maintenance: 1.9%;
Transportation: 1.2%;
Personal assistance services: 0.6%;
All other services: 11%;
Post-employment services: 0.4%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.5%;
Small business enterprises: 0.4%.
Oklahoma combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 47%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 12%;
Postsecondary education training: 19%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 18%;
Maintenance: 0.8%;
Transportation: 2.0%;
Personal assistance services: 0.1%;
All other services: 1%;
Post-employment services: 0.2%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.0%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Oregon blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 42%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 1%;
Postsecondary education training: 5%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 19%;
Maintenance: 1.6%;
Transportation: 0.7%;
Personal assistance services: 1.0%;
All other services: 29%;
Post-employment services: 2.4%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 9.5%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Oregon general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 64%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 3%;
Postsecondary education training: 3%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 5%;
Maintenance: 0.3%;
Transportation: 4.3%;
Personal assistance services: 0.4%;
All other services: 18%;
Post-employment services: 0.8%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.2%;
Small business enterprises: 1.8%.
Pennsylvania combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 38%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 15%;
Postsecondary education training: 12%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 21%;
Maintenance: 3.3%;
Transportation: 0.7%;
Personal assistance services: 0.9%;
All other services: 9%;
Post-employment services: 0.4%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 11.7%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Puerto Rico combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 43%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 1%;
Postsecondary education training: 23%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 3%;
Maintenance: 16.2%;
Transportation: 9.4%;
Personal assistance services: 1.7%;
All other services: 2%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.3%;
Small business enterprises: 4.0%.
Rhode Island combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 70%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%;
Postsecondary education training: 6%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 13%;
Maintenance: 0.0%;
Transportation: 1.0%;
Personal assistance services: 1.3%;
All other services: 9%;
Post-employment services: 0.8%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 5.2%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
South Carolina blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 43%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 10%;
Postsecondary education training: 11%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 22%;
Maintenance: 0.6%;
Transportation: 3.2%;
Personal assistance services: 0.0%;
All other services: 11%;
Post-employment services: 0.1%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.0%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
South Carolina general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 50%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 5%;
Postsecondary education training: 2%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 39%;
Maintenance: 1.6%;
Transportation: 1.2%;
Personal assistance services: 0.7%;
All other services: 0%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.6%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
South Dakota blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 53%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 12%;
Postsecondary education training: 4%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 6%;
Maintenance: 2.1%;
Transportation: 1.6%;
Personal assistance services: 0.5%;
All other services: 22%;
Post-employment services: 0.8%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 14.5%;
Small business enterprises: 3.4%.
South Dakota general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 43%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%;
Postsecondary education training: 9%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 17%;
Maintenance: 2.0%;
Transportation: 1.8%;
Personal assistance services: 3.7%;
All other services: 20%;
Post-employment services: 0.4%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 5.9%;
Small business enterprises: 0.7%.
Tennessee combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 33%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 1%;
Postsecondary education training: 35%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 24%;
Maintenance: 1.9%;
Transportation: 1.5%;
Personal assistance services: 0.7%;
All other services: 3%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.7%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Texas blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 64%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 10%;
Postsecondary education training: 1%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 12%;
Maintenance: 0.7%;
Transportation: 0.7%;
Personal assistance services: 1.1%;
All other services: 11%;
Post-employment services: 2.1%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.2%;
Small business enterprises: 1.6%.
Texas general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 47%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 24%;
Postsecondary education training: 5%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 16%;
Maintenance: 0.9%;
Transportation: 0.6%;
Personal assistance services: 0.3%;
All other services: 6%;
Post-employment services: 1.8%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.3%;
Small business enterprises: 0.1%.
Utah combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 41%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 9%;
Postsecondary education training: 28%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 13%;
Maintenance: 2.2%;
Transportation: 2.7%;
Personal assistance services: 0.1%;
All other services: 3%;
Post-employment services: 1.2%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 8.3%;
Small business enterprises: 0.9%.
Vermont blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 50%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 12%;
Postsecondary education training: 3%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 10%;
Maintenance: 0.5%;
Transportation: 1.2%;
Personal assistance services: 0.5%;
All other services: 21%;
Post-employment services: 2.1%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 17.5%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Vermont general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 60%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 2%;
Postsecondary education training: 3%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 16%;
Maintenance: 0.9%;
Transportation: 5.4%;
Personal assistance services: 0.4%;
All other services: 13%;
Post-employment services: 1.3%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.4%;
Small business enterprises: 0.2%.
