Number range CHAPTER

Longitudinal Study of the\
Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services Program,

Third Final Report: The Context of VR Services

![](media/image1.wmf)

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Rehabilitation Services Administration

By:

Becky J. Hayward and Holly Schmidt-Davis

*Research Triangle Institute*

2005

Number range CHAPTER

Longitudinal Study of the\
Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services Program,\
Third Final Report: The Context of VR Services

**Prepared for:**

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Rehabilitation Services Administration

By:

Becky J. Hayward and Holly Schmidt-Davis

*Research Triangle Institute*

This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No.
HR92022001 with the Research Triangle Institute. Harold Kay served as
the contracting officer's representative. The views expressed do not
necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of
Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education
of any product, commodity, service or expertise mentioned in this
publication is intended or should be inferred.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Margaret Spellings

*Secretary*

**Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services**

John H. Hagar

*Assistant Secretary*

**Rehabilitation Services Administration**

Edward Anthony

*Acting Commissioner*

September 2005

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Rehabilitation Services Administration, *Longitudinal Study of the
Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services Program, Third Final Report: The
Context of VR Services*, by Becky J. Hayward and Holly Schmidt-Davis,
Washington, D.C., 2005.

**To order copies of this report,**

**call in** your request toll free: (877) 433-7827 (877-4-ED-PUBS). If
877 service is not available in your area, call (800) 872-5327
(800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call (877) 576-7734; or

**order online** at: [www.edpubs.org](http://www.edpubs.org/); or

**write to:** ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of
Environment, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398; or

**fax** your request to: (301) 470-1244.

This report is also available at the Department's Web site at:
http://www.ed.gov.policy/speced/leg/rehab/eval-studies.html

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as
Braille, large print or computer diskette. For more information, please
contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-0852 or
(202) 205-0818.

# Contents {#contents .unnumbered}

[Illustrations iv](#illustrations)

[Executive Summary 1](#executive-summary)

[Introduction 11](#introduction)

[Overview of the Study's Mandate and Design
11](#overview-of-the-studys-mandate-and-design)

[The Study's Information Goals, Conceptual Framework and
Reporting Design
14](#the-studys-information-goals-conceptual-framework-and-reporting-design)

[Conceptual Framework 15](#conceptual-framework)

[Reporting Design 20](#reporting-design)

[Limitations of the Study's Data 21](#limitations-of-the-studys-data)

[Chapter 1 The Local Environment of VR Offices and Services
23](#chapter-1-the-local-environment-of-vr-offices-and-services)

[Note on Data Sources 23](#note-on-data-sources)

[1990 Decennial Census 24](#decennial-census)

[Office Manager Questionnaire 26](#office-manager-questionnaire)

[Population Characteristics 26](#population-characteristics)

[Employment Environment 29](#employment-environment)

[Community Resources 32](#community-resources)

[Relationships Between the Local Environment and VR Services
37](#relationships-between-the-local-environment-and-vr-services)

[Chapter 2 Characteristics and Practices of the Local Offices That
Deliver VR Services
41](#chapter-2-characteristics-and-practices-of-the-local-offices-that-deliver-vr-services)

[Office Profile 42](#office-profile)

[Caseloads 42](#caseloads)

[Staffing 44](#staffing)

[Orientation and Inservice Training
46](#orientation-and-inservice-training)

[Case Service Resources 47](#case-service-resources)

[Salary Expenditures 48](#salary-expenditures)

[Office Policies and Practices 49](#office-policies-and-practices)

[Performance Requirements 49](#performance-requirements)

[Counselors' Functions and Activities
51](#counselors-functions-and-activities)

[Counselors' Perspectives on Consumers' Outcomes
53](#counselors-perspectives-on-consumers-outcomes)

[Office Culture 53](#office-culture)

[Relationships Between Office Characteristics and VR Outcomes
55](#relationships-between-office-characteristics-and-vr-outcomes)

[Chapter 3 VR Services and Consumer Outcomes
59](#chapter-3-vr-services-and-consumer-outcomes)

[Achievement of an Employment Outcome
60](#achievement-of-an-employment-outcome)

[Achievement of a Competitive Employment Outcome
62](#achievement-of-a-competitive-employment-outcome)

[Earnings 63](#earnings)

[Health Benefits 63](#health-benefits)

[Implications 64](#implications)

[Appendix A Tables of Odds Ratios
67](#number-range-chapterappendix-a-tables-of-odds-ratios)

# Illustrations {#illustrations .unnumbered}

Figures

[1. Conceptual Framework 16](#__RefHeading___Toc114554634)

[2. Services That Lead to Employment (R2 = .2707)
61](#__RefHeading___Toc114554635)

[3. Services That Lead to Competitive Employment (R2 = .4698)
62](#__RefHeading___Toc114554636)

[4. Services That Lead to Earnings Outcomes Employment (R2 = .3761)
64](#__RefHeading___Toc114554637)

[5. Services That Lead to Receipt of Health Benefits With Employment
(R2 = .3794) 64](#__RefHeading___Toc114554638)

Tables

[1. Distribution of VR District Offices Across Sample Strata in the
Population and Sample 14](#__RefHeading___Toc114554997)

[2. Demographic Characteristics of the Population in Communities Served
by VR Offices (Weighted Estimates) 27](#__RefHeading___Toc114554998)

[3. Income Levels in Communities Served by Local VR Offices
(Weighted Estimates) 28](#__RefHeading___Toc114554999)

[4. Population Density and Size of Communities in Which VR Offices
Deliver Services (Weighted Estimates) 29](#__RefHeading___Toc114555000)

[5. Occupational Profile of Communities in Which VR Offices Deliver
VR Services (Weighted Estimates) 30](#__RefHeading___Toc114555001)

[6. Occupations of VR Consumers Exiting With an Employment Outcome
(Weighted Estimates) 31](#__RefHeading___Toc114555002)

[7. Unemployment Rates in Communities Where VR Offices Deliver
VR Services (Weighted Estimates) 31](#__RefHeading___Toc114555003)

[8. Status of Job Opportunities in Communities Where VR Offices
Deliver Services (Weighted Estimates) 32](#__RefHeading___Toc114555004)

[9. Availability of Selected Community-Based Services
(Weighted Estimates) 33](#__RefHeading___Toc114555005)

[10. Availability of Community-Based Employment Assistance
(Weighted Estimates) 34](#__RefHeading___Toc114555006)

[11. Availability of Comprehensive Centralized Rehabilitation Facilities
(Weighted Estimates) 35](#__RefHeading___Toc114555007)

[12. Availability of Community-Based Rehabilitation Programs and Other
Service Providers (Weighted Estimates) 35](#__RefHeading___Toc114555008)

[13. Availability of Transportation (Weighted Estimates)
36](#__RefHeading___Toc114555009)

[14. Services That VR Office Managers Characterized as Most Difficult
to Obtain (Weighted Estimates) 37](#__RefHeading___Toc114555010)

[15. Overview of Local VR Office Caseloads at Study Initiation
(Weighted n = 956) 43](#__RefHeading___Toc114555011)

[16. Details of Local VR Office Caseloads, FY 1999 (Weighted n = 956)
44](#__RefHeading___Toc114555012)

[17. Overview of Local VR Office Staffing Configurations, FY 1999
(Weighted n = 956) 45](#__RefHeading___Toc114555013)

[18. VR Counselors' Experience and Training, FY 1999
(Weighted n = 5,640) 46](#__RefHeading___Toc114555014)

[19. Counselors' Receipt of Orientation and Inservice Training, FY 1999
(Weighted n = 5,640) 47](#__RefHeading___Toc114555015)

[20. Overview of Local VR Office Case Service Funding, FY 1999
(Weighted n = 956) 48](#__RefHeading___Toc114555016)

[21. Office Expenditures for Staff Salaries
49](#__RefHeading___Toc114555017)

[22. Overview of Local VR Office Policies and Practices for
VR Counselors (Weighted n = 956) 50](#__RefHeading___Toc114555018)

[23. Counselors' Perspectives on Control of Plans and Case Service
Funds, FY 1999 (Weighted n = 5,640) 50](#__RefHeading___Toc114555019)

[24. Counselors' Perspectives on Importance of Selected Factors to
Effectiveness in Job Performance, FY 1999 (Weighted n = 5,640)
51](#__RefHeading___Toc114555020)

[25. Functions and activities of VR Counselors, FY 1999
(Weighted Estimate = 5,640) 52](#__RefHeading___Toc114555021)

[26. Counselors' Perspectives on Importance of Selected Indicators in
Consumers' Likelihood to Achieve an Employment Outcome, FY 1999
(Weighted n = 5,640) 53](#__RefHeading___Toc114555022)

[27. Overview of Local VR Office Organizational Culture, FY 1999
55](#__RefHeading___Toc114555023)

[28. Covariates Used in Analyses of the Relationships Between Services
and Outcomes 60](#__RefHeading___Toc114555024)

[A-1. Odds Ratios Predicting Receipt of Employment Development or
Education Services Using Environmental Factors (R2 = .0623)
69](#__RefHeading___Toc114555025)

[A-2. Odds Ratios Predicting Receipt of Support Services Using
Environmental Factors (R2 = .1493) 69](#__RefHeading___Toc114555026)

[A-3. Odds Ratios Predicting Receipt of Employment Development and
Education Services Using Office Characteristics (R2 = .0497)
70](#__RefHeading___Toc114555027)

[A-4. Odds Ratios Predicting Receipt of Support Services Using
Office Characteristics (R2 = .0554) 70](#__RefHeading___Toc114555028)

[A-5. Odds Ratios Predicting Employment Outcome at Closure Using Office
Characteristics, Environmental Factors, Consumer Characteristics and
Services Received (R2 = .2707) 71](#__RefHeading___Toc114555029)

[A-6. Odds Ratios Predicting Competitive Employment at Closure Using
Office Characteristics, Environmental Factors, Consumer Characteristics
and Services Received (R2 = .4698) 73](#__RefHeading___Toc114555030)

[A-7. Regression Coefficients Predicting Earnings at Closure Using
Office Characteristics, Environmental Factors, Consumer Characteristics
and Services Received (R2 = .3761) 75](#__RefHeading___Toc114555031)

[A-8. Odds Ratios Predicting Receipt of Health Benefits at Closure Using
Office Characteristics, Environmental Factors, Consumer Characteristics
and Services Received (R2 = .3761) 77](#__RefHeading___Toc114555032)

# Executive Summary {#executive-summary .unnumbered}

This report is the third in a series of four final reports and several
research briefs that present the findings of the Longitudinal Study of
the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services Program, a study that the
Research Triangle Institute (RTI) has conducted for the Rehabilitation
Services Administration (RSA), U.S. Department of Education, under
contract number HR92022001. The broad purpose of the study is to assess
the performance of the state-federal VR services program in assisting
eligible individuals with disabilities to achieve positive, sustainable
economic and noneconomic outcomes as a result of their receipt of VR
services.

Initiated in fall 1992, the longitudinal study has tracked VR
participation and post-VR experiences for up to three years following
exit from the program, of a sample of applicants to, and consumers of,
VR services. The sample was selected to approximate a national
population. The study's sample acquisition and data collection
activities began in December 1994 and were completed in January 2000,
with sample acquisition occurring over a two‑year period and with each
of the study's 8,500 participants tracked for three years.

The study implemented a two-stage design that involved selection of a
stratified random sample (with probability proportional to size) of 40
local VR offices[^1] (located in 32 state VR agencies in a total of 30
states), and, among those offices, a sample of 8,500 applicants and
current and former consumers of VR services. The study implemented a
cohort design that involved randomly selecting 25 percent of the sample
from the population of persons at application to VR, 50 percent of the
sample from the population of persons who were already accepted for and
receiving services, and 25 percent of the sample from the population of
persons at exit or after they exited VR services. Each study participant
was followed for a period of three years. The cohort design accommodated
the typical time-in-services among VR consumers (22 months), such that
the study would account for VR experiences and post-VR outcomes for up
to three years after program exit.

Data collection included computer-aided interviews with study
participants, abstraction of data from consumers' case records, and mail
surveys to VR agencies. A battery of baseline interviews conducted with
each study participant at the time of entry into the study obtained
information on work history, functioning, vocational interests and
attitudes, independence and community integration, and consumer
perspectives on their VR participation. Follow-up interviews
administered for three subsequent years varied according to the
individual's stage in the VR process at the time of interview. Records
abstraction included consumer characteristics and detailed information
on services; records were abstracted at the time the consumer entered
the study and then quarterly until that person exited VR. Agency
instruments included mail surveys of office managers in participating VR
offices, counselors and other office staff, as well as a state policies
and procedures form. These instruments were administered at initiation
and termination of the study's data collection activities, with annual
updates from the local office manager surveys. Analyses for this report
also used the 1990 Decennial Census to examine community characteristics
(e.g., demographic characteristics, local environment) and the Local
Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) file for data on unemployment.

This report contains findings regarding the context of VR services,
including the local environment and local offices in which VR counselors
and other staff arrange for or deliver services to VR consumers, and
analyzes the influence of the environment and organizational
characteristics of VR offices on the outcomes that VR consumers achieve
as a result of VR services. It builds on the prior two reports by
looking at the influence of contextual factors on consumers' short- and
long-term outcomes.

Specific study questions that this report addresses are as follows:

> 1\. In what ways and to what extent do local environmental factors
> influence VR consumers' services and outcomes?

-   What are the sizes and densities of the total populations in the VR
    districts and regions? What are the characteristics of the local
    populations, including prevalence of disabling conditions as
    identified in available data?

-   Regarding VR offices, what is the nature of the local economy,
    including trends, nature, availability and distribution of jobs? Are
    jobs accessible to VR consumers in terms of their locations, the
    transportation available and the qualifications required?

-   In VR districts and regions, what are the numbers and types of
    service providers in the community (vendors or agencies providing
    comparable benefit services)? Are they accessible to VR consumers in
    terms of location and transportation?

> 2\. In what ways and to what extent do the operations, resources and
> organizational climate of VR agencies influence consumer services and
> outcomes?

-   What is the amount of case service resources available to local VR
    staff? What proportion of the local expenditures are devoted to case
    service resources, the agency's direct service personnel, and other
    expenditures?

-   What types of organizational cultures exist in VR agencies? What are
    the predominant management techniques that influence those agencies,
    and what are their effects?

The report's organization is as follows. Chapter 1 provides a brief
overview of the longitudinal study, addressing the study's
authorization, information goals, conceptual framework and plan for the
series of final reports. Chapter 2 comprises an overview of the local
environment in which the VR program delivers services to consumers,
including information on the demographic characteristics of the local
population; size and population density of the catchment areas of VR
offices (i.e., the area surrounding the VR office from which the bulk of
consumers served in the office are drawn); occupational and earnings
profiles of employed persons; unemployment rate; and availability of
needed resources such as service providers and transportation. Chapter 3
contains findings regarding the characteristics, operations and
resources of local VR offices. Topics covered include office
characteristics, such as basic caseload information, staffing, and case
service resources; VR counselor characteristics, activities and
perspectives; and organizational characteristics that include office
climate and organization. Chapter 4 addresses the influence of context
on VR consumers' services and outcomes.

Data sources for the findings presented in this report include the
following:

-   1990 Decennial Census;

-   Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS);

-   Survey of local office managers;

-   Survey of VR counselors; and

-   State policies and procedures.

Findings in the report are weighted estimates that represent 956 local
VR offices (offices in which consumers receive services) and 5,640 VR
counselors.

The Local Environment of VR Offices and Services

Findings regarding the environment in which VR staff provide services to
consumers fall into three broad topics: general population
characteristics, the employment environment, and community resources.

Population Characteristics

Communities in which VR offices deliver services to consumers range from
small towns (40,000 population) to large cities (3 million), with an
average of nearly 400,000 persons. Office catchment areas are
considerably smaller, averaging around 120,000 persons and ranging from
about 60,000 to 250,000. In terms of prevalence of disability, 4 percent
of the population reported being limited by disability in the type or
amount of work they could perform, while 5 percent reported being
prevented by disability from working at all (1990 Census). At the
community level, prevalence of disability ranges from a low of 3 percent
to a high of 6 percent for those limited but not prevented from working,
and from 2 percent to 11 percent for persons reporting not being able to
work at all. In terms of race/ethnicity, the general population is
86 percent white, on average; this percentage ranges from 41 to nearly
100 percent in some communities. Conversely, while about 10 percent is
African-American, the distribution of this group within local
communities ranged from less than 1 percent to as high as 55 percent. In
terms of education levels, about one-third of the general population
reported having a high school education (ranging from 19 to 55 percent),
while about 22 percent reported having less than a high school education
and 18 percent reported having achieved at least a bachelor's degree
(ranging from 6 to 42 percent). Average annual earnings from employment
for the general population was \$20,209 (median \$19,811); for persons
limited by disability in amount or type of work they could perform, the
figure was \$14,935 (median \$14,600); and for persons reporting that
they were unable to work at all, it was \$1,779 (median \$1,619), on
average.

Employment Environment

Working persons in the communities in which VR consumers receive
services most often work in technical, sales and administrative support
occupations (27 percent of all jobs, ranging from 16 to 36 percent).
About 13 percent of jobs are in service occupations. Although data on
occupational types of VR consumers are not directly comparable[^2],
local VR office managers estimated that about 31 percent of jobs that VR
consumers obtain are in service occupations (ranging from 3 to
75 percent of all jobs). Overall, unemployment was relatively low in the
office communities over the period of data collection (1995−99),
declining over the period from 5.28 to 4.08 percent and averaging 4.74
percent across the period. In some localities, however, unemploy­ment was
twice the overall rate (e.g., as high as 11.6 percent in 1996). Office
managers reported that employment opportunities available to VR
consumers remained relatively constant (36 percent of managers) or
increased (35 percent of managers) during the period, although they
believed that such increases are unlikely to continue over the
subsequent five years.

