Report to Congressional Committees

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

September 2005 VOCATIONAL 

REHABILITATION 

Better Measures and 

Monitoring Could 

Improve the 

Performance of the 

VR Program 

GAO-05-865 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-865.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robert E. 

Robertson at (202) 512-7215 or 

robertsonr@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-865, a report to

congressional committees 

September 2005

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Better Measures and Monitoring Could 

Improve the Performance of the VR 

Program 

Of the more than 650,000 individuals exiting the state VR programs in fiscal 

year 2003, one-third (217,557) obtained a new job or maintained their 

existing job for at least 90 days after receiving services. Education’s data 

showed that the remaining two-thirds exited the VR program without 

employment most often because the individual refused services or failed to 

cooperate with the VR counselor (46 percent of the time) or could not be 

located or contacted (24 percent). The VR program purchased more than 

$1.3 billion in services for all individuals who exited the program in fiscal 

year 2003, two-thirds of which were used to provide services to individuals 

exiting with employment. Employment, earnings, and the amount of 

purchased services received while in the VR program varied significantly by 

individuals’ disability type and other characteristics. In addition, state VR 

agencies varied substantially in the employment rates they achieved, the 

characteristics of individuals they served, their frequency of providing 

certain services, and their service expenditures. 

Individuals Exiting the VR Program, Fiscal Year 2003 

.

Percent

Source: GAO analysis of Education data.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

With

employment

Without

employment 20 22 24

33

During the application phase After limited services After services under 

an employment plan

Education’s performance measures are not comprehensive, and its 

monitoring of state VR agencies has not resulted in timely feedback. 

Education does not comprehensively measure the performance of certain 

key populations, such as students transitioning from school to work, and 

tracks only the individuals who exit the program, not those still receiving 

services. In addition, Education’s performance measures do not take into 

consideration all the variation among the state VR agencies or allow for 

comparisons with other workforce programs. Education’s monitoring 

reports, which are its primary means of providing feedback to state VR 

agencies, are frequently late and based on data that are more than 2 years 

old. Consequently, state VR agencies do not receive the timely feedback 

needed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their programs. In 

managing the performance of the VR program, Education also does not 

censure poorly performing state VR agencies, reward strong performance, or 

take full advantage of opportunities to disseminate best practices. Education 

recently decided to eliminate its regional offices, which conducted most of 

the monitoring of state VR agencies, making the details of the future 

monitoring process unclear. 

The Department of Education 

(Education) provides more than 

$2.5 billion annually to the states 

for a federal-state vocational 

rehabilitation (VR) program to help 

individuals with disabilities 

become employed. This program is 

among a large number of federal 

programs intended to assist people 

with disabilities. In 2003 GAO 

placed federal disability programs 

on its list of high-risk programs 

because many of these programs 

have not kept up with scientific 

advances and economic and social 

changes. GAO prepared this report 

under the Comptroller General’s 

authority as part of an effort to 

assist policy makers in determining 

how federal disability programs 

could more effectively meet the 

needs of individuals with 

disabilities and addressed it to each 

committee of jurisdiction. In this 

report, GAO assesses the (1) extent 

to which state VR agencies assist 

individuals in achieving 

employment, and (2) performance 

measures and monitoring practices 

Education uses to manage this 

decentralized program and achieve 

legislative goals. 

What GAO Recommends

Education agreed that better 

measures and monitoring could 

improve the performance of the VR 

program, as GAO recommended. 

These recommendations included 

aligning performance measures 

with program goals and developing 

a better monitoring process that 

includes timelier feedback to state 

VR agencies. 
Page i GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 4 

One-Third of Individuals Exited the VR Program Nationwide with 

Employment, although Employment Rates Varied Significantly 

among State VR Agencies 11 

Education’s VR Performance Measures Are Not Comprehensive, 

and Its Monitoring of State VR Agencies’ Performance Has Not 

Resulted in Timely Feedback 30 

Conclusions 37 

Recommendations for Executive Action 39 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 40 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 42 

Appendix II State VR Agency Exit and Employment Rates, 

Fiscal Year 2003 45 

Appendix III State VR Agency Population Proportions by Primary 

Impairment, Fiscal Year 2003 48 

Appendix IV Social Security Beneficiaries’ Employment Rates by 

State VR Agency, Fiscal Year 2003 51 

Appendix V State VR Agency Percentages of Total Agency Service 

Budget Spent on Each Service Category, Fiscal 

Year 2003 54 

Appendix VI State VR Agency Total Administrative Costs as a 

Percentage of Total Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003 60 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Appendix VII State VR Agency Average Total Expenditures in 

Fiscal Year 2003 Per Person Exiting with Employment 

in Fiscal Year 2003 63 

Appendix VIII Comments from the Department of Education 66 

Appendix IX GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 73 

Tables 

Table 1: Performance Indicators and Performance Targets for State 

VR Agencies 9 

Table 2: Time in Program, Number of Services, and Cost of 

Services by Type of Exit from the VR Program, Fiscal Year 

2003 15 

Table 3: Percentage of Individuals in the VR Program Receiving 

Services by Each of the 22 Service Categories Tracked by 

Education, Fiscal Year 2003 16 

Table 4: Transitioning Students Exiting the VR Program with 

Employment after Services under an Employment Plan, 

Fiscal Year 2003 23 

Table 5: Per Capita Service Costs by Each Type of State VR 

Agency, Fiscal Year 2003 29 

Table 6: Blind or Visually Impaired Individuals Exiting with 

Employment from Blind State VR Agencies versus 

Combined State VR Agencies, Fiscal Year 2003 30 

Figures 

Figure 1: Individuals Exiting the VR Program, Fiscal Years 1997-

2003 6 

Figure 2: Individuals Exiting the VR Program, Fiscal Year 2003 12 

Figure 3: Reasons for Individuals Exiting the VR Program without 

Employment, Fiscal Year 2003 13 

Figure 4: Primary Impairments of Individuals Exiting the VR 

Program, Fiscal Year 2003 18 
Page iii GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Figure 5: Rates of Exit from the VR Program by Primary 