Virgin Islands combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 34%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 11%;
Postsecondary education training: 5%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 23%;
Maintenance: 6.4%;
Transportation: 8.4%;
Personal assistance services: 4.1%;
All other services: 7%;
Post-employment services: 2.7%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.9%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Virginia blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 43%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%;
Postsecondary education training: 4%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 29%;
Maintenance: 3.0%;
Transportation: 1.9%;
Personal assistance services: 1.3%;
All other services: 14%;
Post-employment services: 0.1%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 13.6%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Virginia general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 51%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%;
Postsecondary education training: 2%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 5%;
Maintenance: 1.1%;
Transportation: 1.0%;
Personal assistance services: 1.0%;
All other services: 35%;
Post-employment services: 0.3%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.7%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Washington blind;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 57%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%;
Postsecondary education training: 8%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 17%;
Maintenance: 1.6%;
Transportation: 1.1%;
Personal assistance services: 1.2%;
All other services: 13%;
Post-employment services: 0.2%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 15.1%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Washington general;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 60%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 3%;
Postsecondary education training: 10%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 10%;
Maintenance: 1.5%;
Transportation: 4.7%;
Personal assistance services: 0.3%;
All other services: 11%;
Post-employment services: 1.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.5%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
West Virginia combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 41%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 11%;
Postsecondary education training: 17%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 26%;
Maintenance: 2.5%;
Transportation: 0.1%;
Personal assistance services: 0.4%;
All other services: 2%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.3%;
Small business enterprises: 0.0%.
Wisconsin combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 46%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 2%;
Postsecondary education training: 6%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 17%;
Maintenance: 1.7%;
Transportation: 7.0%;
Personal assistance services: 0.5%;
All other services: 19%;
Post-employment services: 0.0%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 5.8%;
Small business enterprises: 0.8%.
Wyoming combined;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 48%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 11%;
Postsecondary education training: 12%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 21%;
Maintenance: 2.9%;
Transportation: 2.7%;
Personal assistance services: 0.5%;
All other services: 3%;
Post-employment services: 1.6%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 5.4%;
Small business enterprises: 1.9%.
National average;
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 50%;
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 7%;
Postsecondary education training: 9%;
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 17%;
Maintenance: 2.4%;
Transportation: 2.1%;
Personal assistance services: 0.9%;
All other services: 11%;
Post-employment services: 0.6%;
Rehabilitation technology services: 4.7%;
Small business enterprises: 0.6%.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
Note: Service budget does not include the three categories of ’post-
employment services,“ ’rehabilitation technology services,“ or ’small
business enterprises“ because expenditures in these categories have
already been captured in one of the other eight service categories,
depending on the actual nature of the service (i.e., a type of
training, transportation, etc.) As a result, only the first eight
columns in this appendix add to 100 percent for each state VR agency,
or about 100 percent because of rounding.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: State VR Agency Total Administrative Costs as a Percentage
of Total Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003:
Alabama combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 6%.
Alaska combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%.
American Samoa combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 23%.
Arizona combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%.
Arkansas blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%.
Arkansas general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%.
California combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 8%.
Colorado combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 15%.
Connecticut blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 17%.
Connecticut general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 14%.
Delaware blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 30%.
Delaware general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 14%.
District of Columbia combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 33%.
Florida blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%.
Florida general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%.
Georgia combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 8%.
Guam combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 32%.
Hawaii combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 11%.
Idaho blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 16%.
Idaho general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%.
Illinois combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 5%.
Indiana combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 4%.
Iowa blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%.
Iowa general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%.
Kansas combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 11%.
Kentucky blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%.
Kentucky general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%.
Louisiana combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 11%.
Maine blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%.
Maine general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%.
Maryland combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%.
Massachusetts blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 32%.
Massachusetts general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%.
Michigan blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 31%.
Michigan general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%.
Minnesota blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 16%.
Minnesota general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%.
Mississippi combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 15%.
Missouri blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%.
Missouri general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 5%.
Montana combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%.
Nebraska blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 14%.
Nebraska general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%.
Nevada combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 23%.
New Hampshire combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 18%.
New Jersey blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 18%.
New Jersey general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%.
New Mexico blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 20%.
New Mexico general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 16%.
New York blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 11%.
New York general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%.
North Carolina blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 15%.
North Carolina general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 7%.
North Dakota combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 18%.
Northern Marianas combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 57%.
Ohio combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%.
Oklahoma combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%.
Oregon blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%.
Oregon general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 6%.
Pennsylvania combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%.
Puerto Rico combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 14%.
Rhode Island combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 24%.
South Carolina blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 30%.
South Carolina general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 7%.
South Dakota blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%.
South Dakota general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%.
Tennessee combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 14%.
Texas blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 14%.
Texas general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 8%.
Utah combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 7%.
Vermont blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 14%.
Vermont general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 16%.
Virgin Islands combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%.
Virginia blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%.
Virginia general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 8%.