Community Resources

Providers from which VR counselors can arrange or purchase services
varied in their availability in the communities in which the program
delivers services. Over 60 percent of local office managers reported
ready availability of mental health counseling and substance abuse
treatment. Around half reported availability of vocational training (56
percent), higher education (51 percent), and medical services (47
percent). Few communities (around 15 percent) reported availability of
independent living skills training. In terms of employment services,
most offices (81 percent) were located in communities with ready
availability of the Employment Security Commission office, and almost
two-thirds reported some availability of employment-related services
under the *Job Training Partnership Act/Workforce Investment Act*
(*JTPA/WIA*). Fewer than one-third reported full availability of a
projects with industry (PWI), although an additional one-third reported
some availability of these programs.

Most offices have access to comprehensive centralized rehabilitation
centers (72 percent in their state and 32 percent in a neighboring
state). While offices reported an average of seven community
rehabilitation programs (CRPs) and other local service organizations to
which they are able to refer consumers, many offices reported relative
scarcity of service providers and indicated that such scarcity impedes
positive consumer outcomes to either a great extent (21 percent) or to
some extent (48 percent). Similarly, availability of transportation
services exclusively for VR consumers is somewhat limited (67 percent of
office managers reported limited availability), although taxis, vans and
public buses are readily available (89, 83 and 72 percent,
respectively). Office managers reported that lack of transportation
impedes positive consumer outcomes to a great extent (39 percent) or to
some extent (58 percent). Additionally, some office managers reported
great difficulty in obtaining other services for their consumers,
including vocational training (30 percent), employment development
services (22 percent), and supported employment (21 percent).

Relationships Between the Environment and VR Services

Earlier analysis (*Second Final Report: VR Services and Outcomes*) found
that the receipt of certain services increased the likelihood that
consumers would achieve an employment outcome. Using these services as
dependent variables, we examined whether environmental factors increased
the likelihood that consumers would receive such services (education and
employment development services and support services). While we found
that some aspects of the offices' local environment did affect the
likelihood of receipt of services, they accounted for a small percentage
of the variance in the regression analyses. This finding suggests that
other factors (e.g., consumer characteristics) may be more important
determinants of services that consumers receive than are specific
characteristics of the environment.

Characteristics and Practices of Local VR Offices

Findings regarding the local offices in which VR staff provide services
to consumers fall into three topics: 1) profile of offices; 2) office
policies and practices; and 3) office culture.

Office Profile

Offices in which VR consumers receive services vary in the size of total
caseload. They have an average total caseload of 1,738 (median 865),
ranging from 141 to over 37,000. About 30 percent of offices reported
operating under an order of selection, although only about one-third of
those offices actually reported having a waiting list for services.
Counselors managing general caseloads averaged 112 consumers, with a
range from 54 to as many as 244 consumers in the active caseload. About
three-fourths of offices reported having at least some specialized
caseloads, and one-half of counselors managed specialized caseloads.
Types of specialized caseloads most frequently reported were school
caseloads (42 percent of all specialized caseloads), caseloads for
persons with hearing impairments (36 percent of specialized caseloads),
and caseloads for persons with mental illness (30 percent). In terms of
staffing, offices range from 3 to 53 full-time equivalent (FTE)
positions, with an average of 13.4 FTEs per office. VR counselors are
typically highly experienced, having worked an average of 11 years in
rehabilitation counseling, most of which has been spent with their
current agency. Forty-one percent hold a bachelor's degree, and
56 percent, a master's degree. Only 17 percent hold certified
rehabilitation counselor (CRC) certification.

In terms of financial resources to support VR services, offices average
over \$800,000 in case service funds per year, with a minimum of
\$50,000 and a maximum of \$4.5 million. Twenty-one percent of offices
reported access to other case service funds, such as a statewide pool,
and 26 percent reported having requested additional case service funds
over the course of the year. Few counselors (16 percent) have funds
remaining at the end of the year. Salary expenditures average about
\$100,000 for administrative staff and about \$370,000 for direct
service staff.

Office Policies and Practices

Nearly all offices have established some type of quantified performance
requirements for counselors targeted at both outcomes and processes.
Over 90 percent have requirements for a number of employment outcomes
counselors should achieve over the course of the year. Other
requirements address the VR process, including time-in-status limits (72
percent of offices); number of individualized plans for employment
(IPEs) initiated (62 percent); number of acceptances (49 percent);
applications processed (48 percent); and referrals (42 percent). Few (11
percent) offer monetary incentives to counselors who reach or exceed
their goals. Most office managers believe that performance requirements
for counselors improve consumer outcomes (62 percent). In terms of case
service funds, 63 percent of offices reported that counselors have
control over their case service funds, although only 30 percent of
counselors reported being able to authorize all payments (an additional
32 percent reported being able to authorize payments under a certain
amount). When asked about the most important factor in effective
performance of their job, two-thirds of counselors listed personal
commitment to the success of consumers with whom they work. Other
factors listed as important to job performance included experience in
working with consumers (64 percent) and interpersonal skills (54
percent). Counselors believe that the most important indicator of a
consumer's likelihood of success in achieving a vocational goal is his
or her level of motivation to succeed (89 percent of counselors listed
this factor as important, and 59 percent listed it as most important).

Office Culture

Based on research in organizational effectiveness, we developed three
scales of organiza­tional culture/climate through surveys of VR office
staff. The scales measured the extent of a hierarchical/rational
culture, developmental/group culture, and organizational cohesiveness/
effectiveness. VR offices are relatively above a midpoint (or average)
on the hierarchical/ rational scale (3.45 on a 5-point scale) and
slightly lower than that, although still above "average" on the
developmental/group culture scale (3.15). For organizational
cohesiveness/ effectiveness, scores are about the same (average of
3.46).

Relationships Between Office Characteristics and VR Services

To identify office characteristics that may influence the services that
consumers receive from VR, we conducted logistic regression analyses
using as dependent variables selected services that prior research has
shown to be associated with positive employment outcomes at exit from
VR; we included numerous office characteristics variables in these
analyses. While these analyses revealed a number of characteristics with
a statistically significant relationship to service receipt (e.g., case
service budget and performance requirements and incentives), based on
the low amount of variance accounted for by numerous models we tested,
we concluded that office factors are not the primary determinant of the
types of services consumers receive. Rather, consumer characteristics
are the most important factors in service patterns (*Second Final
Report: VR Services and Outcomes*).

As analyses in Chapter 3 indicate, while office factors are not
important in predictors of services, in combination with consumer
characteristics and environmental factors, use of office characteristics
as covariates increases the power of the analyses that predict which
services increase the likelihood that consumers will achieve employment
and related outcomes.

VR Services and Consumer Outcomes

Based on analyses of environmental factors and office characteristics
found to influence consumer outcomes, we selected a set of factors that
we incorporated as covariates along with consumer characteristics into
our regression analyses of the effects of VR services on outcomes.
(*Second Final Report: VR Services and Outcomes* explored the
independent effects of consumer characteristics on such outcomes.)[^3]
These analyses yielded models that explain a high percentage of the
variance in terms of the effects of VR services on consumer outcomes.

In terms of employment outcomes, controlling for consumer
characteristics, environmental factors and office characteristics,
selected services account for nearly 30 percent of the variance---an
impressively high R^2^ value for social science research. Services
increasing the odds of an employment outcome included quality of the
consumer/counselor relationship, IPE amendment, job placement, supported
employment, on-the-job training, college or university, work adjustment
training, driver training/licensing, business/vocational training, and
provision of tools, uniforms, equipment or stock.

In terms of achievement of competitive employment and controlling for
consumer, environmental and office characteristics, services increasing
the odds of competitive employment included IPE amendment, job placement
and maintenance. Services associated with a decreased likelihood of
competitive employment are receipt of supported employment or
independent living services. The R^2^ for this model was impressively
strong (.4649), explaining nearly 50 percent of the variance.

Regarding earnings, services that increase the likelihood of higher
earnings include: quality of the consumer/counselor relationship;
receipt of AT devices and services; participation in business/vocational
training, two-year community college or four-year college/university;
and receipt of tools, uniforms, equipment or stock. Services reducing
likelihood of higher earnings include IPE amendment, receipt of tutoring
and receipt of work adjustment training. The R^2^ for this model is
.1829. Participation in postsecondary training or education, an
important predictor of higher earnings, is also associated with a
greater likelihood of receiving health insurance benefits with the job,
as is the receipt of maintenance during VR services. However, consumers
who receive medical services or independent living services are less
likely than other working consumers to have employment that offer health
benefits. The R^2^ for this model is also very high for social science
research (.3794).

In summary, our analyses found that a number of specific VR services
appear to contribute to a consumer's likelihood of achieving outcomes
that are important goals of the VR program. An important part of
services leading to employment outcomes is a relationship between the
consumer and counselor that the consumer believes is productive and
helpful. Other outcomes (competitive employment, higher earnings) are
enhanced by the counselor's responsive­ness to the consumer's need to
make appropriate changes in the service plans as he or she progresses
through VR. Enrollment in postsecondary education is particularly
important in terms of higher earnings and receipt of health benefits,
and receipt of necessary support services improves employment, earnings
and health benefits outcomes. Our models, controlling for environment,
office characteristics and consumer characteristics, indicate the
utility of these services, along with others, in leading to improved
employment-related outcomes for VR consumers.

# Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}

This report is the third in a series of four final reports and several
research briefs that present the findings of the Longitudinal Study of
the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services Program, a study that RTI is
conducting for the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), of the
U.S. Department of Education, under contract number HR92022001. The
broad purpose of the study is to assess the performance of the
state-federal VR services program in assisting eligible individuals with
disabilities to achieve positive, sustainable economic and noneconomic
outcomes as a result of their receipt of VR services. This report
contains findings regarding the local economic environment in which VR
counselors and other staff arrange for or deliver services to VR
consumers and analyzes the influence of local environments and the
organizational characteristics of VR offices on the services and
outcomes that VR consumers achieve as a result of VR services.

The report's organization is as follows. The remainder of this chapter
provides a brief overview of the longitudinal study, addressing the
study's authorization, information goals, conceptual framework and plan
for the series of final reports. Chapter 1 comprises an overview of the
local environment in which the VR program delivers services to
consumers, including information on the demographic characteristics of
the local population; size and population density of the catchment areas
of VR offices; occupational and earnings profiles of employed persons;
unemployment rate; and availability of needed resources such as service
providers and transportation. Chapter 2 contains findings regarding the
characteristics, operations and resources of local VR offices. Topics
covered include office characteristics such as basic caseload
information, staffing and case service resources; VR counselor
characteristics, activities and perspectives; and organizational
characteristics that include office climate and organization. Chapter 3
addresses the influence of context on VR services and consumer outcomes.

## Overview of the Study's Mandate and Design

Initiated in fall 1992, the Longitudinal Study of the Vocational
Rehabilitation Services Program addresses key questions of interest to
Congress, RSA, state VR agencies and consumers about the performance of
the state-federal VR program. The study's congressional mandate,
contained in Section 14 of the *1992 Amendments to the Rehabilitation
Act*, directs the secretary of the U.S. Department of Education to
conduct a longitudinal study of the VR program:

> \(f\) (1) To assess the linkages between vocational rehabilitation
> services and economic and noneconomic outcomes, the Secretary shall
> continue to conduct a longitudinal study of a national sample of
> applicants for services.
>
> \(2\) The study shall address factors related to attrition and
> completion of the program through which the services are provided and
> factors within and outside the program affecting results. Appropriate
> comparisons shall be used to contrast the experiences of similar
> persons who do not obtain services.
>
> \(3\) The study shall be planned to cover the period beginning on the
> application of the individuals for the services, through the
> eligibility determination and provision of services for the
> individuals, and a further period not less than 2 years after
> termination of services (Section 14 (f)).

In response to this mandate, the study tracked application and
eligibility determination, VR participation and post-VR experiences for
up to three years following exit from the program, of a nationally
representative sample of applicants to, and consumers of, VR services.
Each individual participant was followed for three years, such that some
members of the applicant and services cohorts were still receiving
services at the end of their three years of participation in the study
(approximately 1,500 sample members had not completed VR services at the
end of the data collection period). Members of the exit cohort reported
on post-VR employment and other activities for three years following
exit from VR. The study's sample acquisition and data collection
activities began in January 1995 and were completed in January 2000,
with sample acquisition occurring monthly or bimonthly over a two‑year
period, and with each of the study's 8,500 participants tracked for
three years.

The study implemented a two-stage design that first involved the
selection of a random sample (with probability proportional to size) of
40 local VR offices[^4] (located in 32 state VR agencies in a total of
30 states), and, second, among those offices, a sample of 8,500
applicants and current and former consumers of VR services. The study
followed three cohorts: VR applicants (25 percent of the sample), VR
consumers receiving services (50 percent of the sample), and VR exiters
(25 percent of the sample) selected at or after exit from services
(including persons exiting with an employment outcome, those exiting
without an employment outcome following services, and those exiting VR
without an employment outcome prior to receipt of services under an
IPE).

The intent of the Longitudinal Study's design was to follow a nationally
representative sample of VR applicants and consumers through their VR
services and for up to three years following VR services. To achieve
this intent, we selected a representative probability sample of the
offices in which VR counselors work with individuals with disabilities
as they apply for and subsequently receive VR services. Based on lists
provided by RSA regional staff and state VR agencies, we selected a
sample of offices to participate in the study that would represent the
1,082 district/local offices[^5] in the United States, excluding Alaska
and Hawaii, in which consumers received services during the study period
(i.e., 1995−99). This sampling frame contained information on the number
of consumers in each office who received services or who exited VR
during FY 1991, the latest year for which such data were available at
the time of the sample selection. We stratified the frame by region and
type of agency (general/combined or blind/visually impaired) and
allocated the sample of offices to the first-stage strata in proportion
to the number of consumers in each of the five strata, as shown in
table 1. Within strata, we randomly selected offices with probability
proportional to size. Subsequent to initiation of data collection, we
experienced some attrition of offices (three offices).

As shown in table 1, based on the proportion of persons who applied
for/received VR services, the distribution of offices varied somewhat
across the country. The West and South contained relatively more offices
in which services are delivered to consumers, followed by the North
Central and the East. (While the West contains more offices than the
South, given the number of states in that region with widely scattered
populations, that region contains a smaller VR consumer population than
does the South.) According to rosters from RSA, agencies for
blind/visually impaired services are a small proportion of VR offices
overall.

  ------------------------------------------- ---------------- -------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114554997                              
  .anchor}Table 1. Distribution of VR                          
  District Offices Across Sample Strata in                     
  the Population and Sample\*                                  

  **Stratum**                                 **Number of VR   
                                              district         
                                              offices\         
                                              in the stratum** 

                                              **Population**   **Sample**

  General/combined agency districts in the    132              8
  East region                                                  

  General/combined agency districts in the    239              8
  North Central region                                         

  General/combined agency districts in the    250              12
  South region                                                 

  General/combined agency districts in the    343              10
  West region                                                  

  Blind/Visually Impaired agency districts    118              2

  TOTAL                                       1082             40

  \*The sample design is based on divisions                    
  of the country established by the National                   
  Center for Education\                                        
  Statistics for sampling purposes.                            
  ------------------------------------------- ---------------- -------------

Data collection included computer-aided interviews with study
participants, abstraction of data from consumers' case records, and mail
surveys to VR agencies. When individuals entered the study, interviews
obtained a great deal of information as a baseline, including
information on work history, functioning, vocational interests and
attitudes, independence and community integration, and consumer
perspectives on VR participation. A follow-up interview administered for
three subsequent years varied according to the individual's stage in the
VR process at the time of the interview. Abstraction of information from
consumers' case records included consumer characteristics and detailed
information on services; records were abstracted when the consumer
entered the study and then quarterly until that person exited VR. Agency
instruments included mail surveys of office managers, counselors and
other office staff, as well as a state policies and procedures form.
These instruments were administered at initiation and termination of the
study's data collection activities. In addition, local office managers
were asked to provide annual data on selected items (e.g., staffing and
budgets).

## The Study's Information Goals, Conceptual Framework and Reporting Design

The VR longitudinal study was designed to answer the following
questions. (The questions that are addressed in this report appear in
bold text below.)

-   What short- and long-term economic and noneconomic (e.g.,
    independent living and community integration) outcomes do VR
    applicants and consumers achieve as a result of their participation
    in VR?

-   What characteristics of individuals with disabilities affect
    their: 1) access to and receipt of VR services; and 2) short- and
    long-term outcomes?

-   To what extent does the receipt of specific VR services contribute
    to successful consumer outcomes?

-   In what ways and to what extent do local environmental factors
    influence VR consumer services and outcomes?

-   In what ways and to what extent do the operations, resources and
    organizational climate of VR agencies influence consumer services
    and outcomes?

-   Given the relationship among consumer characteristics, contextual
    factors and VR services, what are the results of the VR program?

Specific issues that this report addresses include:

-   In what ways and to what extent do local environmental factors
    influence VR consumer services and outcomes?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Regarding VR offices, what is the nature of the local economy,
    including trends, nature, availability and distribution of jobs? Are
    jobs accessible to VR consumers in terms of their location, the
    transportation available, and the qualifications required?

-   What are the sizes and densities (urban, rural and suburban) of the
    populations (total populations, not just the VR consumers) in the VR
    districts and regions? What are the characteristics of the local
    populations, including the prevalence of disabling conditions as
    identified in available data?

-   In VR districts and regions, what are the numbers and types of
    service providers in the community (vendors or agencies providing
    comparable benefit services)? Are they accessible to VR consumers in
    terms of location and transportation?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In what ways and to what extent do the operations, resources and
    organizational climate of VR agencies influence consumer services
    and outcomes?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What is the amount of case service resources available to local VR
    staff, including case service dollars or services directly provided
    by the VR agency? What proportion of the local district's
    expenditures are devoted to: a) case service resources; b) the
    agency's direct service personnel (e.g., VR counselors, vocational
    evaluators and job placement specialists); and c) other
    expenditures?

-   What types of organizational cultures exist in state VR agencies?
    What are the predominant management techniques that influence those
    agencies, and what are their effects?

## Conceptual Framework

The study's conceptual framework, which organizes the study's
information goals and research questions, began with the assumption that
the outcomes of VR services could be predicted by the types of consumers
entering the program, the economic conditions affecting the local labor
market, the organizational resources and culture of the VR agency and
its local service offices, and the services that consumers receive.
Figure 1 is a representation of the conceptual framework, with its
components and the relationships among them shown as interconnected
boxes. Each of the study's four final reports focuses on a different
subset of the framework's components, as explained later in this
chapter. This report examines the relationships among organizational
culture and resources and local economic conditions and population
characteristics, as highlighted in figure 1.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc114554634 .anchor}![](media/image2.wmf)Figure 1.
Conceptual Framework

Number range CHAPTERThe model described in this framework can be
expressed as follows:

> *Outcomes* can be predicted by:

-   The characteristics of applicants and consumers;

-   Services and service costs;

-   Local economic and population characteristics; and

-   The organizational culture and resources in the local agency office.

*Outcomes* are defined as: earnings, employment, other economic
outcomes, consumer satisfaction, community integration and other
noneconomic outcomes.

This general model has been used as the basis for analyses in numerous
other VR studies. However, other studies have not had access to the
wealth of data that the longitudinal study has collected, including
important pre- and post-program measures of consumer experiences and
long-term outcomes. In addition, there have been few efforts to examine
the impact of the VR system itself on consumer outcomes. This
longitudinal study offered the opportunity to collect extensive data on
individuals, services and outcomes, expanding previous analytical bases
and allowing a more thorough assessment of VR results.

We developed the conceptual framework to organize the hypotheses we held
about the relationships among the components of the VR program and to
guide the study activities. Elaborating on the variables within each
component helped determine the study questions and data collection
plans. The questions, along with the hypothesized relationships among
the components, guided our analytic activities.

Each of the study's major questions focused on relationships between two
or more components of the conceptual framework. For example, to answer
the question, "To what extent does receipt of specific VR services
contribute to successful consumer outcomes?," our analyses examine the
data from the *services and service costs* component, the *outcomes*
component, and the statistical relationships among those variables. As
described below, each of the longitudinal study's final reports focuses
on a different subset of study questions and components of the
conceptual framework.

### Applicants/consumers

The VR program serves eligible applicants in an environment of funding
and service constraints. The outcomes of VR services are affected by
such factors as type and significance of consumers' disabilities, extent
of work experience, and the work attitudes that consumers bring to the
VR experience. There are also identified differences in the likelihood
of acceptance and successful closure related to age, sex, race,
education level, disability type and significance, and other consumer
descriptors (see *First Final Report: How Consumer Characteristics
Affect Access to, Receipt of, and Outcomes of VR Services*).

To date, most analyses of the state-federal VR system have involved
examinations of consumer outcomes based on the limited consumer
information available in RSA's R-911 data files. The types of VR
consumers served by the program have changed significantly since the
program's inception, moving from a consumer base with a need for
physical restoration (industrial accidents and war injuries) to an
increasing percentage of persons with a learning disability, mental
illness, traumatic brain injury and other cognitive disabilities, and to
persons with limited or no work history, problematic work behaviors, and
other barriers to employment. The traditional indicators of consumer
disability type, or nominal indicators of "significance," do not
adequately differentiate among consumers or applicants. Additional
measures available in this study (such as functional level, work
history, interests and motivation, and receipt of financial assistance)
will contribute greatly to our understanding of differences in
caseloads, differences in applicants and accepted consumers, and
explanations of outcomes (see *First Final Report: How Consumer
Characteristics Affect Access to, Receipt of, and Outcomes of VR
Services*).

### Services and service costs

We use "services" broadly to include the consumer's VR process,
including work with the counselor, assessment specialists, and others
from application to VR through exit from VR and postemployment services.
This list of services includes equipment, adaptive devices, supplies,
and professional and other services directly paid for by the agency
through purchase of services, as well as internal resources such as
counselor, assessor and other staff time directly spent with the
consumer, and services arranged with other providers and funding sources
as "comparable benefits." This study gathered data on a list of services
that is much more detailed than is normally reported to RSA in the R-911
and other RSA reporting, and also allows for a basis for estimating
service costs (see *Second Final Report: VR Services and Outcomes*).

### Postemployment services

Postemployment services are available to consumers after completing the
VR program, if such services will facilitate retention of the placement.
While a wide range of counseling and services are available to consumers
after VR exit that assist consumers with job retention, these services
are not frequently provided. Provision of adequate postemployment
services may affect both job retention and recidivism.

### Organizational culture and resources

The VR program comprises 80 general, combined and blind state VR
agencies, each with its own resources (in light of differences in state
levels of support for VR), internal organization, management philosophy
and organizational culture. Resources include fiscal resources available
for the purchase of services, a critical mass of effective service
delivery professionals, and availability and accessibility of service
providers or vendors.

In addition to the availability of resources is the existence of an
organizational culture, or climate, that supports effective service
delivery. In recent years, attention has increasingly focused on the
influence of organizational culture within agencies on the effectiveness
of their programs. Established in early work by Deming[^6], the field of
quality management as a whole has shifted from a concern with
information and control to a concern with human factors. In human
service agencies, human factors are especially important for delivering
high-quality services (Bowen and Schneider, 1988). The human
organization that creates quality is characterized by its culture of
quality; key elements of the culture of quality are training and
participation. The following indicators are important measures in
assessing organizational climate: 1) management commitment to quality;
2) extent of barriers to employee participation and teamwork;
3) effectiveness of communication between supervisors and employees,
4) practices in setting numerical goals and quotas for employees; and
5) companywide training and education in quality. The organizational
culture is viewed as an influencing factor on both quality of services
and resulting service outcomes.

### Local population and economic environment

Within the national state-federal program, VR services are delivered
under widely varying conditions. Localities vary in their urban or rural
nature, in the availability of jobs, and even in the prevalence of work
disability in the state population. In examining the success of the VR
program, it is useful to control for those external factors that may
affect services or likelihood of outcomes. Thus, external
conditions---exogenous factors in terms of VR discretion---should be
taken into consideration in our conceptual framework.

### Outcomes

Several outcome measures were relevant to this study, including both
economic and noneconomic outcomes. VR traditionally has reported one
outcome---achievement of employment---as the key measure of program
success. Within this measure is a variety of types of successful
outcomes, from placement in a job in the competitive labor market to
work as a homemaker or unpaid family worker. Amount of earnings at
closure is available in the existing information system. A variety of
additional economic measures of outcomes was relevant to this study,
including employment at exit from VR services and at one, two, and three
years following closure; competitive employment at each of those points
in time; and earnings and receipt of health benefits at each of those
points in time.

In addition to measures of income and job retention, a number of
noneconomic outcomes can serve as indicators of success or gain in VR.
These include independent living, community integration, satisfaction
with employment, and satisfaction with VR services.

## Reporting Design

The study's research questions and findings were the focus of a series
of interim and final reports. The first interim report (Hayward and
Tashjian, 1995) contained profiles of the local offices participating in
the study and their environments based primarily on analyses from the
1990 Decennial Census and a mail survey of each of the 37 local VR
offices participating in the study. The second interim report (Hayward
and Tashjian, 1996) described: 1) characteristics of current and former
VR consumers; 2) history of labor force participation among VR
consumers; and 3) consumers' perspectives of VR services, service
providers and other aspects of their involvement with the VR program.
The third interim report (Hayward, 1998) contained descriptive findings
on characteristics of persons who achieved an employment outcome,
including work history and details of post-VR employment and earnings
status. The final interim report (Hayward and Schmidt-Davis, 2000)
contained findings regarding the VR participation of transitional youth
with disabilities. In addition to the reports of study findings, other
study deliverables include a methodology report and public use data
files with full documentation.

The *First Final Report* focused on the a*pplicants/consumers* component
of the framework and the relationship of those variables to portions of
the *outcomes* component, specifically eligibility for VR, receipt of VR
services, and achievement of an employment outcome, including
achievement of competitive employment.

The *Second Final Report* examined the relationship between the
*services and service costs* component and the *outcomes* component of
the framework, taking into account the findings of the first report
regarding consumer characteristics. It described the services consumers
receive and the short- and long-term outcomes they achieve.

The *Third Final Report: The Context of VR Services* builds on the prior
two reports by looking at the additional influence of two other
components of the framework on consumer outcomes---that is, the *local
economic and population characteristics* and the *organizational culture
and resources* components and their relationships to consumers' short-
and long-term outcomes. The *Fourth Final Report*: *Summary of Findings*
will encompass the entire conceptual framework by synthesizing all study
findings and by addressing the following overall study question: Given
the relationship among consumer characteristics, contextual factors and
VR services, what are the results of the VR program?

## Limitations of the Study's Data

The longitudinal study implemented a design that permits national
estimates of characteristics, services and outcomes among persons with
disabilities who applied for VR services, including persons who received
VR services and those who applied for services but exited prior to
receipt of services. The study implemented a carefully designed
two-stage, stratified random sampling design that would permit
development of the best available national estimates of the VR consumer
population. In reviewing the findings in the study's reports, the reader
should be aware of the following limitations of this design.

-   Study findings reflect the study's data collection period, which
    occurred between 1995 and the end of 1999; therefore, findings do
    not reflect recent changes in the program that may be having an
    effect on VR services and outcomes.

-   In instances where participant sample sizes were very small (e.g.,
    less than 1 percent of the sample), findings should be viewed with
    caution; in general, we do not describe such findings other than
    including them in tables (e.g., blind reader services received by
    0.3 percent of VR consumers). Small sample sizes may affect findings
    for groups in which the incidence of disability is small and for
    analyses that involve the reporting of various characteristics in
    combination.

-   The study was designed to provide national estimates of VR services
    and outcomes and does not provide estimates at the level of state VR
    agencies or local VR offices. No statements can be made about
    participants, services or outcomes for individual agencies or
    offices.

-   The study was not experimental in nature. We studied participants as
    they received the services that agencies would normally
    provide---participants were not randomly assigned to specific
    services. Thus, we cannot conclude that specific services cause
    specific outcomes. Nevertheless, our analyses, in which we control
    for differences in individual characteristics, provided an
    indication of the relationships among services and outcomes.

# Chapter 1  The Local Environment of VR Offices and Services {#chapter-1-the-local-environment-of-vr-offices-and-services .unnumbered}

This chapter presents findings on the local environment in which VR
offices deliver services to consumers. One of the longitudinal study's
charges was to examine the extent to which local population and economic
characteristics may affect the VR services and outcomes of the program's
applicants and consumers. Specific questions that these analyses were to
address include the following:

-   **In what ways and to what extent do local environmental factors
    influence VR consumer services and outcomes?**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What are the sizes and densities (urban, rural and suburban) of the
    populations (total populations, not just the VR consumers) in the VR
    districts and regions? What are the characteristics of the local
    populations, including the prevalence of disabling conditions as
    identified in available data?

-   Regarding VR offices, what is the nature of the local economy,
    including trends, nature, availability and distribution of jobs? Are
    jobs accessible to VR consumers in terms of their location, the
    transportation available, and the qualifications required?

-   In VR districts and regions, what are the numbers and types of
    service providers in the community (vendors or agencies providing
    comparable benefit services)? Are they accessible to VR consumers in
    terms of location and transportation?

We have organized the findings presented in this chapter as follows:
*population characteristics*, including demographic characteristics,
income and nature and size of communities; *employment environment*,
including occupational profile, unemployment rates and job opportunities
available to VR consumers; and *community resources*, including the
availability of employment-related and other services, rehabilitation
service providers, and transportation. The final section examines the
relationships between these characteristics and the services that
consumers receive from VR. We have included in these analyses services
that earlier analyses found to be related to consumers' employment
outcomes.

## Note on Data Sources

In order to investigate the relationship between the environment in
which the program operates and its performance in terms of assisting
consumers in achieving economic and other outcomes, we analyzed
available information from two primary sources: the 1990 Decennial
Census and responses to questions regarding environmental factors in the
study's Local Office Manager Survey. We briefly describe each of these
sources prior to presenting findings on the local environment.

## 1990 Decennial Census

For local population characteristics and environmental factors, we
conducted analyses of information available in the Public Use Microdata
Samples (PUMS) prepared by the Bureau of the Census from the 1990
Decennial Census. These analyses are based on the 5-percent PUMS sample,
which contains records representing 5 percent of the households in the
United States. The PUMS housing records include data on such items as
household type and income, presence of children, property value, and
rent or mortgage information. Associated records provide information on
age, race/ethnicity, education, occupation, mobility status, work
limitations and other items for each person listed in the household.

Individual weights were applied to both personal and household records.
We analyzed one household variable (family income) and a number of
individual level variables, including race, Hispanic origin, work
limitation status, occupation, individual income, educational
attainment, and age, limiting these analyses to the working-aged
population (16 to 64 years).

In subsequent sections of this chapter, we present census-based analyses
that describe selected socioeconomic characteristics for offices in
which VR consumers receive services. Among the findings presented are:

-   Demographic characteristics of the local population, including
    race/ethnicity, age of the working-aged population, educational
    attainment, and work limitation status;

-   Occupational profile of the local labor market;

-   Average annual earnings from employment for persons without work
    limitations, persons reporting work limitations, and persons
    reporting that they are prevented from working;

-   Average annual public benefits received by each of the three groups;
    and

-   Average annual family income from employment and public benefits for
    each of the three groups.

To provide a framework for these analyses, in this section we provide
information from the PUMS documentation that specifies definitions and
criteria for key variables used in these analyses.

Work limitation status

The 1990 Decennial Census defined "work limitation" as: 1) the presence
of a physical or mental health condition that had lasted for at least
six months and that limited the kind or amount of work that an
individual could perform on the job; 2) a health condition that
restricted one's choice of jobs; or 3) a health condition that prevented
full-time work. Persons reporting a work limitation were asked whether
their condition had *prevented* their working at all in the past six
months. This group is roughly comparable to the group of persons who may
seek VR services in that most (about three-fourths) of the applicants
were unemployed at the time of application for services.

Community employment environment

The 1990 Decennial Census grouped occupations into seven categories:

-   Managerial, professional and specialty;

-   Technical, sales and administrative support;

-   Service;

-   Farming, forestry and fishing;

-   Precision production, craft and repair;

-   Operators, fabricators and laborers; and

-   Military.

In addition, the census noted persons who were "experienced unemployed"
as well as those for whom occupation was not reported, so the
occupational profiles of the local communities are somewhat limited.

Family income

Analyses of family income included income from both salaries and public
assistance or benefits for all members of the household reporting such
income. As presented in this report, it did not include additional
sources of income (e.g., interest or dividends).

In addition to the census-based analyses, we obtained unemployment rates
for each of the localities from the Local Area Unemployment Statistics
(LAUS) files maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor. This chapter reports these rates for each year of
data collection at the city or Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)
level.

## Office Manager Questionnaire

At the outset of the study's data collection, we asked the manager of
each of the 37 local VR offices participating in the VR Longitudinal
Study to complete a questionnaire. While the survey focused primarily on
office characteristics (the subject of the following chapter of this
report), it also collected some information on selected community
characteristics such as availability of accessible transportation and
other services and the nature and scope of employment opportunities. We
updated information that was likely to have changed (e.g., staffing)
through contacts with survey respondents.

## Population Characteristics

In terms of race/ethnicity, the general population of communities in
which VR offices provide services is 86 percent white, on average (table
2). The percentage of the population in these communities that is white
ranges from 41 percent to nearly 100 percent. Conversely, while overall
about 10 percent of the general population is African-American, the
distribution of this group within the local areas ranges from less than
1 percent to as high as 55 percent. The percentage of individuals of
Hispanic background ranges from less than 1 percent to nearly 63 percent
and averages 6 percent.