Washington blind;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 16%.
Washington general;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%.
West Virginia combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 17%.
Wisconsin combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%.
Wyoming combined;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 17%.
National average;
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: State VR Agency Average Total Expenditures in Fiscal Year
2003 Per Person Exiting with Employment in Fiscal Year 2003:
Alabama combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $9,147.18.
Alaska combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $24,709.69.
American Samoa combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $20,162.77.
Arizona combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $32,761.67.
Arkansas blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $16,326.45.
Arkansas general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $16,952.49.
California combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $24,128.90.
Colorado combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $21,522.42.
Connecticut blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $13,081.71.
Connecticut general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $14,101.03.
Delaware blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $74,690.00.
Delaware general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $11,316.19.
District of Columbia combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $27,751.07.
Florida blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $37,040.38.
Florida general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $13,393.87.
Georgia combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $24,005.87.
Guam combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $53,709.54.
Hawaii combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $20,579.51.
Idaho blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $27,716.22.
Idaho general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $7,688.59.
Illinois combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $13,711.01.
Indiana combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $15,893.24.
Iowa blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $56,907.73.
Iowa general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $13,808.72.
Kansas combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $16,159.61.
Kentucky blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $27,367.03.
Kentucky general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $11,465.51.
Louisiana combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $27,213.90.
Maine blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $17,585.56.
Maine general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $17,973.61.
Maryland combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $17,905.81.
Massachusetts blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $57,309.36.
Massachusetts general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $19,491.41.
Michigan blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $50,281.12.
Michigan general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $14,790.42.
Minnesota blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $73,034.65.
Minnesota general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $13,687.42.
Mississippi combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $11,373.87.
Missouri blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $31,100.48.
Missouri general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $12,337.21.
Montana combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $13,638.62.
Nebraska blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $47,396.30.
Nebraska general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $12,185.01.
Nevada combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $18,618.61.
New Hampshire combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $10,227.07.
New Jersey blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $42,340.65.
New Jersey general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $12,952.84.
New Mexico blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $131,027.65.
New Mexico general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $15,159.09.
New York blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $19,137.95.
New York general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $11,860.90.
North Carolina blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $24,436.74.
North Carolina general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $12,167.74.
North Dakota combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $11,679.61.
Northern Marianas combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $28,500.53.
Ohio combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $22,382.25.
Oklahoma combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $16,971.47.
Oregon blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $56,235.22.
Oregon general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $13,480.54.
Pennsylvania combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $13,751.45.
Puerto Rico combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $34,680.64.
Rhode Island combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $18,595.19.
South Carolina blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $23,025.59.
South Carolina general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $7,408.41.
South Dakota blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $34,478.06.
South Dakota general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $14,062.02.
Tennessee combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $20,476.00.
Texas blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $26,992.63.
Texas general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $9,327.45.
Utah combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $10,947.74.
Vermont blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $15,060.00.
Vermont general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $9,208.06.
Virgin Islands combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $58,988.15.
Virginia blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $44,716.19.
Virginia general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $16,076.59.
Washington blind;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $70,120.85.
Washington general;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $26,467.08.
West Virginia combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $17,069.67.
Wisconsin combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $17,666.19.
Wyoming combined;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $13,102.07.
National average;
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment
in fiscal year 2003: $15,544.08.
Source: GAO analysis of Education data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Education:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES:
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY:
Cynthia M. Fagnoni:
Managing Director:
Education, Workforce and Income Security:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street N.W.
Washington DC 20548:
AUG 30 2005:
Dear Ms. Fagnoni:
Thank you for the opportunity for the Department of Education to review
and provide comments on draft report GAO-05-865: Vocational
Rehabilitation, Better Measures and Monitoring Could Improve the
Performance of the VR Program. This report is projected for September
2005 release. The vocational rehabilitation program is a complex, multi-
billion dollar program embodying a mix of social, economic and personal
goals and objectives. It has a history of Federal support extending
back three-quarters of a century. Yet, it tends to be not well
understood outside the limited group of individuals and agencies
directly involved in the operation of the state formula grant programs
or those extremely knowledgeable about disability programs. The draft
report contains several recommendations for executive action.
We would first like to note the painstaking professional efforts made
by GAO staff, including but not limited to Beverly Crawford, Megan
Matselboba and Shannon Groff, to base this study on the most complete
primary source information--of which they reviewed a very large volume-
-and the most current policy interpretations.
The Department of Education is in frill agreement that "better measures
and monitoring could improve program performance" of vocational
rehabilitation agencies. We will first discuss monitoring.
As an initial matter, we would like to point out that the draft
report's characterization of all monitoring being conducted by the
Rehabilitation Services Administration's (RSA) regional offices is not
accurate. RSA headquarters staff sets monitoring policies and plans
monitoring activities. RSA headquarters staff members participate on
monitoring teams. RSA headquarters, as recognized by the draft report,
reviews, approves and issues all monitoring reports:
As noted in the draft report, RSA is in the process of implementing a
revised system for monitoring state vocational rehabilitation agencies.
We believe the organizational and procedural changes we are making will
do much to address the history of untimely or incomplete monitoring
reports produced by the previous system of monitoring, characterized in
the draft report as ineffective.
We do regard the heading you have chosen to use on page 35, "Decision
to Eliminate Regional Offices Has Made Future of Monitoring Uncertain"
to be logically correct but potentially misleading. Your report will be
issued during the transition from one monitoring system to another.
While the future is in all cases marked by uncertainty, this particular
characterization impresses us as being overly negative. As your draft
report has noted, the prior system of monitoring state rehabilitation
agencies had not been working well. The Department is trying to improve
the situation and we would prefer not to have our efforts cast in
uncertain light simply as an artifact of the timing of this particular
report.
As the draft report indicates, we have not yet put in place a
completely revised system of monitoring. The revised structure of RSA
will take effect October 1. Under the new structure, as of that date,
RSA will carry out fully the Federal monitoring and other
administrative responsibilities under the Rehabilitation Act. We
believe we are developing a clear and comprehensive approach to
monitoring incorporating state teams that will conduct the monitoring
activities, with a single point of contact on the state teams to
interact with individual state agencies. We are establishing functional
units that will work collaboratively to develop the monitoring
protocols and state information that will be used as the basis for the
monitoring activities.
RSA just conducted a two-day monitoring conference. The conference
brought together grantees and a wider range of stakeholders and other
parties concerned with the availability and accountability of
vocational rehabilitation services than has typically been involved in
such discussions. We intend to use information gained during the
conference in the further refinement of the improved approach to
monitoring.
We would like to provide a few technical clarifications. The
restructuring of VR monitoring did not result in a "two year cycle" for
monitoring for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 as mentioned on page 33 of
the draft report. This idea of stretching out the monitoring cycle
originated in early 2004 with the RSA program and regional office
heads. The stretch-out was not a result of any restructuring of
monitoring. It preceded the restructuring and was in fact a painfully
clear indication that the old monitoring system would not be producing
timely reports. We believe our planned allocation of over 80,000 annual
staff hours for monitoring functions and related activities supporting
the state formula grants represents a most certain and substantial
commitment to improved oversight of the 80 grantee agencies comprising
the core of the Rehabilitation Act's service delivery structure. The
most current figure (August 2005) for Rehabilitation Services
Administration staff is 102 permanent full time positions. In April
2005, 138 staff were on board and the percentage reduction cited on
page 35 would therefore be less than the cited percentage of "nearly 50
percent" computed using the figure of 147.
We would also like to clarify that annual reviews of VR agencies may be
performed with or without on-site monitoring. In summary, ED is well
along in the process of developing and implementing what should be a
better monitoring system, with more consistency and improved management
controls.
The conclusions of your draft report focus on the possibility of
improving VR agency performance by providing feedback to the agencies
and more timely monitoring reports issued to our grantees are an
important part of this. Grantees, however, are quite cognizant of their
own patterns of expenditure and outcomes and typically have strong
internal justifications and motivations for their own activities and
service outcomes. A VR agency may wish to maintain its specialized
staff, facilities and a high degree of organizational autonomy.
Conversely, the agency may be dependent on third-party matching funds
and may need to accommodate the needs of the agencies providing
matching funds. An agency may be responding to political direction or
crosscutting program priorities or to client choices concerning the
type or conditions of employment. Some agencies provide many services
with state staff; others tend to purchase services from private
providers, community based rehabilitation programs, physicians or other
healthcare providers, educational institutions and vocational training
programs. The Rehabilitation Act does not require a state to adopt any
particular mode of service delivery, but we believe program monitoring
should consider how various patterns of service delivery might affect
client outcomes and program productivity.
In addition to Federal monitoring and directed technical assistance,
state VR agencies may be influenced to undergo changes to increase
productivity, effectiveness and accountability when monitoring and
program information is made readily available to interested and
affected individuals and organizations within each state. For example,
state rehabilitation and independent living councils and advisory
groups might benefit from comparative information about programs in
states other than their own. State and local workforce boards,
education agencies, community-based rehabilitation programs and
advocacy groups might be interested in the results of Federal
monitoring of the rehabilitation program within their state. We intend
to broaden the dissemination of the information we produce and
publicize the availability of our monitoring and analytic work
products. We expect to be able to do this efficiently and economically
through better website postings. While VR agencies do operate within a
highly specific Federal framework, these agencies are first and
foremost organs of state government, staffed with state employees
through state personnel systems, and the most fundamental opportunities
for change and improvement are at the state level.