Table 2 also reports age ranges, the prevalence of disability and
educational attainment for working-aged persons in the communities in
which VR consumers receive services. As shown, nearly half of the
working-age population was aged 30 to 49 years, with 20 percent aged 22
to 29 years, 14 percent aged 16 to 21, and 8 percent aged 60 to 64.
Communities in which offices are located differed in terms of prevalence
of disability. On average, 4 percent of the population reported being
limited by disability in the type or amount of work, while 5 percent
reported being prevented by disability from working at all. Prevalence
ranged from a low of 3 percent to a high of 6 percent for persons
limited from, but not prevented from working, and from 2 to 11 percent

+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc114554998     |          |          |          |
| .anchor}Table 2. Demographic        |          |          |          |
| Characteristics of the Population   |          |          |          |
| in Communities Served by VR Offices |          |          |          |
| (Weighted Estimates)                |          |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| **Characteristic**                  | **P      |          |          |
|                                     | ercent** |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
|                                     | **Mean   | **M      | **M      |
|                                     | (M       | inimum** | aximum** |
|                                     | edian)** |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| ***Race/ethnicity***                |          |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > White                             | 85.8     | 40.5     | 99.6     |
|                                     | (88.2)   |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Black                             | 9.6      | 0.1      | 55.4     |
|                                     | (4.4)    |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > American Indian/Alaska Native     | 0.7      | 0.1      | 2.9      |
|                                     | (0.3)    |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Asian/Pacific Islander            | 1.6      | 0.1      | 15.3     |
|                                     | (0.6)    |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Of Hispanic Origin                | 5.8      | 0.1      | 62.6     |
|                                     | (0.7)    |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| ***Age (working-aged population)*** |          |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > 16−21                             | 13.6     | 10.3     | 19.8     |
|                                     | (14.1)   |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > 22−29                             | 19.1     | 16.0     | 27.2     |
|                                     | (18.4)   |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > 30−39                             | 25.2     | 21.0     | 30.4     |
|                                     | (24.8)   |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > 40−49                             | 20.0     | 16.3     | 26.2     |
|                                     | (20.0)   |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > 50−59                             | 14.7     | 9.9      | 18.8     |
|                                     | (14.7)   |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > 60−64                             | 7.6      | 4.1      | 13.8     |
|                                     | (7.2)    |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| ***Work limitation status***        |          |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Not limited in amount or type of  | 90.8     | 83.8     | 95.8     |
| > work                              | (90.8)   |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Limited by disability in amount   | 4.3      | 2.6      | 5.7      |
| > or type of work but not prevented | (4.3)    |          |          |
| > from working                      |          |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Prevented by disability from      | 5.0      | 1.5      | 11.1     |
| > working                           | (4.6)    |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| ***Educational attainment***        |          |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > 0 to 4 years of school            | 1.7      | 0.2      | 7.2      |
|                                     | (1.2)    |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > 5 to 8 years of school            | 5.0      | 0.8      | 17.2     |
|                                     | (4.5)    |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > 9 to 11 years of school           | 14.9     | 6.1      | 29.5     |
|                                     | (16.3)   |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > 12 years of school (high school   | 33.4     | 19.0     | 54.6     |
| > completion)                       | (35.3)   |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > Some college                      | 27.3     | 15.7     | 38.0     |
|                                     | (26.5)   |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| > College graduate or beyond        | 17.7     | 6.4      | 42.3     |
|                                     | (16.1)   |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| Source: 1990 Decennial Census.      |          |          |          |
+-------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+

for persons reporting that they were prevented from working at all. In
terms of educational attainment, about one-third of the general
population (ranging from 19 to 55 percent) reported having a high school
education, while about 22 percent (ranging from 7.7 to 41.9 percent)
reported having less than a high school education; 18 percent (ranging
from 6 to 42 percent) reported having achieved at least a bachelor's
degree.

Table 3 reports information on earnings from employment, public benefits
and annual family income and benefits for individuals and families
residing in communities in which VR consumers receive services. The
table provides these data for all working-age persons, for persons who
reported having a disability that limited the type or amount of work
they were able to do, and for persons who reported having a disability
that prevented their working at all.

+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| [                              |        |        |        |        |
| ]{#__RefHeading___Toc114554999 |        |        |        |        |
| .anchor}Table 3. Income Levels |        |        |        |        |
| in Communities Served by Local |        |        |        |        |
| VR Offices (Weighted           |        |        |        |        |
| Estimates)                     |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Income level**               | **     | **Min  | **Max  | **Me   |
|                                | Mean** | imum** | imum** | dian** |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| ***Annual earnings from        |        |        |        |        |
| employment***                  |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > For all working-aged persons | \$     | \$     | \$     | \$     |
|                                | 20,209 | 10,750 | 32,877 | 19,811 |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > For persons limited by       | \$     | \      | \$     | \$     |
| > disability in the type or    | 14,935 | $9,312 | 22,832 | 14,600 |
| > amount of work they can do   |        |        |        |        |
| > but not prevented from       |        |        |        |        |
| > working at all               |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > For persons prevented by     | \      | \$387  | \      | \      |
| > disability from working at   | $1,779 |        | $7,235 | $1,619 |
| > all\*                        |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| ***Annual public benefits***   |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > For all working-aged persons | \$262  | \$108  | \$981  | \$225  |
| > receiving any benefits       |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > For persons limited by       | \      | \$377  | \      | \$869  |
| > disability in the type or    | $1,020 |        | $8,539 |        |
| > amount of work they can do   |        |        |        |        |
| > but not prevented from       |        |        |        |        |
| > working at all               |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > For persons prevented by     | \      | \      | \      | \      |
| > disability from working at   | $3,506 | $2,617 | $4,643 | $2,295 |
| > all                          |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| ***Annual family income from   |        |        |        |        |
| employment and public          |        |        |        |        |
| benefits***                    |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > For all working-aged persons | \$     | \$     | \$     | \$     |
|                                | 41,005 | 20,303 | 67,704 | 38,828 |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > For persons limited by       | \$     | \$     | \$     | \$     |
| > disability in the type or    | 34,243 | 20,722 | 58,356 | 31,536 |
| > amount of work they can do   |        |        |        |        |
| > but not prevented from       |        |        |        |        |
| > working at all               |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > For persons prevented by     | \$     | \$     | \$     | \$     |
| > disability from working at   | 31,118 | 11,904 | 47,297 | 19,074 |
| > all                          |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Source: 1990 Decennial Census; |        |        |        |        |
| data are in constant 1996      |        |        |        |        |
| dollars.                       |        |        |        |        |
|                                |        |        |        |        |
| \*Income data are for a        |        |        |        |        |
| 12-month period, while         |        |        |        |        |
| disability items cover the     |        |        |        |        |
| prior six months.              |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

To adjust for the time lag between the 1990 Decennial Census (the latest
census for which information is available at the catchment area) and the
period of data collection for the longitudinal study, we report these
figures in constant 1996 dollars. As shown in the table, mean annual
earnings from employment for all working-age persons was slightly over
\$20,000 per year, ranging from \$10,750 to nearly \$33,000 per year.
This figure compared with the earnings of persons who were limited in
terms of work: among these persons, the average annual earnings from
employment was about \$15,000 and ranged from \$9,000 to almost
\$23,000. Comparable figures for persons reporting that they were
prevented by disability from working were an average of nearly \$1,800,
with a minimum of \$387 and a maximum of just over \$7,000.

Table 3 also reports annual family income that includes earnings from
employment and public benefits for all family members. As with the
individual data on earnings and benefits, average income for families is
highest for families that do not include a family member who is limited
in work or prevented from working. The average for such families is
approximately \$41,000 (median \$38,828). For those with a family member
who has a work limitation, the average income is about \$34,000 (median
\$31,536), and for those with a member prevented from working, it is
around \$31,000 (median \$19,074).

The size of communities in which VR offices deliver services to
consumers ranged from small towns (40,000 population) to large cities (3
million), with an average of nearly 400,000 persons (table 4). Office
catchment areas were considerably smaller, averaging around 120,000
persons and ranging from about 60,000 to about 250,000. As reported by
office managers, offices were more frequently located in a catchment
area that included urban, suburban and rural characteristics (43 percent
of all offices). About one-third served areas that were both suburban
and rural, while fewer served urban (5 percent), suburban (3 percent),
or rural (5 percent) areas exclusively.

  --------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555000                                             
  .anchor}Table 4. Population                                                 
  Density and Size of Communities                                             
  in Which VR Offices Deliver                                                 
  Services (Weighted Estimates)                                               

  **Population**                    **Mean**      **Minimum**   **Maximum**   **Median**

  Size of catchment area            119,884       60,057        248,197       121,029

  Community size                    398,345       40,000        3,000,000     250,000

  **Type of area**                  **Percent**                               

  Urban                             5                                         

  Urban and suburban                9                                         

  Suburban                          3                                         

  Suburban and rural                30                                        

  Rural                             5                                         

  Urban, suburban and rural         43                                        

  Urban and rural                   5                                         

  Source: 1990 Decennial Census;                                              
  Local Office Manager                                                        
  Questionnaire.                                                              
  --------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------

## Employment Environment

The Decennial Census contains information on the distribution of types
of occupations for the localities in which consumers obtain VR services.
We obtained information on unemployment rates for the localities from
the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) data file. In addition, we
obtained information on job trends and opportunities from the office
manager questionnaire. In this section, we provide an overview of the
employment environment in which the VR program delivers services to
consumers.

As shown in table 5, occupations of working persons in the localities of
VR offices are most often in technical, sales and administrative support
(about 27 percent of all jobs, ranging from a low of 16 percent in some
localities to a high of 36 percent in others). Other types of
occupations in which working persons were often employed included
managerial, professional or specialty (average of 20 percent, with a
range from 8 to 37 percent); service (13 percent, ranging from 9 to 17
percent); and operators, fabricators and laborers (mean of 15 percent,
ranging from 6 to 27 percent).

  --------------------------------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555001                                     
  .anchor}Table 5. Occupational Profile                               
  of Communities in Which VR Offices                                  
  Deliver VR Services (Weighted                                       
  Estimates)                                                          

  **Occupations of working-aged persons   **Percent**                 
  (16-64)**                                                           

                                          **Average**   **Minimum**   **Maximum**

  Managerial, professional and specialty  20            8             37

  Technical, sales and administrative     27            16            36
  support                                                             

  Service                                 13            9             17

  Farming, forestry and fishing           2             1             9

  Precision production, craft and repair  10            5             14

  Operators, fabricators and laborers     15            6             27

  Military                                0             0             1

  Experienced unemployed                  0             0             2

  Occupation not reported                 12            6             29

  Source: 1990 Decennial Census.                                      
  --------------------------------------- ------------- ------------- -------------

The VR program uses the *Dictionary of Occupational Titles* (*DOT*) for
categorizing the jobs that VR consumers obtain as a result of VR
services. Occupational categories in the *DOT* differ somewhat from
those used in the Decennial Census. Thus, direct comparison between the
occupational profiles of the general population in communities where VR
offices provide services to consumers and the profiles of the VR
consumer population is not possible. However, some rough comparisons are
possible; table 6 reports office managers' estimates of job categories
of persons exiting VR with an employment outcome in the late 1990s. As
shown, jobs were most frequently in service (31 percent, ranging from 3
to 75 percent of all jobs), followed by clerical/sales (17 percent,
ranging from 5 to 40 percent), and professional, technical or managerial
(16 percent, ranging from 2 to 60 percent).

  ------------------------------------------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555002 .anchor}Table 6.                              
  Occupations of VR Consumers Exiting With an                                   
  Employment Outcome (Weighted Estimates)                                       

  **Occupations of VR consumers (estimated by       **Percent**                 
  office managers)**                                                            

                                                    **Average**   **Minimum**   **Maximum**

  Professional, technical and managerial            16            2             60

  Clerical/sales                                    17            5             40

  Service                                           31            3             75

  Agricultural, fishery and forestry                4             0             15

  Processing                                        5             0             21

  Machine trades                                    7             1             14

  Benchwork                                         5             0             20

  Structural work                                   5             0             20

  Miscellaneous                                     16            0             81

  Source: Local Office Manager Questionnaire.                                   
  ------------------------------------------------- ------------- ------------- -------------

Overall, unemployment was relatively low in the office communities over
the period of data collection (1995−99), declining over the period from
5.28 percent in 1995 to 4.08 percent in 1999, with an average across the
period of 4.74 percent (ranging from 1.06 to 10.50; table 7). However,
in some localities, unemployment was twice the overall rate (e.g., as
high as 11.6 percent in 1996); conversely, in some localities, the rate
was quite low (less than 1 percent).

  --------------------------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555003                                 
  .anchor}Table 7. Unemployment                                   
  Rates in Communities Where VR                                   
  Offices Deliver VR Services                                     
  (Weighted Estimates)                                            

  **Year**                          **Mean         **Minimum**    **Maximum**
                                    (median)**                    

  1995                              5.28 (5.30)    .06            10.40

  1996                              5.33 (4.40)    .07            11.60

  1997                              4.79 (4.44)    .03            11.10

  1998                              4.24 (4.10)    .09            10.20

  1999                              4.08 (3.90)    .06            9.40

  Average across years              4.74 (4.40)    1.06           10.50

  Source: Local Area Unemployment                                 
  Statistics.                                                     
  --------------------------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------

To examine trends in employment opportunities specifically for VR
consumers, we collected information regarding this topic from local VR
office managers (table 8). For example, employment opportunities
available to VR consumers were thought by office managers to have
remained relatively constant or had increased during the latter half of
the 1990s. As reported in table 8, over one-third of office managers
reported that opportunities had remained constant

+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555004 .anchor}Table 8.   |                 |
| Status of Job Opportunities in Communities Where   |                 |
| VR Offices Deliver Services (Weighted Estimates)   |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| **Characteristics of opportunities**               | **Percent**     |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| ***Extent of changes in job opportunities over the |                 |
| past 5 years***                                    |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| > Opportunities remained constant                  | 35.6            |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| > Opportunities increased                          | 34.6            |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| > Opportunities decreased                          | 29.9            |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| ***Expectations that job opportunities will change |                 |
| over the\                                          |                 |
| next 5 years***                                    |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| > Opportunities will change                        | 12.2            |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| > Opportunities will not change                    | 87.9            |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| ***Supported employment opportunities***           | **Number**      |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| > Number of employers providing supported          |                 |
| > employment opportunities                         |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| > Mean (median)                                    | 10.4 (2.0)      |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| > Minimum                                          | 0.0             |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| > Maximum                                          | 100.0           |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| > Number of supported employment positions         |                 |
| > available                                        |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| > Mean (median)                                    | 26.7 (5.0)      |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| > Minimum                                          | 0.0             |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| > Maximum                                          | 195.0           |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Source: Local Area Unemployment Statistics.        |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+

(36 percent) or had increased (35 percent), while 30 percent reported
that employment opportunities had decreased in their localities. Their
expectations for the first half of the ensuing decade were less
optimistic, however, with nearly nine-tenths (88 percent) reporting that
such opportunities will not change. The table also contains information
on the availability of supported employment opportunities for consumers
for whom that employment outcome is appropriate. Overall, offices
reported that around 10 employers in their communities made supported
employment positions available to VR consumers, with an average of about
27 such positions available over the course of a year. Some localities,
however, reported that no employers were able to provide supported
employment opportunities or specific positions, while some reported that
as many as 100 employers provided such opportunities.

## Community Resources

The performance of VR agencies in assisting consumers to achieve
employment outcomes depends on the availability of an appropriate
network of service providers, given that much of the mission of the
agency involves: working with consumers to identify services that will
support achievement of the vocational goal; arranging with available
providers to deliver those services either through comparable benefits
or through purchase (although agencies provide a number of services
directly, such as vocational assessment, some forms of training, etc.);
and supporting consumers as they proceed through services to an
employment outcome. Hence the availability of rehabilitation-related,
employment and educational and other services and service providers can
improve or constrain a local office's ability to help consumers move
into employment outcomes that meet their goals and preferences. In this
section, we review the availability of community resources to support
the work of VR offices in performing their functions, using information
from the survey of local office managers.

Table 9 reports findings regarding the availability of community-based
services that VR offices can arrange for consumers as comparable
benefits. About two-thirds of communities in which VR delivers services
have relatively ready availability of alcohol and substance abuse
treatment for consumers who need such services (67 percent and 66
percent of communities, respectively), and 62 percent of VR offices are
able to arrange mental health counseling through comparable benefits.
Around half reported availability of vocational training (56 percent),
higher education (51 percent), and medical services (47 percent).
Somewhat fewer offices were located in communities with family
counseling services available (39 percent), and very few were able to
arrange independent living skills training (16 percent) or recreation
opportunities (15 percent) for consumers.

  --------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555005                                     
  .anchor}Table 9. Availability of                                    
  Selected Community-Based Services                                   
  (Weighted Estimates)                                                

  **Resource **                     **Percent of                      
                                    office managers                   
                                    reporting**                       

                                    **Full           **Limited        **No
                                    availability**   availability**   availability**

  Alcohol abuse treatment           67.0             33.0             0.0

  Substance abuse treatment         65.5             34.5             0.0

  Mental health counseling          61.8             38.2             0.0

  Vocational training               55.6             44.5             0.0

  Higher education                  51.4             48.7             0.0

  Medical services                  47.2             52.3             0.5

  Family counseling                 38.5             61.0             0.5

  Independent living skills         15.6             57.0             27.4
  training                                                            

  Recreation                        15.4             84.0             0.6

  Source: Local Office Manager                                        
  Questionnaire.                                                      
  --------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

In terms of resources to assist consumers in obtaining employment, most
offices (81 percent) were located in communities with ready availability
of the Employment Security Commission, while only about a third reported
full availability of services through the *Job Training Partnership Act*
(*JTPA*); replaced by *the Workforce Investment Act* (*WIA*) and the
One-Stop System in 1998; table 10). Almost two-thirds of offices
reported some availability of employment-related services under *JTPA*.
Fewer than one-third of offices reported full availability of a Project
With Industry (PWI), although an additional third reported some
availability of these programs, which typically help former VR consumers
as well as other persons with disabilities to obtain job placement.
Nearly 40 percent reported no availability of PWI. Finally, relatively
few offices reported availability of a Javits-Wagner-O'Day Program
(JWOD) to VR consumers; about one-third reported limited availability of
this resource, while over two-thirds reported no availability.

  --------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555006                                     
  .anchor}Table 10. Availability of                                   
  Community-Based Employment                                          
  Assistance (Weighted Estimates)                                     

  **Resource**                      **Percent**                       

                                    **Full\          **Limited\       **No\
                                    availability**   availability**   availability**

                                    Full             Limited          

  State Employment Security         80.6             19.4             0.0
  Commission office                                                   

  *Job Training Partnership Act*    35.1             64.9             0.0

  Projects With Industry            28.0             33.1             38.8

  Javits-Wagner-O'Day Program       0.9              31.5             67.6

  Source: Local Office Manager                                        
  Questionnaire.                                                      
  --------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

Most offices had access to comprehensive centralized rehabilitation
facilities (table 11). Almost three-fourths reported that such
facilities were located in their state, and about one-third reported
access to facilities in neighboring states. On average, offices reported
that at least two such facilities were available for provision of
services to VR consumers.