In regard to measuring program performance, we are in strong agreement
that better measures are needed. The present VR "standards and
indicators" (See 34 CFR 361.80-89) were a first-generation attempt to
measure program performance, were late in inception, and, as the draft
report notes, have not been updated. These first-generation measures
allow individual grantee agencies to select elements by which they wish
to be measured from a menu unique to the VR program. This approach
discourages comparisons both among VR agencies (because all agencies
are not subject to a uniform set of metrics) and between the VR system
and other publicly-funded programs (because no other program uses the
same measures). Your draft report noted the latter problem
particularly. Performance levels for grantee agencies in these first-
generation indicators were set (e.g.: 55.8%; 72.6%; 62.4%) so that a
substantial majority of agencies could pass a given indicator. There is
nothing in the standards and indicators to inform readers directly, for
example, that there is considerable variation among grantee agencies
operating under the same highly specific statute and regulations on a
number of metrics relating to program efficiency. Administrative costs
as a percentage of total expenditures vary by several hundred percent
and average costs per person exiting in employment range among agencies
from below $10,000 per individual to over ten times that figure, as
your draft report notes. The Department is currently working to address
these issues.
We also agree with the draft report's observations that the first-
generation indicators might be improved regarding the within-state wage
and labor market variations you have cited but there are technical
challenges to a labor economics approach to VR outcome measurement. An
individual in a successful VR employment outcome is not required to
work any particular number of hours or earn a threshold amount of
money, or in the case of the few thousand homemaker closures, any
money. Many individuals in the VR client population engage in earnings
management (limitation) in order to maintain cash benefits and
associated medical services (which may be of vital importance) while
workers in the mainstream labor market typically try to make as much
money as possible. Direct comparisons are difficult.
The VR program is participating in the Administration's common measures
initiative. But, as noted in your draft report, the program has faced a
number of challenges in implementing the measures. We do intend,
however, to implement and make readily available to the public
information on the job training and employment common measures for the
VR program.
The report correctly notes that the current performance measures do not
isolate data on certain key populations of VR participants. However,
the Department does collect and can analyze data on the size of these
populations, the services received, and the outcomes achieved. We
intend to do more to highlight performance of key populations such as
students who have exited special education programs.
The IDEA transition population has been of continuing interest to the
Congress. We note the draft report's observations about transitioning
students receiving minimal purchased services, despite an expectation
that substantial education and training would be needed to prepare them
for employment. We intend to strengthen administration of the
interlocking transition provisions between IDEA and the Rehabilitation
Act. We intend to ensure that the comprehensive statewide assessment
describing the rehabilitation needs of individuals within each state,
required of VR agencies (Sec. 101(a)(15) of the Act), will include
quantitative information on the numbers and characteristics of students
projected by the state education agency to exit special education each
year. For example, the numbers of students who are blind or who have
orthopedic disabilities exiting special education in a given year can
be predicted with high accuracy and it would be desirable for state
education and rehabilitation agencies to exchange this information. The
education system would also benefit from information from
rehabilitation agencies on the eventual vocational outcomes of former
IDEA students.
We are, of course, aware that individuals with mental, cognitive or
psychosocial impairments comprise over one half of individuals served
by the program and that these individuals realize both low rates of
employment and low rates of pay if employment is achieved. We note the
relatively high percentage of recent repeat participants in VR programs
and the confounding finding of more negative employment outcomes for
these previous participants as indicated in figure 7, page 20. More
needs to be learned about these outcomes.
The draft report presents ED-collected data in a manner difficult for
ED to crosscheck in detail in the brief time available. Certain
information has been merged, doubtless in an effort to hold the draft
report to a reasonable size. The factual information appears
fundamentally correct but we note that some likely readers may take
issue with how the information is presented. RSA's historical public
reporting has been centered on successful outcomes. RSA has not
emphasized a systems approach of reporting on all individuals who have
left the program both with and without employment, nor has it
emphasized direct comparisons or rankings of grantee performance.
The analytic base for the draft report includes all individuals who
have come into contact with the program, including those found to be
ineligible and those leaving at an early stage. Consequently the
measure of employment used by GAO is different from the measure
specified in RSA's regulations.
We suggest that the report would be strengthened technically and made
more understandable within the grantee community by footnotes or
annotations to indicate exactly which data sets and RSA reporting
categories from the case services report and other reports were used to
compute the statistical information. A discussion of the assumptions
behind the analytic approach would be helpful also. Our staff would be
available to meet with you to help conduct these technical reviews if
you believe they would be useful and there is time to do this before
release.