Offices also reported availability of community-based rehabilitation
programs (CRPs) and other local service organizations (e.g., Goodwill
Industries, community mental health centers and vocational schools) to
which they were able to refer VR applicants and consumers for services.
As shown in table 12, in a question asking respondents to list up to 10
such facilities in their communities, VR offices reported an average of
seven such facilities in proximity to their office catchment areas. At
the same time, many offices reported relative scarcity of service
providers, indicating that such scarcity somewhat impedes positive
outcomes for consumers. As shown in

  ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555007 .anchor}Table 11.            
  Availability of Comprehensive Centralized Rehabilitation     
  Facilities (Weighted Estimates)                              

  **Centralized facility available**                           **Percent**

  ***In the state***                                           72.3

  ***In a neighboring state***                                 32.1

  ***Number available in state***                              

  Mean (median)                                                2.3 (2.0)

  Minimum                                                      1.0

  Maximum                                                      5.0

  ***Number available in a neighboring state***                

  Mean (median)                                                2.3 (2.0)

  Minimum                                                      1.0

  Maximum                                                      5.0

  Source: Local Office Manager Questionnaire.                  
  ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------

  ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555008 .anchor}Table 12.            
  Availability of Community-Based Rehabilitation Programs and  
  Other Service Providers (Weighted Estimates)                 

  **CRPs and other local service organizations**               

  ***Number available in community***                          **Number**

  Mean (median)                                                6.9 (8.0)

  Minimum                                                      1.0

  Maximum                                                      10.0

  ***Extent to which scarcity of service providers impedes     **Percent**
  positive consumer outcomes***                                

  To a great extent                                            20.7

  To some extent                                               47.7

  Not at all                                                   6.6

  Community has no scarcity of providers                       25.0

  Source: Local Office Manager Questionnaire.                  
  ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------

the table, one-fifth of VR offices reported that scarcity of providers
impeded positive consumer outcomes to a great extent, while nearly half
reported that scarcity impeded positive outcomes to some extent. Only
one-quarter indicated no scarcity of providers in their communities.

Finally, the study explored the availability of transportation for VR
consumers and the extent to which a lack of transportation might impede
VR consumers' access to services and positive outcomes. As shown in
table 13, only 12 percent of VR offices reported full availability of
transportation services exclusively for VR consumers, while two-thirds
reported limited availability and over one-fifth reported no such
availability. Taxis and vans were the modes of transportation most
frequently available (89 percent and 83 percent, respectively), and most

  ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555009 .anchor}Table 13.            
  Availability of Transportation (Weighted Estimates)          

  **Transportation arrangements**                              **Percent**

  ***Availability of transportation services exclusively for   
  VR consumers***                                              

  Full availability                                            11.7

  Limited availability                                         66.8

  No availability                                              21.5

  ***Types of public transportation available to VR            
  consumers***                                                 

  Taxis                                                        88.8

  Vans                                                         83.4

  Public buses                                                 72.0

  Commuter trains                                              8.8

  ***Parking convenient to VR office***                        87.5

  ***Extent to which a lack of transportation impedes positive 
  consumer outcomes***                                         

  To a great extent                                            38.6

  To some extent                                               57.8

  Not at all                                                   3.6

  Source: Local Office Manager Questionnaire.                  
  ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------

offices (88 percent) reported having parking convenient to the VR
office. Nearly two-fifths of offices identified lack of appropriate
transportation as an impediment to positive VR consumer outcomes to a
great extent, and nearly 60 percent viewed this lack as a problem to
some extent. Very few indicated that transportation was not a problem.

In addition to responses to forced-choice items, VR office managers
provided a list of services that in their judgment were most difficult
to obtain on behalf of their consumers. Managers listed up to three such
services (table 14). As shown, over half of office managers
characterized transportation as the service they had greatest difficulty
obtaining for their consumers. Thirty percent reported that vocational
training was difficult to obtain, 22 percent reported that employment
development services were among the most difficult to obtain, and
21 percent reported that supported employment services were in that
category. Thus, a relatively large fraction of office managers reported
difficulty in obtaining employment-related services, in addition to
transportation. Other services that some office managers reported great
difficulty in obtaining for their consumers were medical and dental
treatment (13 percent), education (13 percent) and services for persons
with mental illness (11 percent) or traumatic brain injury (9 percent).

+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555010           |                          |
| .anchor}Table 14. Services That VR Office |                          |
| Managers Characterized as Most Difficult  |                          |
| to Obtain (Weighted Estimates)            |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Service**                               | **Percentage of office   |
|                                           | managers listing service |
|                                           | as most difficult to     |
|                                           | obtain**                 |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Transportation                            | 51.3                     |
|                                           |                          |
| Vocational training                       | 29.5                     |
|                                           |                          |
| Employment development                    | 21.7                     |
|                                           |                          |
| Supported employment                      | 20.7                     |
|                                           |                          |
| Medical and dental treatment              | 13.1                     |
|                                           |                          |
| Education                                 | 12.7                     |
|                                           |                          |
| Services for mentally ill persons         | 10.6                     |
|                                           |                          |
| Services for persons with traumatic brain | 9.0                      |
| injury                                    |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Source: Local Office Manager              |                          |
| Questionnaire.                            |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+

## Relationships Between the Local Environment and VR Services 

A key question of interest to RSA and VR practitioners, and one of the
central questions of the Longitudinal Study, was: **In what ways and to
what extent do local environmental factors influence VR consumers'
services and outcomes?**

In the remainder of this chapter, we examine the relationships between
environmental factors and the key consumer services that earlier
analyses found to be related to employment and earnings outcomes.
(Chapter 3 of this report then uses these factors as covariates in an
analysis of consumer outcomes.) The following specific services were
included in these analyses:

+-------------------------------+---+-----------------------------------+
| **Employment Development and  |   | **Support Services**              |
| Education Services**          |   |                                   |
+-------------------------------+---+-----------------------------------+
| -   Job development           |   | -   Assistive technology services |
|                               |   |                                   |
| -   Job placement             |   | -   Assistive technology devices  |
|                               |   |                                   |
| -   On-the-job training/job   |   | -   Driver training or licensing  |
|     trials                    |   |                                   |
|                               |   | -                                 |
| -   Business/vocational       |   |    Tools/uniforms/equipment/stock |
|     training                  |   |                                   |
|                               |   | -   Maintenance                   |
| -   Two-year community        |   |                                   |
|     college                   |   |                                   |
|                               |   |                                   |
| -   Four-year college or      |   |                                   |
|     university                |   |                                   |
|                               |   |                                   |
| -   Tutoring                  |   |                                   |
+-------------------------------+---+-----------------------------------+

To identify environmental factors that may, along with consumer
characteristics, influence the services that consumers receive from VR,
we conducted two logistic regression analyses that predicted receipt of
selected services that prior research has shown to be associated with
positive employment outcomes at exit from VR using environment factors.
The first regression analysis predicted whether consumers received any
of a set of employment development and education services, while the
second set of regression analysis predicted whether consumers received
any of a set of support services.

The first regression analysis indicated a number of environmental
factors that are related to the likelihood that a VR consumer would
receive any of the employment development or education services found to
increase the likelihood of employment and earnings outcomes. (Odds
ratios are shown in Appendix A, table A-1.) Receipt of these services
was more likely in localities with: 1) higher unemployment rates; 2)
higher populations of individuals with disabilities; 3) higher levels of
education in the general population, i.e., where relatively more people
have a high school or greater education; 4) higher overall population
density; and 5) a comprehensive centralized rehabilitation facility in a
neighboring state. Receipt of these services was less likely in
localities with: 1) a relatively higher proportion of the general
population employed in service jobs; 2) a trend of increasing job
opportunities over the last five years; 3) rural areas; and 4) a
comprehensive centralized rehabilitation facility in the state. This
model accounted for six percent of the variance in receipt of employment
development or education services (R^2^ = .0623).[^7] Therefore, while
all of the factors were significant predictors, they accounted for a
small amount of variance, suggesting that other factors (e.g., consumer
characteristics and VR practices) may be more important determinants of
the services that VR consumers receive.

The second regression analysis revealed a number of environmental
factors that are related to the likelihood that a VR consumer would
receive any of the support services that were associated with improved
consumer outcomes. (Odds ratios are shown in Appendix A, table A‑2.)
Receipt of these services was more likely in localities with: 1) higher
populations of nonwhite individuals; 2) higher populations of
individuals with disabilities; 3) higher levels of education in the
general population; 4) a higher proportion of the general population
employed in service jobs; 5) a trend of increasing number of job
opportunities over the last five years; 6) suburbs; 7) better
availability of rehabilitation service providers according to the local
office manager; and 8) a comprehensive centralized rehabilitation
facility in a neighboring state. Receipt of these services was less
likely in localities with high unemployment rates, a higher overall
population density, urban areas, and in areas with a comprehensive
centralized rehabilitation facility in the state. This model accounted
for 14 percent of the variance in receipt of support services (R^2^ =
.1493).

Based on these analyses reported in this chapter, we have selected a set
of local environmental factors that relatively consistently appear to
influence consumer services. We have incorporated them into subsequent
analyses (see chapter 4) as covariates in addition to the consumer
characteristics we included in the analyses of outcomes contained in the
*Second Final Report*. Environmental factors that are appropriate for
this purpose include the following:

-   Percentage of the population with a high school or greater
    education;

-   Percentage of the general population working in service occupations;

-   Availability of transportation exclusively for persons with
    disabilities;

-   Population density;

-   Availability of rehabilitation-related resources in the community;
    and

-   Availability of a comprehensive rehabilitation facility in the
    offices or in a neighboring state.

# Chapter 2  Characteristics and Practices of the Local Offices That Deliver VR Services {#chapter-2-characteristics-and-practices-of-the-local-offices-that-deliver-vr-services .unnumbered}

This chapter presents findings on the local offices in which
rehabilitation counselors and other practitioners deliver VR services to
consumers. One of the Longitudinal Study's charges was to examine the
extent to which the operations and culture of local VR offices may
affect the VR services and outcomes of the program's applicants and
consumers. Specific questions that these analyses were to address
include the following:

-   **In what ways and to what extent do the operations, resources and
    organizational climate of VR agencies influence consumer services
    and outcomes?**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What is the amount of case service resources available to local VR
    staff? What proportion of the local expenditures are devoted to case
    services resources, the agency's direct service personnel, and other
    expenditures?

-   What types of organizational cultures exist in VR agencies? What are
    the predominant management techniques that influence those agencies,
    and what are their effects?

Earlier studies of the state-federal VR program emphasized the important
role of VR office operations and the role of staff---VR counselors in
particular---in promoting quality consumer outcomes (e.g., Hayward et
al., 1994; Bolton et al., 1995; Rehabilitation Services Administration,
1998). Research has tended to focus more on counselor productivity than
on agency performance, although performance measures that hold agencies
accountable for performance are relevant at the office and agency level
as well as at the counselor level. While the longitudinal study did not
focus attention specifically on agency efficiency and effective­ness,
given the study's intended emphasis on consumer outcomes, we did collect
information on agency operations, resources, and policies and procedures
that can be expected to influence the success of the VR program in
achieving desired outcomes. In this chapter, we examine the program's
operations and investigate their relationship to consumer outcomes.

We have organized findings presented in the chapter as follows: *office
profile*, including information on caseloads, staffing, training and
experience of VR counselors, and case service funding; *office policies
and practices*, addressing policies and practices regarding counselor
performance, counselor perspectives regarding factors affecting job
performance and on factors affecting consumers' success at achieving an
employment outcome; and *office culture*, examining organizational
climate and implementation of management improvement initiatives. The
final section of the chapter examines the relationships among these
characteristics and services that consumers obtain from or through VR.
Data sources for these analyses include surveys that local office
managers and rehabilitation counselors in local offices participating in
the study completed at the end of the study's data collection period
(FY 1999). Weighted according to the study's data collection design, the
responses represent a total of 956 local office managers and 5,640
rehabilitation counselors.

## Office Profile

### Caseloads

Overall, local VR offices worked with a total caseload (persons
receiving services and those exiting services during the fiscal
year[^8]) that averaged 1,738 consumers (median 865), as reported in
table 15. The size of caseloads ranged from 141 consumers to as many as
37,624. On average, 1,268 of these consumers continued receiving
services throughout the year, while 492 exited services. The table also
reports the status of program applicants during the fiscal year. As
shown, offices averaged nearly 500 applicants (491; median 380), with an
average of 301 of the applicants accepted for services, 19 placed in
extended evaluation, and 171 not accepted for services. Over one-fourth
(28 percent) of offices reported that they were operating under an order
of selection[^9]; the number of years operating under this arrangement
averaged 6.4 (median

+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| []{#                        |       |       |       |       |       |
| __RefHeading___Toc114555011 |       |       |       |       |       |
| .anchor}Table 15. Overview  |       |       |       |       |       |
| of Local VR Office          |       |       |       |       |       |
| Caseloads at Study          |       |       |       |       |       |
| Initiation (Weighted n =    |       |       |       |       |       |
| 956)                        |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Caseload**                | *     | **M   | **Med | *     | *     |
|                             | *Perc | ean** | ian** | *Mini | *Maxi |
|                             | ent** |       |       | mum** | mum** |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| ***Applicants***            |       | 491   | 380   | 69    | 3,765 |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Accepted for service        |       | 301   | 206   | 25    | 2,996 |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Placed in extended          |       | 19    | 8     | 0     | 147   |
| evaluation                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Not accepted for service    |       | 171   | 128   | 20    | 1,149 |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| ***Receiving services***    |       | 1,268 | 582   | 88    | 2     |
|                             |       |       |       |       | 3,929 |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| ***Exited services***       |       | 492   | 264   | 53    | 1     |
|                             |       |       |       |       | 3,695 |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| ***Total caseload\          |       | 1,738 | 865   | 141   | 3     |
| (received services + exited |       |       |       |       | 7,624 |
| services)***                |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| ***Order of selection***    |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Offices operating under   | 28    |       |       |       |       |
| > an order of selection     |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Years operating under an  |       | 6.4   | 5.0   | 0.0   | 20.0  |
| > order of selection        |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| > Number of persons on a    |       | 86    | 0     | 0     | 653   |
| > waiting list              |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Source: Local Office        |       |       |       |       |       |
| Manager Survey.             |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

5.0) and ranged from less than one year to as many as 20 years. Waiting
lists in offices operating under an order of selection averaged 86
applicants, although the median was zero, suggesting that over
50 percent of offices were not experiencing a need to place eligible
applicants on a waiting list for services. In fact, of the estimated 266
offices reporting under an order of selection, only 96 (36 percent)
actually had persons waiting for services.

Table 16 provides additional details regarding office caseloads. As
shown, 97 percent of local VR offices had counselors who managed general
caseloads. The average size of general caseloads was 112 (median 109)
per counselor, with the size of caseloads ranging from 54 to
244 consumers.[^10] Seventy-six percent of offices also operated at
least some specialized caseloads, with an average of three such
caseloads in the offices that reported assigning specialized caseloads
to some counselors. Fifty-two percent of counselors reported that they
managed a specialized caseload. As shown in the table, 42 percent of
offices reported that they operated school caseloads; these offices
averaged two such caseloads, with an average of 56 consumers each. Over
one-third of offices (36 percent) used specialized caseloads to provide
services for consumers with hearing impairments; offices averaged fewer
than two (1.3) such

  --------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------ ------------- -------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555012                                                                      
  .anchor}Table 16. Details of                                                                         
  Local VR Office Caseloads, FY                                                                        
  1999 (Weighted n = 956)                                                                              

  **Type of caseload**              **Percent    **Average\   **Size of                                
                                    of\          number of\   caseload per                             
                                    offices      caseloads\   counselor**                              
                                    with\        per office**                                          
                                    caseload**                                                         

                                                              **Mean**      **Median**   **Minimum**   **Maximum**

  ***General caseload***            97           NA           112           109          54            244

  ***Specialized caseload***                                                                           

  Mental illness                    30           1.5          53                                       

  Hearing impairment                36           1.3          72                                       

  Visual impairment                 27           1.7          50                                       

  Developmental disability          13           1.3          88                                       

  Traumatic brain injury            9            1.0          65                                       

  School                            42           2.0          56                                       

  Correctional facility             5            1.4          64                                       

  Other                             16           2.5          50                                       

  Overall                           76           3.0          59                                       

  ***Percentage of counselors with  52                                                                 
  specialized caseloads***                                                                             

  Source: Local Office Manager                                                                         
  Survey.                                                                                              
  --------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------ ------------- -------------

caseloads and averaged 72 consumers per caseload. Other relatively
frequent specialized caseloads included those for persons with mental
illness (30 percent of offices, 1.5 caseloads per office, on average,
and 53 consumers per caseload) and visual impairments (27 percent of
offices, 1.7 caseloads per office, and 50 consumers per caseload).