We are fully aware of the need to gain a better understanding of the
circumstances of the two thirds of individuals who come in contact with
the VR system but do not exit with successful employment outcomes. We
are concerned about the large number of exits, particularly as it
relates to the program's efficiency. Some of these individuals who
exited may have obtained jobs on their own, some may have become
discouraged with what can be a lengthy process, and some may have been
unable to obtain the services they desired in type, amount or timing.
Some may have moved or changed or lost telephone service. Others may
have been referred by third party agencies such as welfare or
corrections without actually having a clear commitment to employment.
Some individuals with mental or cognitive disabilities simply find it
very difficult to act in their own long-term best interests to
increase.the possibility of economic self-support. The two largest
categories of nonsuccessful program exit cited in your draft report-
"failed to cooperate or refused services" and "unable to locate or
contact"--comprise seventy percent of unsuccessful exits, and the
circumstances underlying these two broad categories definitely deserve
closer examination.
While we are concerned about the large number of individuals who exit
the VR system before eligibility has been determined or after having
been determined eligible, but before receiving services, we believe it
is confusing and somewhat misleading to include these individuals in
the calculation of the employment rate. In many cases, the VR agency or
counselor has limited ability to influence the decision of a consumer
to leave the VR system. If GAO is going to use a definition of the
employment rate that is different from the one that RSA has
historically used and that is reflected in the common measures, the
report should be very explicit about the methodology used by GAO. The
only time the term appears to be defined in the report is in the
discussion of the VR program's performance indicators on page 8 and
this definition is based on the VR regulations.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this very interesting report
and we believe that your findings will make an important contribution
to improving the efficiency and productivity of the largest Federally-
funded program to assist individuals with disabilities in obtaining and
retaining employment.
[End of section]
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Robert E. Robertson 202-512-7215 or robertsonr@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Michele Grgich, Assistant
Director; Beverly Crawford; Shannon K. Groff; and Megan Matselboba made
key contributions to this report. Also, Elizabeth H. Curda, Wilfred B.
Holloway, Jonathan McMurray, Luann Moy, Peter Rumble, Daniel A.
Schwimer, and Susan B. Wallace provided technical assistance.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119 (Washington, DC:
January 2003).
[2] This legislation was most recently reauthorized as part of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
[3] In this report, the term state VR agencies refers to agencies in
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories of
American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands.
[4] State VR agencies are required to develop a written individualized
plan for employment for each eligible individual that includes the
specific employment goal, the rehabilitation services needed to achieve
that goal, the entities that will provide the services, and the methods
available for procuring the services. The plan must be agreed to and
signed by the eligible individual or by the individual's representative
and approved by the VR counselor.
[5] In contrast, Education does not count as employment the work
activity of individuals who perform their work for a public or
nonprofit organization in a segregated or sheltered setting, that is, a
setting in which the eligible individuals primarily interact with other
individuals with disabilities. Education's term for this is "extended
employment."
[6] In this report we calculate the employment rate as the percentage
of individuals who exited with employment after at least 90 days out of
all the individuals who exited the VR program in fiscal year 2003.
Education calculates the employment rate in a different manner,
reporting it as the percentage of individuals who exited with
employment after at least 90 days out of the group of individuals who
received services under an employment plan. Education's rate is
different from the employment rate we are using because Education does
not include those individuals who exited without employment during the
application phase or after limited services. Education's rate was 58
percent nationwide in fiscal year 2003.
[7] We are not able to adjust for inflation because individuals entered
the VR program at different times. However, most individuals (75
percent) who exited the program in fiscal year 2003 entered the program
less than 2 years previously.
[8] Almost one-quarter of these individuals had their cases closed
without employment because state VR agencies could not locate or
contact them. As a result, the employment status of these individuals
was actually unknown at the time of their case closure. It is possible
that some of these individuals may have found work between their last
contact with the VR program and when the program actually closed their
case.
[9] A study in the late 1980s found that the total dollar cost for all
types of services provided to VR individuals was actually two to three
times greater than the cost of purchased services alone. (See M.
Berkowitz et al., Enhanced Understanding of the Economics of
Disability, final report submitted to the National Institute of
Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Richmond, Virginia: Virginia
Department of Rehabilitative Services, 1988, chapter 5).
[10] VR agencies are required to utilize certain "comparable" services
or benefits, if available, in part or in whole through any other
program, before providing or paying for those services through the VR
program. Services provided and/or paid for by other entities are
included in Education's data as services furnished to an individual
while in the VR program.
[11] According to the fiscal year 2003 state plans submitted by each
agency to Education, a majority of state VR agencies maintain a
financial needs test to determine individuals' level of financial
participation for certain VR services.
[12] Without an experimental or rigorous quasi-experimental design with
a valid comparison group, studying actual impact of the VR program is
limited.
[13] Eight percent of all cases were missing values for secondary
impairment information.