### Staffing

Local VR offices averaged 13.4 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff
positions overall (median 10.0), ranging from 3.0 to 53.0 persons (table
17). The preponderance of these staff FTEs were VR counselors: an
average of 6.42 (median 6.0) counselors, ranging from offices without
counselors to offices with as many as 30 such staff. Overall 98 percent
of offices reported having counselors, and 27 percent reported having
vacancies in this position. Offices also employed other service
professionals (e.g., vocational evaluation specialists, physical or
occupational therapists, physicians or psychologists, etc.), although
much less frequently. Offices reported an average of 1.03 such staff
(median 0.10), with a maximum of seven FTEs. About half of the offices
reported locating other professionals in their offices, and they did not
typically report vacancies as an issue. In terms of case service support
staff, offices employed an average of 3.79 FTEs (median 2.5), ranging
from no such staff to 19 FTEs. Nearly all offices (90 percent)

  --------------------------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- ---------- ----------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555013                                                     
  .anchor}Table 17. Overview of                                                       
  Local VR Office Staffing                                                            
  Configurations, FY 1999 (Weighted                                                   
  n = 956)                                                                            

  Staff position                    Mean     Median    Minimum   Maximum   Percent of Percent of
                                                                           offices\   offices\
                                                                           with       with
                                                                           position   vacancy

  VR counselors                     6.42     6.00      0.00      30.00     97.5       27.1

  Other service professionals       1.03     0.10      0.00      7.00      51.8       2.2

  Case service support              3.79     2.50      0.00      19.00     90.2       13.4

  Administrative staff              1.84     1.00      0.00      12.00     83.2       13.3

  Clerical staff                    0.01     0.00      0.00      1.00      1.3        0.0

  Total FTE staff positions         13.43    10.00     3.00      53.00     97.5       

  Ratio of administrative to direct 0.16     0.13      0.00      0.78                 
  service staff                                                                       

  Ratio of VR counselors to support 2.08     1.83      0.53      9.00                 
  staff                                                                               

  Source: Local Office Manager                                                        
  Survey.                                                                             
  --------------------------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- ---------- ----------

employed case service support staff, and 13 percent reported vacancies
in this position. Overall, the ratio of VR counselors to case service
support staff averaged 2.08 (median 1.83, ranging from .53 to 9.0 FTEs).
Administrative staff included office managers and counselor supervisors,
with offices averaging 1.84 FTEs of administrative positions (median
1.0, range from 0.0 to 12.0); 83 percent of offices reported employing
staff specifically for administrative purposes, and about 13 percent
reported vacancies. The ratio of administrative to direct service staff
was 0.16 FTEs.

Table 18 reports details on the training and experience of VR counselors
who provide VR services to applicants and consumers. Counselors reported
an average of over 11 years of experience as a VR counselor (median of
nine years, ranging from one to 37 years), and findings suggest a high
level of employment stability in terms of length of time in the current
agency (10.7 years on average, compared with 11 years as a VR
counselor). About one-fifth of counselors reported having worked at a
position in VR other than as a counselor prior to becoming a counselor,
and nearly half (49 percent) reported prior experience as a counselor
outside VR. As shown in the table, 41 percent of counselors possessed a
baccalaureate, while 56 percent had a master's degree. Very few reported
having less than a college degree. Only 11 percent were pursuing a
higher degree or certificate (nearly two-thirds of these were working
toward a master's, while one-fourth were seeking post-master's
certification). Seventeen percent of VR counselors reported holding a
Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC) credential.

  ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555014 .anchor}Table 18. VR         
  Counselors' Experience and Training, FY 1999 (Weighted n =   
  5,640)                                                       

  **Experience/training**                                      **Percent**

  ***Years of experience as a rehabilitation counselor***      

  Mean                                                         11.0

  Median                                                       9.0

  Minimum                                                      1.0

  Maximum                                                      37.0

  ***Years with current agency***                               

  Mean                                                         10.7

  Median                                                       9.0

  Minimum                                                      1.0

  Maximum                                                      32.0

  ***Percentage with experience in VR prior to becoming a      22.1
  counselor***                                                 

  ***Percentage with experience as a counselor outside the     49.0
  field of VR***                                               

  ***Educational attainment***                                  

  High school diploma only                                     0.8

  Some college                                                 1.1

  Associate degree                                             0.6

  Baccalaureate                                                40.9

  Master's                                                     56.2

  Doctorate                                                    0.6

  TOTAL                                                        100.0

  ***Percentage of counselors with certified rehabilitation    16.8
  counselor (CRC)***                                           

  ***Percentage of counselors working toward advanced degree   10.7
  or certificate***                                            
  ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------

We conducted correlations to examine the relationship between VR
counselors' educational attainment and consumer outcomes. While some of
these correlations were statistically significant, they were
consistently too low to be considered meaningful. Consequently, we have
not reported the results here or included these variables in subsequent
analyses of the relationships between offices characteristics and
consumer outcomes.

## Orientation and Inservice Training

As shown in table 19, four-fifths of VR counselors reported having
received new counselor orientation when they began working in VR.

Additionally, counselors participated in inservice training on a variety
of topics. Over 60 percent reported having received training on IPE
methods and procedures; nearly all of this training was from VR agency
staff. Fifty-six percent had received training in eligibility

  ---------------------------------- ---------------- ------------- -------------
   []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555015                                  
  .anchor}Table 19. Counselors'                                     
  Receipt of Orientation and                                        
  Inservice Training, FY 1999\                                      
  (Weighted n = 5,640)                                              

  ** Type of training **             **Percent of all **Training    
                                     counselors       Provider**    
                                     receiving                      
                                     training**                     

                                                      **VR agency   **Vendor**
                                                      staff**       

  ***New counselor orientation***    79.2                            

  ***Inservice training***                                           

  Eligibility determination          56.2             97.1          2.9

  Extended evaluation                34.3             99.1          1.0

  Vocational evaluation              35.3             89.5          10.5

  IPE                                62.5             98.0          2.0

  Supported employment               50.5             87.9          12.1

  Caseload management                42.1             92.7          7.3

  Job development                    49.5             76.2          23.8

  Job placement                      51.9             81.5          18.5

  Postemployment services            27.6             98.4          1.6

  New consumer populations           32.1             58.3          41.7

  Functional aspects of disability   48.6             77.0          23.0

  1992 amendments                    50.5             91.5          8.5

  *Americans with Disabilities Act*  51.7             87.0          13.0
  (*ADA*)                                                           
  ---------------------------------- ---------------- ------------- -------------

determination, which agency staff also provided. Other frequent topics
of training that counselors reported having received were job placement
(52 percent of counselors), supported employment (51 percent of
counselors), the 1992 amendments (51 percent of counselors), job
development (50 percent of counselors), and functional aspects of
disability (49 percent of counselors). While agency staff conducted
nearly all of this training, an exception was new consumer populations,
which agencies often purchased from outside experts (42 percent of this
training).

## Case Service Resources

Total case service budget for local VR offices averaged over \$800,000
(median \$620,400) and ranged from \$50,000 to as much as \$4.5 million
(table 20). Considered on a per-consumer basis, this overall amount of
case service funds averaged about \$845 (median \$816) and ranged from a
low of \$19 to a high of \$3,116. These figures do not mean that an
individual consumer received a maximum of \$3,166 in purchased services,
however. Rather, these figures are an average across all consumers in
the caseload receiving services during the fiscal year, with
expenditures limited to one fiscal year rather than to all of the case
service resources available to

  --------------------------------- ------------- ------------ ------------- -------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555016                                            
  .anchor}Table 20. Overview of                                              
  Local VR Office Case Service                                               
  Funding, FY 1999 (Weighted n =                                             
  956)                                                                       

  **Office case service resources** **Mean**      **Median**   **Minimum**   **Maximum**

  Total case service budget         \$812,208     \$620,400    \$50,000      \$4,500,000

  Case service funds per consumer   \$845         \$816        \$19          \$3,116
  in the office caseload                                                     

                                    **Percent**                               

  Offices with access to other case 20.9                                     
  service funds (e.g., statewide                                             
  pool)                                                                      

  Offices requesting additional     25.8                                     
  case service funds from the state                                          
  during the year                                                            

  Offices in which counselors have  16.4                                     
  case service funds left over at                                            
  the end of the year                                                        

  Source: Local Office Manager                                               
  Survey.                                                                    
  --------------------------------- ------------- ------------ ------------- -------------

any individual consumer who may have received services for several
years.[^11] As shown in the table, some offices have access to other
sources of funds for purchased services in addition to the office's
annual case service budget. One-fifth of offices reported access to such
other resources as a statewide pool of funds for high-cost services, and
one-quarter reported having requested additional case service funds from
the state during the year. Very few offices (16 percent) reported that
counselors have case service funds left over at the end of the year.

## Salary Expenditures

To address the question of distribution of local expenditures among case
service expenditures, direct service personnel and other expenditures,
the longitudinal study requested information on the salaries of local
office staff by staff position from state VR agencies. Because not all
of the agencies provided this information, data reported in table 21
should be viewed with caution. For example, in the category of
administrative staff (including managers and counselor supervisors),
about half of the agencies reported salary levels, while for direct
service staff (counselors, other service staff and caseworkers) we
obtained this information for two-thirds of the local offices. We report
these findings on the notion that they provide at least a rough estimate
of local VR offices expenditures on salaries. As shown in the table, the
aggregate salaries of administrative staff averaged about \$110,000 per
year (median \$83,306) and ranged from about \$28,000 to nearly
\$300,000. Aggregate expenditures for direct service staff averaged
nearly \$370,000 (median \$304.907) and ranged from about \$51,000 to
about \$1.5 million.

+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| [                              |        |        |        |        |
| ]{#__RefHeading___Toc114555017 |        |        |        |        |
| .anchor}Table 21. Office       |        |        |        |        |
| Expenditures for Staff         |        |        |        |        |
| Salaries\*                     |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Office expenditures for      | **     | **Me   | **Min  | **Max  |
| salaries**                     | Mean** | dian** | imum** | imum** |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Aggregate salaries of          | \$1    | \$     | \$     | \$2    |
| administrative staff           | 09,774 | 83,306 | 27,883 | 96,566 |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Aggregate salaries of direct   | \$3    | \$3    | \$     | \$1,5  |
| service staff                  | 69,011 | 04,907 | 50,914 | 03,112 |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| \*Salaries are for FY 1994,    |        |        |        |        |
| converted to constant 1996     |        |        |        |        |
| dollars.                       |        |        |        |        |
|                                |        |        |        |        |
| Source: State Policies and     |        |        |        |        |
| Procedures Questionnaire.      |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

## Office Policies and Practices[^12]

### Performance Requirements

Nearly all VR offices have established some type of quantified
performance requirements for VR counselors (table 22). Ninety-one
percent have requirements for the number of employment outcomes
counselors should achieve over the course of a year. Other performance
requirements frequently in use in VR offices include time-in-status
limits (72 percent of offices), the percentage of the caseload
represented by consumers with significant disabilities (63 percent), the
number of IPEs initiated (62 percent), and other process measures such
as number of acceptances (49 percent), applications processed (48
percent) and referrals (42 percent). In nearly all offices (83 percent),
counselors negotiate annual performance goals with their supervisors;
however, very few offices (11 percent) reported offering monetary
incentives to counselors who reach or exceed their goals. Most office
managers reported that they believe that the implementation of
performance requirements improves consumer outcomes (62 percent), and
very few believe that they impede effective service delivery (8
percent). While counselors must meet a variety of process and outcome
goals, they do not necessarily have full control over their activities.
As shown in table 22, 63 percent of offices reported that counselors
have control over their case service funds. Counselors reported such
control less frequently---only 30 percent reported being able to
authorize all payments, while 32 percent reported authorizing payments
under a certain amount, 12 percent authorized payments for particular
services, and 27 percent reported not being able to authorize any
payments (table 23).

  ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555018 .anchor}Table 22.      
  Overview of Local VR Office Policies and Practices for 
  VR Counselors\                                         
  (Weighted n = 956)                                     

  **Office policies and practices **                     **Percent of
                                                         offices**

  ***Offices with quantified performance requirements    
  for:***                                                

  Number of employment outcomes                          90.5

  Time-in-status limits                                  71.7

  Number/percent of consumers with significant           62.7
  disabilities                                           

  Number of IPEs initiated                               61.5

  Number of acceptances                                  48.7

  Number of applications processed                       47.9

  Number of referrals to caseload                        41.9

  Number of quantified requirements                      3.2

  ***Performance goals negotiated between counselors and 82.8
  supervisors***                                         

  ***Counselors offered monetary incentives for reaching 11.3
  or exceeding goals***                                  

  ***Performance requirements improve consumer           61.6
  outcomes***                                            

  ***Performance requirements impede effective service   7.7
  delivery***                                            

  ***Counselors have operational control of case service 63.1
  funds***                                               

  Source: Local Office Manager Survey.                   
  ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------

  ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555019 .anchor}Table 23.            
  Counselors' Perspectives on Control of Plans and Case        
  Service Funds, FY 1999 (Weighted n = 5,640)                  

  ** **                                                        **Percent of
                                                               counselors**

  ***Counselors sign service plans***                          91.4

  ***Counselors required to obtain other signature for service 33.3
  plans***                                                     

  ***Counselors authorize payment for services without          
  approval from the supervisor***                              

  All payments                                                 30.3

  Payments under a certain amount                              31.4

  Payments for particular services                             11.9

  No payments                                                  26.4

  Source: Survey of VR Counselors                              
  ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------

In connection with performance, we asked counselors their perspectives
on factors, among the characteristics of counselors, that contribute to
effective job performance (table 24). The single factor that most
counselors (over two-thirds) listed as important and that counselors
most frequently mentioned as the single most important factor (32
percent) was the counselor's personal commitment to the success of
consumers with whom he or she worked. Other factors identified as
important to effective job performance included experience in working
with

  -------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555020                         
  .anchor}Table 24. Counselors'                           
  Perspectives on Importance of Selected                  
  Factors to Effectiveness in Job                         
  Performance, FY 1999 (Weighted n =                      
  5,640)                                                  

  **Factor**                             **Percent of all **Percent of
                                         counselors       all\
                                         listing\         counselors
                                         factor as        listing\
                                         important**      factor as most
                                                          important**

  Personal commitment to the success of  68.3             32.1
  consumers                                               

  Experience over time                   63.6             23.6

  Interpersonal skills                   54.0             13.1

  Formal education                       42.8             17.5

  Organizational skills                  31.3             5.2

  VR agency training                     26.2             5.4

  Source: Survey of VR Counselors.                        
  -------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------

consumers (64 percent of counselors listed this factor as important and
24 percent as most important), interpersonal skills (54 and 13 percent,
respectively), and formal education (43 and 18 percent, respectively).
One-third considered organizational skills important, and one-fourth the
training they received from the VR agency. Only five percent listed
those factors as most important, however.

## Counselors' Functions and Activities

We asked counselors to report on selected aspects of their activities
regarding their work with consumers and other activities. Their
responses appear in table 25. In terms of the distribution of their time
among casework activities, counselors reported spending about one-fourth
of their time per month completing file management and documentation
activities. They spent about 23 percent of their time in counseling and
guidance with consumers; 14 percent on IPE development and eligibility
determination, respectively; and 11 percent on job development and
placement services.

Counselors also spent time on service coordination, estimating that on
average they spend about 13 hours per week on interactions with service
providers arranging or coordinating services for consumers, and about
six hours per week on-site at service providers' locations. Most
counselors (70 percent) believed that their time on-site with providers
was adequate to ensure that services delivered to consumers were
consistent with their IPEs. In addition to consultation and coordination
with service providers, they consulted with other staff in their offices
and in their districts regarding individual consumers' IPEs and
services. For example, over half of the

+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555021 .anchor}Table 25.    |               |
| Functions and activities of VR Counselors, FY 1999   |               |
| (Weighted Estimate = 5,640)                          |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| **Function/activity**                                | **Time        |
|                                                      | allocated**   |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| ***Casework and other activities***                  | **Mean        |
|                                                      | percent time\ |
|                                                      | per month**   |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Eligibility determination                          | 13.7          |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Counseling and guidance                            | 22.7          |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Vocational evaluation                              | 8.0           |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > IPE development                                    | 14.1          |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Job development and placement                      | 11.1          |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > File management and documentation                  | 26.2          |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Other                                              | 12.3          |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| ***Service coordination activities***                | **Mean hours\ |
|                                                      | per week**    |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Interactions (e.g., meetings, phone) with service  | 13.1          |
| > providers to arrange or coordinate services for    |               |
| > consumers                                          |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > On-site at service providers' locations            | 5.6           |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > ** **                                              | **Percent**   |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Counselors report time on-site with providers is   | 70.4          |
| > adequate to ensure consumers' services are         |               |
| > consistent with IPEs                               |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Consultations with other VR local office staff     |               |
| > regarding individual consumers' plans and services |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > On a regular, formal basis                         | 53.5          |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Periodically as needed                             | 35.4          |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Rarely or never                                    | 11.1          |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Consultations with VR district staff regarding     |               |
| > individual consumers' plans and services           |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > On a regular, formal basis                         | 5.1           |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Periodically as needed                             | 63.0          |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Rarely or never                                    | 31.9          |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Counselors believe the size of their caseload      | 21.5          |
| > allows sufficient time with each consumer          |               |
| > throughout the VR experience                       |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Source: VR counselor questionnaire.                  |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+

counselors (54 percent) reported consulting with other office staff on a
regular, formal basis, while 35 percent reported such consultations
periodically as needed. Few counselors (only 5 percent) consulted
regularly with district-level staff, although nearly two-thirds (63
percent) reported such consultations periodically as the need arose.
Finally, in terms of availability of sufficient time to work with
individual consumers, only 22 percent of counselors believed that the
size of their caseload and their other responsibilities allowed them
sufficient time to spend with each consumer throughout his or her VR
experience.