[14] For figure 6, we compared hourly wages only among the 85 percent
of individuals exiting the VR program in the discrete employment
category for individuals not requiring any ongoing support services in
an integrated setting. We did not compare the hourly wages among all
individuals exiting with employment because some impairment groups had
more individuals in certain employment categories not expected to have
any earnings, such as homemakers and unpaid family workers, which would
reduce their overall median hourly wages. Although we consider this a
less useful measure, when all individuals exiting with employment in
fiscal year 2003 are included, impairment groups achieved the following
median hourly wages: $7 for cognitive, $8 for mental/psychosocial, $8
for other physical, $6.67 for blind, $8.76 for orthopedic/neurological,
and $9.29 for deaf.
[15] These beneficiary figures include individuals receiving either
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits or Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) benefits, as well as individuals concurrently
receiving both SSDI and SSI. Social Security beneficiaries must meet a
strict definition of disability to qualify for benefits. They are
presumed eligible for VR services and are considered to have a
significant disability. A small number of beneficiaries (6 percent)
were initially found ineligible for the VR program during the
application phase because their disability was considered too
significant to benefit from services (2 percent of all nonbeneficiary
applicants were found ineligible for this reason). Four percent of all
cases were missing values for whether an individual was receiving SSI
or SSDI benefits at VR program entry.
[16] These beneficiaries were receiving SSI and/or SSDI when they
exited the program with employment.
[17] These figures are based on beneficiaries' earnings at the time
they exit the VR program, which is after 90 days on the job. SSDI
benefits can be ceased after a beneficiary works for a 9-month trial
work period and then earns a wage greater than the "substantial gainful
activity" level set by the Social Security Administration, which was
$800 per month for nonblind individuals and $1,330 per month for blind
individuals in fiscal year 2003. We did not include individuals
receiving SSI benefits in our computation because these benefits can be
suspended based on an individual's total income and assets, and not
just on earnings alone.
[18] Education's data do not explicitly contain an indicator for
transitioning students; therefore we classified individuals as
transitioning students if they were younger than age 22 at VR program
entry and had previously received special education services under an
individualized education program (IEP). Overall, transitioning students
comprised 12 percent (77,741) of all VR exits in fiscal year 2003.
[19] Two percent of the cases for transitioning students were missing
values for impairment type, and 3 percent of the cases for individuals
under age 22 without IEPs at program entry were missing values for
impairment type.
[20] This employment rate for the 24 blind agencies includes 32 percent
of individuals exiting as "homemakers." If those exiting as homemakers
were reclassified from the employment category to an unemployment
category, the blind agencies' collective employment rate would be 33
percent for fiscal year 2003.
[21] See RTI International, Study of Variables Related to State
Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Performance (Revised Draft Final
Report), (October 2004).
[22] Under the Rehabilitation Act, state VR agencies invoking orders of
selection define what constitutes a most significant disability. Many
of these agencies define a most significant disability as one that
seriously limits two or more functional capacities, among other varied
criteria. Numerous other agencies, however, define it as one that
seriously limits three or four functional capacities. All agencies must
define a significant disability, in accordance with the Rehabilitation
Act, as one that seriously limits at least one functional capacity and
can be expected to require multiple VR services over an extended period
of time. All Social Security disability beneficiaries automatically
qualify as having at least a significant disability.
[23] The Medicaid Buy-in program was part of the1999 Ticket to Work and
Work Incentives Improvement Act that allows states to adjust their
statutes to enable more persons with disabilities to maintain health
benefits even after attaining employment.
[24] State VR agency officials in Minnesota told us there may be
inconsistency in how colocated VR offices credit who provides a certain
service to an individual in the VR program (i.e., the VR office or the
One-Stop center) because Education collects information on only one
possible provider for each service. Education does not collect data
about services provided at or referrals from colocated VR/One-Stop
offices.
[25] An exception is the main blind state VR agency office, which is
affiliated with the main One-Stop center in the area.
[26] Agencies' expenditures generally include both actual expenditures
and unliquidated obligations incurred during the fiscal year. However,
during our reliability assessment of Education's RSA-2 dataset
containing agencies' reported expenditures, we found that 2 of the 15
agencies we interviewed do not report both their expenditures and
unliquidated obligations for a particular fiscal year, as instructed by
Education's policy directive. Although we did not determine how many
agencies only report actual expenditures, we were still able to
conclude that the RSA-2 dataset was sufficiently reliable for our use.
[27] An agency's service budget includes the total amount of services,
including those purchased and provided in-house by an agency or agency-
operated community rehabilitation program, for assessment, counseling,
guidance, placement, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental
impairments, training (including postsecondary education), maintenance,
transportation, personal assistance services, and all other services.