## Counselors' Perspectives on Consumers' Outcomes

Finally, we asked counselors to identify indicators of consumers'
likelihood to achieve an employment outcome---the key outcome that most
offices measure to assess counselors' job performances. As shown in
table 26, most counselors listed a consumer's level of motivation to
succeed as the most important indicator of achievement of an employment
outcome. Nearly four-fifths (89 percent) listed this factor as
important, and over half (59 percent) listed it as the most important
factor. Other frequently mentioned indicators were the consumer's work
habits (66 percent listed this factor as important), work history (53
percent),[^13] and emotional stability (51 percent). Factors such as
type of disability, socioeconomic status and intellectual capacity were
viewed as less important to achievement of an employment outcome.

  --------------------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555022                           
  .anchor}Table 26. Counselors'                             
  Perspectives on Importance of                             
  Selected Indicators in Consumers'                         
  Likelihood to Achieve an                                  
  Employment Outcome, FY 1999                               
  (Weighted n = 5,640)                                      

  **Indicator**                     **Percent of all\       **Percent of all\
                                    counselors listing\     counselors listing\
                                    indicator as            indicator as most
                                    important**             important**

  Level of motivation to succeed    88.5                    58.5

  Work habits                       66.1                    7.8

  Work history                      52.8                    9.6

  Emotional stability               51.2                    7.6

  Occupational skills               34.2                    2.0

  Work tolerance                    33.2                    1.4

  Extent of family support          25.0                    0.8

  Personal and social history       24.9                    1.5

  Significance of disability        24.3                    1.4

  Educational level                 22.5                    2.1

  Intellectual capacity             18.0                    3.7

  Type of disability                15.1                    2.7

  Socioeconomic status              4.1                     0.4

  Gender                            0.9                     0.0

  Source: Survey of VR Counselors.                          
  --------------------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

## Office Culture

To obtain information on organizational culture and effectiveness within
VR offices, the study included items on these topics in surveys of VR
counselors and other office staff. The survey's theoretical framework
and items came from the research on organizational culture (e.g., Yeung,
Brockbank, and Ulrich, 1991). Following this theoretical framework,
which we adapted in response to the characteristics and imperatives of
the VR program as implemented at the local level, we conducted factor
analyses to develop reliable scales of climate and culture. These
analyses yielded two scales for organizational culture and one for
organizational cohesiveness/effectiveness. The first culture scale,
called "hierarchical/rational culture" (alpha = .93), included such
items as "This office is a very formal and structured place. People pay
attention to procedures to get things done," and "The glue that holds
this office together is formal rules and policies. Following rules is
important." The second culture scale, called "developmental/group
culture" (alpha = .92), includes such items as "This office emphasizes
growth through developing new ideas. Generating new products or services
is important," and "This office is a very personal place. It is like an
extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves." Scores on
each scale ranged from 1 to 5, with high scores indicating more of the
trait.

The organizational cohesiveness and effectiveness scale (alpha = .97)
measures counselors' and other office staff's perceptions of the office
environment, including cohesiveness of the office culture, teamwork and
responsiveness to change. The scale included 16 items, such as "This
office has a long-term purpose and direction" and "This office
continually adopts new and improved ways to do work." Scores ranged from
1 to 5, with high scores indicating higher levels of cohesiveness and
effectiveness.

Table 27 reports findings regarding office organizational culture and
effectiveness. For culture, offices were relatively above the midpoint
on hierarchical/rational culture (3.45 on a five‑point scale) and
slightly below that on developmental/group (3.15 on a five-point scale).
They ranged from around the midpoint to very high on both scales. For
organizational cohesiveness/ effectiveness, scores were about the same,
with an average of 3.46 and a range from 2.55 to 4.57 on a five-point
scale. As shown in the table, slightly over one-fourth of offices (27
percent) reported having a specialized management improvement
initiative, such as total quality management or quality circles, in
place. To examine the relationships between implementation of such
initiatives and organizational culture and climate, we conducted
analyses to examine whether such offices were relatively higher on any
of the office culture scales. We

  ---------------------------------------- ------------- ------------ ------------- -------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555023                                                   
  .anchor}Table 27. Overview of Local VR                                            
  Office Organizational Culture, FY 1999                                            

  ***Office organizational culture and     **Mean**      **Median**   **Minimum**   **Maximum**
  effectiveness***                                                                  

  Hierarchical/rational culture (alpha =   3.5           3.40         2.58          5.00
  .93)                                                                              

  Developmental/group culture (alpha =     3.15          3.05         2.21          4.63
  .92)                                                                              

  Organizational cohesiveness and          3.46          3.53         2.55          4.57
  effectiveness (alpha = .97)                                                       

                                           **Percent**                              

  Office has a specialized management      26.8                                     
  improvement initiative                                                            

  Source: Local Office Manager Survey.                                              
  ---------------------------------------- ------------- ------------ ------------- -------------

found no significant correlation between the presence of a management
improvement initiative and performance on the culture scales. Hence the
presence of such an initiative appears not to affect office culture.

## Relationships Between Office Characteristics and VR Outcomes

A key question of interest to RSA and VR practitioners, and one of the
central questions of the longitudinal study, is: **In what ways and to
what extent do the operations, resources and organizational climate of
VR agencies influence consumer services and outcomes?**

In the remainder of this chapter, we examine the relationships between
office characteristics and the services that consumers received during
their VR experience. A subsequent chapter related these factors to the
key consumer outcomes that the study had examined throughout, namely,
achievement of an employment outcome, achievement of competitive
employment, earnings from employ­ment, and receipt of health insurance
benefits through the job. The later chapter uses key office
characteristics along with consumer characteristics and environmental
factors as covariates in analysis of the relationships between services
and consumer outcomes at exit from VR.

To identify office characteristics that may influence the services that
consumers receive from VR, we conducted two logistic regression analyses
using as dependent variables selected services that prior research has
shown to be associated with positive employment outcomes at exit from VR
(*Second Final Report*). The first regression analysis predicted whether
consumers received any of a set of employment development and education
services (job development services, job placement services, on-the-job
training or job trials, business/vocational training, two-year or
community college, four-year college or university, or tutoring), and
the second predicted whether consumers received any of a set of support
services (assistive technology devices, assistive technology services,
driver training or licensing, tools/uniforms/equipment/stock or
maintenance).

The first regression analysis indicated a number of office
characteristics that were related to the likelihood that a VR consumer
would receive any of the employment development or education services
listed above. (Odds ratios are shown in Appendix A, table A-3.) Receipt
of these services was more likely in offices with higher ratios of
administrative to service staff, with higher average caseloads, with
more specialized caseloads, with quantified performance requirements for
employment outcomes, with monetary incentives for counselors, and with
high levels of organizational cohesiveness. Receipt of employment
development or education services was less likely in offices with a high
percentage of consumers with significant or most significant
disabilities, with other case service funds available, with a
developmental/group culture, and in offices in which counselors could
authorize some or all payments for services. This model accounted for
only 5 percent of the variance in receipt of employment development or
education services (R^2^ = .0497), however, suggesting that factors
other than office characteristics are likely to have a greater effect on
the types of services that consumers receive from VR than do the
characteristics tested in the model.

The second regression analysis revealed a number of environmental
factors that are related to the likelihood that a VR consumer would
receive any of the support services listed above. (Odds ratios are shown
in Appendix A, table A-4.) Receipt of these services was more likely in
offices with a higher case service budget per consumer and with higher
percentages of counselors with specialized caseloads. Receipt of these
services was less likely in offices with higher caseload sizes. This
model accounted for only 6 percent of the variance in receipt of support
services (R^2^ = .0554).

While the factors predicting receipt of services in the models described
above are statistically significant, they seem to have little practical
importance. Analyses conducted with various combinations of factors that
could conceivably influence the receipt of services did not yield
significant findings, leading to the conclusion---based on the low
amount of variance accounted for by any of these models---that office
factors are not the primary determinant of the types of services
consumers receive. Rather, the most important factors in service
patterns and thus in consumer outcomes are individual consumer
characteristics. However, as shown in the analyses reported in
chapter 3, in combination with consumer characteristics and
environmental factors, use of office characteristics as covariates
increases the power of regression analyses that predict which services
increase the likelihood that VR consumers will achieve employment and
related outcomes.

Based on the findings reported in this chapter as well as on prior
research regarding the role of office policies and practices in VR
performance, we have included selected characteristics as covariates in
analyses of VR services and outcomes, as specified in the study's
research questions. Office characteristics that are appropriate for this
purpose include:

-   Ratio of VR counselors to support staff;

-   Ratio of administrative staff to service staff;

-   Office and counselor caseload size;

-   Case service budget, including availability of other case service
    funds;

-   Specialized caseloads;

-   Counselor performance requirements and incentives;

-   Counselor decision-making; and

-   Organizational culture.

We will use these office characteristics as covariates that increase the
power of the regression analyses reported in chapter 3.

# Chapter 3  VR Services and Consumer Outcomes {#chapter-3-vr-services-and-consumer-outcomes .unnumbered}

An earlier volume in the series of final reports from the longitudinal
study (*Second Final* *Report*) examined the relationships between VR
services and key consumer outcomes, controlling for consumer
characteristics that we found (*First Final Report*) affected outcomes
that VR consumers achieved as a result of VR services. One of the key
purposes of the current report is to examine the context in which VR
offices deliver services to consumers throughout the nation and to
investigate the extent to which that context is related to VR outcomes.

Earlier chapters of this report have presented findings on the influence
of environmental factors on receipt of services (chapter 1) and the
influence of office characteristics on receipt of services (chapter 2).
In this chapter, we have used factors that we found in those earlier
analyses as additional covariates to examine further the relationships
between VR services and outcomes. That is, we have controlled for the
independent effects of not only consumer characteristics, but also
environmental factors and office characteristics to examine what
services may affect the likelihood that consumers will achieve positive
outcomes as a result of VR services. As with other such analyses, the
outcomes of interest include:

-   Achievement of an employment outcome;

-   Achievement of a competitive employment outcome;

-   Achievement of relatively higher earnings from employment; and

-   Receipt of health insurance benefits through employment.

Table 28 lists the covariates we have used in the analyses reported in
this chapter. As shown, among the characteristics of VR consumers for
which we controlled in the models are disability type, other disability
characteristics, receipt of financial assistance, psychosocial
characteristics, work history and selected demographic characteristics.
Office characteristics that the earlier analyses found to be consistent
predictors of service receipt and for which we therefore controlled in
these analyses included office profile (e.g., total caseload, case
service funds) and office policies/practices. Environmental factors that
we used as covariates included selected general population
characteristics, employment environment and availability of community
resources (e.g., mental health counseling, PWI).

+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555024           |                          |
| .anchor}Table 28. Covariates Used in      |                          |
| Analyses of the Relationships Between     |                          |
| Services and Outcomes                     |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **OFFICE CHARACTERISTICS**                | **CONSUMER               |
|                                           | CHARACTERISTICS**        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| ***Office Profile***                      | ***Disability Type***    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Total caseload size                       | Vision                   |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Total case service budget                 | Hearing impairment       |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Ratio of case service funds to caseload   | Nonorthopedic physical   |
| size                                      |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Number of specialized caseloads           | Mental illness           |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Ratio of counselors to support staff      | Mental retardation       |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Ratio of administrative to service staff  | Substance abuse          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| ***Office Practices***                    | Learning disability      |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Counselors have employment outcome        | Traumatic brain injury   |
| requirements                              |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
|                                           | Other                    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS**                 | ***Disability            |
|                                           | Characteristics***       |
| ***Population Characteristics***          |                          |
|                                           | Significance             |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           | ***Financial             |
|                                           | Assistance***            |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           | SSI/SSDI                 |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           | ***Psychosocial          |
|                                           | Characteristics***       |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           | Self-esteem              |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           | ***Work History***       |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           | Working at application   |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           | ***Demographic           |
|                                           | Characteristics***       |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           | Number of dependents     |
|                                           |                          |
|                                           | Nonwhite                 |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| > High school or greater                  |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Urban                                     |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Rural                                     |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Suburban                                  |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| ***Employment Environment***              |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| > Working in service occupations          |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| ***Community Resources***                 |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| > Transportation available                |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Mental health counseling available        |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Higher education available                |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Comprehensive rehab facility in state     |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Comprehensive rehab facility in other     |                          |
| state                                     |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| PWI available                             |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| *JTPA* available                          |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| ESC available                             |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| JWOD available                            |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+

In preparation for regression analyses, we identified three variables
(total caseload size, the ratio of case service funds to caseload size,
and the ratio of counselors to support staff) with distributions that
were substantially different from the normal distribution and
transformed these variables using a logarithmic transformation. In the
remainder of this chapter, we describe the results of these analyses.

## Achievement of an Employment Outcome

Figure 2 reports the results of our logistic regression analyses
regarding the relationship between services and the likelihood to
achieve an employment outcome, controlling for consumer characteristics,
environmental factors and office characteristics. The analyses revealed
a number of services that are related to an increased likelihood that a
VR consumer would achieve an employment outcome. (Odds ratios are shown
in Appendix A, table A-5). Specifically, the services shown in the
figure accounted for a significant of the variance in employment. At
exit from VR, these variables accounted for nearly 30 percent of the
variance (that is, R^2^ = .2707) in employment outcome, an impressively
high R^2^ value for social science research.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc114554635
.anchor}![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.5in" height="2.9875in"}Figure 2.
Services That Lead to Employment (R2 = .2707)

We need to interpret carefully the results of this and later analyses
because we cannot infer that these specific services would be of benefit
to all consumers in all environments. Specific consumers in the sample
received these services, presumably because the services were
appropriate to their needs and vocational goals. We believe that these
should be considered as potentially important services for consumers and
counselors to consider, unless they are inconsistent with the
individual's specific goals and needs.

With these cautions in mind, figure 2 suggests a number of implications.
First, having a good consumer-counselor relationship is important, as is
the flexibility to amend the IPE as needed to facilitate achievement of
the vocational goal. Especially important services in the categories of
employment development and education included job placement, supported
employment, on-the-job training, work adjustment training, participation
in business/vocational training, and enrollment in college or university
education, which increased the odds of an employment outcome. Receipt of
driver training/licensing services and the provision of job-related
materials such as tools, uniforms, equipment and stock improved the
likelihood of an employment outcome as well.

## Achievement of a Competitive Employment Outcome

The next outcome we considered was the achievement of competitive versus
noncompetitive employment. Competitive employment typically brings
higher average earnings, reduced dependency on financial assistance and
the potential for career advancement. The desirability of this outcome
for VR consumers is reflected in RSA's program evaluation standards and
indicators, most of which target this outcome and related measures. As
figure 3 depicts graphically, after controlling for consumer,
environmental and office characteristics, we found significant
relationships for several services. (Odds ratios are shown in Appendix
A, table A-6.)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc114554636 .anchor}Figure 3. Services That Lead to
Competitive Employment (R2 = .4698)

Services that contributed to the achievement of competitive employment
included the amendment of the IPE, as appropriate; receipt of job
placement services; and receipt of maintenance during VR. Two services,
independent living services and supported employment, reduced the odds
of competitive employment outcomes. We interpret this finding to mean
that individuals for whom independ­ent living or supported employment
services were needed were less likely to be able to be employed
initially in a competitive rather than in a noncompetitive position
rather than that the services were themselves detrimental to the
outcome. The predictive power of this model was very strong, as
represented by an R^2^ of .4698, explaining nearly half of the variance
in the outcome.

### Earnings

Services that we found to be important for the amount of earnings from
employment are somewhat different from those reported for employment or
competitive employment outcomes. As shown in figure 4, IPE amendment and
quality of the consumer-counselor relationship, significantly related to
competitive employment, also differentiated among earnings levels for
consumers who were working. Most notable, however, was the relationship
between participation in education or training and the likelihood of
higher earnings. Consumers who participated in business/vocational
training, two-year community college, and four-year university were
likely to have higher earnings than other working consumers, while those
who had received tutoring or work adjustment training were less likely
to earn at higher levels. Consumers receiving such services may have had
other characteristics associated with the lower earnings that were not
included in the model. Provision of tools, uniforms, equipment or stock
was also associated with higher earnings at exit from VR. As noted in
the figure, the R^2^ for this model was also relatively high (.3761),
explaining nearly 40 percent of the variance. (Odds ratios are shown in
Appendix A, table A-7.)

### Health Benefits

Participation in postsecondary training or education, an important
predictor of higher earnings, was also associated with greater
likelihood to receive health insurance benefits with the job, as was
receipt of maintenance during VR services. However, consumers who
received medical services or independent living services were less
likely than other working consumers to have employment that offered
health benefits. (Odds ratios are shown in Appendix A, table A‑8.) As
figure 5 shows, the R^2^ for this model is also very high for social
science research (.3761).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc114554637 .anchor}![](media/image2.wmf)Figure 4.
Services That Lead to Earnings Outcomes Employment (R2 = .3761)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc114554638 .anchor}Figure 5. Services That Lead to
Receipt of Health Benefits With Employment (R2 = .3794)

### Implications

Overall, these analyses confirmed the findings reported in the *Second
Final Report*. The types of services that we found related to positive
consumer outcomes when controlling for consumer characteristics only
were also predictive of consumer outcomes when we controlled for
additional factors---environmental and office characteristics. In the
analyses reported in this chapter, many of the specific services
remained in the predictive models, although some of the other specific
services failed to reach significance. The proportion of variance in the
outcomes for which the services and covariates accounted is impressively
large. That is, the R^2^s range from .27 to .46, higher than those
reported in the *Second Final Report*, which can be explained by the
addition of further covariates that are known to be related to the
outcomes.

In summary, our analyses found that a number of specific VR services
appeared to contribute to a consumer's likelihood to achieve outcomes
that are important goals of the VR program. An important part of
services leading to employment outcomes was a relationship between the
consumer and counselor that the consumer believes is productive and
helpful; other outcomes (competitive employment and higher earnings) are
enhanced by counselors' responsiveness to consumers' need to make
appropriate changes in the service plans as they progress through VR.
Enrollment in postsecondary education is particularly important in terms
of higher earnings and health benefits, and receipt of necessary support
services improves employment, earnings and health benefits outcomes. Our
models---controlling for environment, office characteristics and
consumer characteristics---indicate the utility of these services, along
with others, in leading to improved employment-related outcomes.

# Number range CHAPTERAppendix A  Tables of Odds Ratios {#number-range-chapterappendix-a-tables-of-odds-ratios .unnumbered}

+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555025 .anchor}Table A-1.     |             |
| Odds Ratios Predicting Receipt of Employment           |             |
| Development or Education Services Using Environmental  |             |
| Factors (R^2^ = .0623)                                 |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| **Variables**                                          | **Odds      |
|                                                        | ratios**    |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| ***Population characteristics***                       |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Prevalence of disability                             | \>999.999   |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > High school or greater                               | 81.839      |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Rural                                                | 0.700       |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Population density                                   | 1.000       |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| ***Employment environment***                           |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Unemployment rate                                    | 76.938      |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Working in service occupations                       | \<.001      |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Job opportunities increasing over last five years    | 0.495       |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| ***Community resources***                              |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Comprehensive rehabilitation facility in state       | 0.788       |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Comprehensive rehabilitation facility in neighboring | 1.354       |
| > state                                                |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555026 .anchor}Table A-2.     |             |
| Odds Ratios Predicting Receipt of Support Services     |             |
| Using Environmental Factors (R^2^ = .1493)             |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| **Variables**                                          | **Odds      |
|                                                        | ratios**    |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| ***Population characteristics***                       |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Prevalence of disability                             | \>999.999   |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > High school or greater                               | 120.813     |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Urban                                                | 0.728       |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Suburban                                             | 1.268       |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Population density                                   | 1.000       |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Nonwhite                                             | 12.163      |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| ***Employment environment***                           |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Unemployment rate                                    | 0.007       |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Working in service occupations                       | \>999.990   |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Job opportunities increasing over last five years    | 2.264       |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| ***Community resources***                              |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Better availability of rehabilitation service        | 1.272       |
| > providers                                            |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Comprehensive rehabilitation facility in state       | 0.455       |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| > Comprehensive rehabilitation facility in neighboring | 1.253       |
| > state                                                |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555027 .anchor}Table A-3. Odds  
  Ratios Predicting Receipt of Employment Development and  
  Education Services Using Office Characteristics          
  (R^2^ = .0497)                                           

  **Variables**                                            **Odds
                                                           ratios**

  Ratio of administrative to service staff                 2.685

  Percentage of caseload with significant or most          0.224
  significant disabilities                                 

  Average caseload size                                    1.009

  Size of specialized caseloads                            1.000

  Quantified performance requirement for employment        2.378
  outcomes                                                 

  Counselors offered monetary incentives for reaching or   2.041
  exceeding goals                                          

  Other case service funds available                       0.725

  Percent of counselors able to authorize all payments for 0.210
  services                                                 

  Percent of counselors able to authorize some payments    0.304
  for services                                             

  Developmental/group culture                              0.521

  Organizational cohesiveness                              1.364
  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555028 .anchor}Table A-4. Odds  
  Ratios Predicting Receipt of Support Services Using      
  Office Characteristics (R^2^ = .0554)                    

  **Variables**                                            **Odds
                                                           ratios**

  Average caseload size                                    0.990

  Case service budget per consumer                         1.000

  Percentage of counselors with specialized caseloads      2.018
  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555029 .anchor}Table    
  A-5. Odds Ratios Predicting Employment Outcome   
  at Closure Using Office Characteristics,         
  Environmental Factors, Consumer Characteristics  
  and Services Received (R^2^ = .2707)             

  **Variables**                                    **Employment outcome\
                                                   odds ratios**

  ***Case management services and relationship***  

  Quality of the consumer-counselor relationship   1.866

  IPE amendment                                    1.165

  ***Education and employment development          
  services***                                      

  Job placement                                    2.615

  Supported employment                             2.161

  On-the-job training                              2.317

  Business/vocational training                     1.109

  College/university                               1.137

  Work adjustment                                  1.399

  ***Mobility-related and other support            
  services***                                      

  Driver training/licensing                        2.754

  Tools/uniforms/equipment/stock                   1.578

  **Office characteristics**                       

  ***Office profile***                             

  Total caseload size                              0.938

  Ratio of case service funds to caseload size     0.909

  Number of specialized caseloads                  1.013

  Ratio of counselors to support staff             0.910

  Ratio of administrative to service staff         0.395

  ***Office practices***                           

  Counselors have 26 exit performance requirements 2.775

  **Environmental factors**                        

  ***Population characteristics***                 

  High school or greater                           1.146

  Urban                                            0.674

  Rural                                            0.709

  Suburban                                         0.638

  ***Employment environment***                     

  Working in service occupations                   893.269

  ***Community resources***                        

  Transportation available                         0.827

  Mental health counseling available               0.970

  Higher education available                       0.830

  Comprehensive rehabilitation facility in state   0.622

  Comprehensive rehabilitation facility in other   0.608
  state                                            

  PWI available                                    1.248

  *JTPA* available                                 0.249

  ESC available                                    2.650

  JWOD available                                   \*

  \*Numbers insufficient to support analysis.      
  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------

  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
  Table A-5. (*continued*)                          

  **Variables**                                     **Employment outcome\
                                                    odds ratios**

  **Consumer characteristics**                      

  ***Disability type***                             

  Vision                                            5.176

  Hearing impairment                                2.131

  Nonorthopedic physical                            0.986

  Mental illness                                    1.020

  Mental retardation                                2.140

  Substance abuse                                   1.118

  Learning disability                               0.855

  Traumatic brain injury                            0.644

  Other                                             2.035

  ***Disability characteristics***                  

  Significance                                      1.075

  ***Financial assistance***                        

  Supplemental Security Income/Social Security      0.468
  Disability Insurance                              

  ***Psychosocial characteristics***                

  Self-esteem                                       1.401

  ***Work history***                                

  Working at application                            2.470

  ***Demographic characteristics***                 

  Number of dependents                              1.034

  Nonwhite                                          0.787
  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------

  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555030 .anchor}Table     
  A-6. Odds Ratios Predicting Competitive           
  Employment at Closure Using Office                
  Characteristics, Environmental Factors, Consumer  
  Characteristics and Services Received (R^2^ =     
  .4698)                                            

  **Variables **                                    **Competitive
                                                    employment\
                                                    odds ratios**

  ***Case management services and relationship***   

  IPE amendment                                     1.347

  ***Education and employment development           
  services***                                       

  Job placement                                     2.078

  Supported employment                              0.556

  ***Mobility-related and other support services*** 

  Independent living services                       0.662

  Maintenance payments                              1.260

  **Office characteristics**                         

  ***Office profile***                              

  Total caseload size                               0.721

  Ratio of case service funds to caseload size      0.883

  Number of specialized caseloads                   1.003

  Ratio of counselors to support staff              1.451

  Ratio of administrative to service staff          2.619

  ***Office practices***                            

  Counselors have 26 exit performance requirements  2.430

  **Environmental factors**                         

  ***Population characteristics***                  

  High school or greater                            42.548

  Urban                                             0.419

  Rural                                             0.403

  Suburban                                          1.583

  ***Employment environment***                      

  Working in service occupations                    0.221

  ***Community resources***                         

  Transportation available                          0.620

  Mental health counseling available                1.221

  Higher education available                        1.341

  Comprehensive rehabilitation facility in state    2.896

  Comprehensive rehabilitation facility in other    0.232
  state                                             

  PWI available                                     1.065

  *JTPA* available                                  0.411

  ESC available                                     1.620

  JWOD available                                    \*

  \*Numbers insufficient to support analysis.       
  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------

  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
  Table A-6. (*continued*)                          

   Variables                                        Competitive
                                                    employment\
                                                    odds ratios

  **Consumer characteristics**                      

  ***Disability type***                             

  Vision                                            0.066

  Hearing impairment                                1.628

  Nonorthopedic physical                            0.809

  Mental illness                                    0.920

  Mental retardation                                0.302

  Substance abuse                                   0.916

  Learning disability                               1.214

  Traumatic brain injury                            1.757

  Other                                             2.124

  ***Disability characteristics***                  

  Significance                                      0.462

  ***Financial assistance***                        

  Supplemental Security Income/Social Security      0.539
  Disability Insurance                              

  ***Psychosocial characteristics***                

  Self-esteem                                       1.085

  ***Work history***                                

  Working at application                            1.729

  ***Demographic characteristics***                 

  Number of dependents                              1.160

  Nonwhite                                          5.451
  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------

  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555031 .anchor}Table     
  A-7. Regression Coefficients Predicting Earnings  
  at Closure Using Office Characteristics,          
  Environmental Factors, Consumer Characteristics   
  and Services Received\                            
  (R^2^ = .3761)                                    

  Variables                                         Earnings\
                                                    regression
                                                    coefficients

  ***Case management services and relationship***   

  Quality of the consumer-counselor relationship    0.388

  IPE amendment                                     -0.415

  ***Education and employment development           
  services***                                       

  Business/vocational training                      0.314

  Two-year/community college                        0.388

  Four-year college/university                      0.441

  Tutoring                                          -6.265

  Work adjustment                                   -0.385

  ***Mobility-related and other support services*** 

  Tools/uniforms/equipment/stock                    0.381

  **Assistive technology devices**                  **0.464**

  **Office characteristics**                         

  ***Office profile***                              

  Total caseload size                               0.297

  Ratio of case service funds to caseload size      -1.859

  Number of specialized caseloads                   -0.158

  Ratio of counselors to support staff              -4.136

  Ratio of administrative to service staff          -6.990

  ***Office practices***                            

  Counselors have 26 exit performance requirements  5.823

  **Environmental factors**                         

  ***Population characteristics***                  

  High school or greater                            17.542

  Urban                                             3.159

  Rural                                             2.363

  Suburban                                          1.067

  ***Employment environment***                      

  Working in service occupations                    42.262

  ***Community resources***                         

  Transportation available                          1.107

  Mental health counseling available                -0.650

  Higher education available                        -0.144

  Comprehensive rehabilitation facility in state    -1.854

  Comprehensive rehabilitation facility in other    2.937
  state                                             

  PWI available                                     -1.102

  *JTPA* available                                  1.890

  ESC available                                     0.595

  JWOD available                                    -4.982
  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------

  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
  Table A-7. (continued)                            

  Variables                                         **Earnings\
                                                    regression
                                                    coefficients**

  **Consumer characteristics**                      

  ***Disability type***                             

  Vision                                            -1.179

  Hearing impairment                                -0.277

  Nonorthopedic physical                            -0.030

  Mental illness                                    -0.063

  Mental retardation                                -1.942

  Substance abuse                                   -0.326

  Learning disability                               -1.505

  Traumatic brain injury                            0.145

  Other                                             -1.589

  ***Disability characteristics***                  

  Significance                                      0.058

  ***Financial assistance***                        

  Supplemental Security Income/Social Security      -1.190
  Disability Insurance                              

  ***Psychosocial characteristics***                

  Self-esteem                                       0.782

  ***Work history***                                

  Working at application                            0.733

  ***Demographic characteristics***                 

  Number of dependents                              0.283

  Nonwhite                                          8.571
  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------

  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc114555032 .anchor}Table     
  A-8. Odds Ratios Predicting Receipt of Health     
  Benefits at Closure Using Office Characteristics, 
  Environmental Factors, Consumer Characteristics   
  and Services Received (R^2^ = .3761)              

  Variables                                         Health benefits\
                                                    odds ratios

  ***Education and employment development           
  services***                                       

  Business/vocational training                      1.232

  Two-year/community college                        1.120

  Four-year college/university                      1.215

  ***Mobility-related and other support services*** 

  Independent living services                       0.411

  Maintenance payments                              1.210

  ***Medical and psychosocial services***           

  Medical services                                  0.887

  **Office characteristics**                        

  ***Office profile***                              

  Total caseload size                               1.745

  Ratio of case service funds to caseload size      1.970

  Number of specialized caseloads                   0.969

  Ratio of counselors to support staff              1.452

  Ratio of administrative to service staff          7.309

  ***Office practices***                            

  Counselors have 26 exit performance requirements  0.893

  **Environmental factors**                         

  ***Population characteristics***                  

  High school or greater                            0.506

  Urban                                             0.342

  Rural                                             0.746

  Suburban                                          12.334

  ***Employment environment***                      

  Working in service occupations                    \<0.001

  ***Community resources***                         

  Transportation available                          0.798

  Mental health counseling available                0.358

  Higher education available                        2.501

  Comprehensive rehabilitation facility in state    1.040

  Comprehensive rehabilitation facility in other    2.432
  state                                             

  PWI available                                     0.449

  *JTPA* available                                  1.028

  ESC available                                     0.497

  JWOD available                                    \*

  \*Numbers insufficient to support analysis.       
  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------

  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
  Table A-8. (*continued*)                          

  Variables                                         **Health benefits\
                                                    odds ratios**

  **Consumer characteristics**                      

  ***Disability type***                             

  Vision                                            0.792

  Hearing impairment                                1.604

  Nonorthopedic physical                            0.760

  Mental illness                                    0.626

  Mental retardation                                0.256

  Substance abuse                                   0.678

  Learning disability                               1.356

  Traumatic brain injury                            0.738

  Other                                             0.417

  ***Disability characteristics***                  

  Significance                                      0.939

  ***Financial assistance***                        

  Supplemental Security Income/Social Security      0.558
  Disability Insurance                              

  ***Psychosocial characteristics***                

  Self-esteem                                       1.211

  ***Work history***                                

  Working at application                            1.434

  ***Demographic characteristics***                 

  Number of dependents                              1.068

  Nonwhite                                          773.320
  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------

> ![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.5in" height="1.5055555555555555in"}

[^1]: Attrition subsequently reduced the number of participating offices
    to 37.

[^2]: Longitudinal Study of the Vocational Rehabilitation Services
    Program. *Second Final Report: VR Services and Outcomes* (RTI
    International, 2003), p. 6-6. These data report occupational type
    for VR consumers, while office managers estimated the distribution
    at the office level.

[^3]: Tables in Appendix A list variables included in the analyses from
    each domain: consumer characteristics, services, environmental
    factors and office characteristics.

[^4]: Attrition reduced the number of participating offices to 37.

[^5]: This number does not include satellite offices in which many local
    and district offices house counselors and other staff to make
    services more geographically accessible to VR consumers.

[^6]:  Deming, William. (1986). *Out of the Crisis*. (Cambridge, Mass.:
    MIT Press, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.)

[^7]: In linear regression models, the coefficient of determination
    (R^2^) uses the total sums of squares and the error sums of squares.
    Since these two numbers do not exist for logistic regression,
    computation of the coefficient of determination is more problematic.
    Several researchers have proposed formulae for calculating this
    coefficient (Demaris, 1992). In this paper, we used the following
    formula (SAS Institute, 1999):

    > R^2^ = (1--{*L*(**0**)/*L*(***β***)}^2*/n*^
    >
    > 1-- {*L*(**0**)}^2/*n*^

    where *L*(**0**) is the likelihood of the intercept only model,
    *L*(***β***) is the likelihood of the specified model, and *n* is
    the sample size. Demaris, A. (1992). *Logit modeling: Practical
    applications* (Sage University paper series on Quantitative
    Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-086). Newbury
    Park, CA: Sage.

[^8]: For aggregate caseload information, the study collected detailed
    information for FY 1993, the latest year for which these data were
    available at the initiation of data collection in December 1994.
    Given the burden of these items, office managers were not always
    willing to provide this information annually in later years of the
    study, so these data reflect caseload configuration early in the
    study's data collection period. All other information reported in
    this chapter and elsewhere in this report comes from administration
    of the survey at the end of the data collection period, FY 1999.

[^9]: An order of selection consists of a list of priority categories
    developed by the state VR agency and implemented when the agency
    cannot provide the full range of VR services, as appropriate, to all
    eligible individuals. The agency may not be able to fully serve all
    individuals because of a shortage of funds, personnel or both.
    Eligible individuals are assigned to and selected from priority
    categories based on the significance of their disability. When
    selecting individuals for services, first priority is given to
    individuals with the most significant disabilities. The
    implementation of an order of selection should prevent depletion of
    agency resources before the end of the fiscal year, assuring that
    those who have started to receive services will continue to receive
    all needed services. (Section 101(a)(5) of the *Rehabilitation Act
    of 1973*; 34 CFR 361.36(a)(2); 361.42(g))

[^10]: Nearly four-fifths (79 percent) of counselors reported that the
    size of their caseload prevented their spending sufficient time with
    individual consumers throughout their VR services.

[^11]: The *Second Final Report* provides extensive information on costs
    of purchased services, by service, for services that VR purchases on
    behalf of consumers. It also contains findings on estimated costs of
    services arranged under comparable benefits, as well as some
    information on services that VR staff provide directly to consumers.

[^12]: Chapter 2 of the *Second Final Report* contains a section on the
    VR process that reports detailed information on the
    consumer-counselor relationship. We do not repeat these findings
    here, but instead provide information on office-focused
    characteristics including policies relevant to counselor
    performance, activities associated with the performance of job
    responsibilities, and counselors= perspectives on their role and the
    factors associated with performing that role.

[^13]: Analyses of employment outcomes in Reports 1 and 2 demonstrated
    empirically that work history is an important predictor of
    employment outcomes.