[28] While Education's written guidance informs state VR agencies to
include expenditures such as administrative staff salaries, rent,
utilities and supplies in their reporting of administrative costs,
Education officials told us there is not uniformity in how agencies
categorize and report all such expenditures. For example, some state VR
agencies report actual administrative expenditures at their field
offices in the expenditure category for counseling and guidance
services provided by VR personnel.
[29] The average percentage of total agency budgets spent on
administrative costs was 17 percent among the blind agencies, 15
percent among the combined agencies, and 11 percent among the general
agencies.
[30] These averages are based on an agency's total expenditures in
fiscal year 2003 as well as the total number of individuals who exited
their program in fiscal year 2003 with employment.
[31] We excluded the 6 percent of individuals with blindness or other
visual impairments who exited the 24 general state VR agencies in
fiscal year 2003 because it is possible that those with less severe
visual impairments would be serviced by these general agencies that
also have a separate VR agency devoted solely to the blind in their
state. However, blind and visually impaired individuals exiting general
agencies in fiscal year 2003 collectively achieved a 39 percent
employment rate. If individuals exiting as homemakers were reclassified
from the employment category to an unemployment category, the blind
agencies' employment rate among the blind and visually impaired would
be 34 percent, and the combined agencies' rate would be 37 percent.
[32] According to past GAO work, one key attribute of a successful
performance measure is its coverage of all activities that an entity is
expected to perform to support the intent of the program. GAO, Tax
Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season
Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002).
[33] GAO-03-143.
[34] See RTI International.
[35] See RTI International.
[36] It also recommended that Education consider whether additional
measures were appropriate for the program.
[37] Additional agencies affected by the common measures are the
Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans
Affairs, Department of the Interior, and Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
[38] The measures for adults include the percentage of individuals who
entered employment, the percentage of individuals who retained
employment for at least 6 months, and the increase in earnings of these
individuals. The measures for youth include the percentage of
individuals who entered employment or education, the percentage of
individuals who attained a degree or certificate, and the increase in
the literacy and numeracy skills of program participants.
[39] Labor required other programs to implement the common measures by
October 1, 2005.
[40] Several of the common measures require access to state
Unemployment Insurance wage data.
[41] See RTI International.
[42] While Education provided data on the status of fiscal year 2003
monitoring reports (issued, not issued, or in process) for all 80 state
VR agencies, it only provided data on the time period between
monitoring reviews and the issuance of fiscal year 2003 monitoring
reports for 44 of 65 reports issued to date.
[43] In early 2004, Education instituted a 2-year monitoring cycle for
fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005.
[44] Education collects a large volume of data from state VR agencies
and then compiles these data into tables. Education provides these
tables containing numerous data elements, such as state VR agency
expenditures by service and function, participants' average time
between various stages of the VR program, and employment rates by
impairment category, to its regional offices to use to monitor state VR
agencies' performance and give them feedback.
[45] However, WIA reauthorization legislation pending as of July 2005
contains incentives for successful state VR agencies, including
incentive grants for state VR agencies that demonstrate a high level of
performance or significantly improve their level of performance in a
reporting period.
[46] Best practices refer to the processes, practices, and systems
identified in public and private organizations that performed
exceptionally well and are widely recognized as improving an
organization's performance and efficiency in specific areas.
Successfully identifying and applying best practices can reduce
expenses and improve organizational efficiency.
[47] Although Education requires the collection of certain data during
monitoring visits to state VR agencies, such as data on transitioning
students in fiscal year 2003 and on homemakers in fiscal year 2004, as
of June 2005 it had yet to analyze these data.
[48] These conferences included the National Transition Conference and
National Forum of the Thirty-First Institute on Rehabilitation Issues
(IRI).
[49] As of April 2005, RSA had 138 staff members. Once its
restructuring is completed, RSA projects that it will have 81 staff
members.
[50] For individuals exiting in the homemaker or unpaid family worker
categories of employment, who are not expected to achieve any earnings,
we converted to zeros all of the missing values that existed in the
dataset for these individuals' earnings at exit.
[51] Education collects 19 different data codes for type of primary
impairment and 37 codes for an impairment's cause or source. We
collapsed these 19 primary impairment codes into the 6 categories, used
in this report, as follows: codes for Blindness, Other Visual
Impairments, and Deaf-Blindness became our "Blind" category; the 5
codes relating to deafness or hearing loss became our "Deaf" category;
the 4 codes relating to orthopedic or neurological impairments became
our "Orthopedic/neurological" category; the codes for Communicative
impairments, Respiratory impairments, General physical debilitation,
and Other physical impairments became our "Other physical" category;
the code for Cognitive impairments remained our "Cognitive" category;
the codes for Psychosocial and Other mental impairments became our
"Mental/psychosocial" category.
[52] The background section of this report describes how we collapsed
Education's seven case closure categories into the four exit categories
used in this report.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