Impairment Group, Fiscal Year 2003 19 

Figure 6: Median Hourly Wage by Impairment Group among 

Individuals Exiting the VR Program with Employment 

who did Not Require Ongoing Support Services, Fiscal 

Year 2003 20 

Figure 7: Employment Status of Individuals Exiting the VR 

Program in Fiscal Year 2003 Who Previously Participated 

in the VR Program 21 

Abbreviations 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

IEP individualized education program 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool 

RSA Rehabilitation Services Administration 

VR vocational rehabilitation 

WIA Workforce Investment Act 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

September 23, 2005 

The Honorable Michael B. Enzi 

Chairman 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

 and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John A. Boehner 

Chairman 

The Honorable George Miller 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

The Department of Education (Education) provides more than $2.5 billion 

annually to the states for a federal-state vocational rehabilitation (VR) 

program to help individuals with disabilities become employed, consistent 

with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In fiscal year 2003, these state 

programs provided services to more than 1 million individuals with 

disabilities. Although Education provides more than three-quarters of the 

program’s funding, states have significant latitude in how they administer 

their VR programs. 

In the past several years, key legislative changes have been enacted 

relating to the VR program. For example, the Rehabilitation Act was 

reauthorized as part of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998, when 

VR became 1 of 17 mandated partners in state workforce investment 

systems. In addition, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives 

Improvement Act of 1999 expanded the types of rehabilitation services 

available to Social Security disability beneficiaries by providing for 

privatized services in a market previously dominated by the public VR 

program. 

More recently, in 2003, we placed the modernization of federal disability 

programs on our list of high-risk programs because many of these 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

programs have yet to incorporate scientific advances and economic and 

social changes that have redefined the relationship between impairments 

and the ability to work.1

 In addition, these programs have faced longstanding challenges in ensuring the timeliness and consistency of 

decisions related to benefits and services for people with disabilities. We 

have prepared this report under the Comptroller General’s authority as 

part of a continued effort to help policy makers better understand the 

extent of support provided by federal programs to people with disabilities 

and to assist them in determining how these programs could more 

effectively meet the needs of individuals with disabilities in the 21st 

century. As it may prove helpful in the deliberation of committees with 

jurisdiction over VR issues, we have addressed this report to each of these 

committees. In this report, we assess (1) the extent to which state VR 

agencies assist individuals in achieving employment and (2) the 

performance measures and monitoring practices Education uses to 

manage this decentralized program and achieve legislative goals. 

To perform our review, we analyzed data from two datasets maintained by 

Education, one a record of the cases for all individuals who exited the VR 

program after their cases were closed during fiscal year 2003 (the most 

recent year for which data were available for us to use in time for 

production of this report) and the other a record of the expenditures for 

each state VR agency in fiscal year 2003. We determined that the data we 

used were sufficiently reliable for our purposes by performing electronic 

testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, reviewing 

available documentation, and interviewing Education and state VR agency 

officials knowledgeable about the data. We also reviewed relevant laws, 

regulations, Education’s policy documents relating to the VR program, and 

the required state plans for each state VR agency’s program. Further, we 

interviewed key program officials at the national and regional levels, 

selected state VR agency officials, and advocates for people with 

disabilities. Finally, we conducted site visits to state VR agencies in 

California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Virginia. 

We selected these sites to achieve a mix of state VR agency structures, 

operations, and performance as well as to achieve geographic diversity. 

We conducted our review from August 2004 through September 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. For a 

more complete explanation of our methodology, see appendix I. 

 1

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119 (Washington, DC: January 2003). 
Page 3 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Of the more than 650,000 individuals exiting the state VR programs in 

fiscal year 2003, one-third (217,557) obtained a new job or maintained their 

existing job for at least 90 days after receiving customized services. 

Education’s data showed that the remaining two-thirds exited the VR 

program without employment most often because the individual refused 

services or failed to cooperate with the VR counselor (46 percent of the 

time) or could not be located or contacted (24 percent). The VR program 

purchased more than $1.3 billion in services for all individuals who exited 

the program in fiscal year 2003, two-thirds of which was used to provide 

services to individuals exiting with employment. Employment, earnings, 

and the amount of purchased services received while in the VR program 

varied significantly by individuals’ type of disability and other 

characteristics. In addition, state VR agencies varied substantially in the 

employment rates they achieved, the characteristics of individuals they 

served, their frequency of providing certain services, and their service 

expenditures. For example, state VR agency employment rates ranged 

from 20 to 74 percent in fiscal year 2003. 

Education’s performance measures are not comprehensive, and its 

monitoring of state VR agencies has not resulted in timely feedback. 

Education does not comprehensively measure the performance of certain 

key populations, such as students transitioning from school to work, and 

tracks only the individuals who exit the program, not those still receiving 

services. In addition, the performance targets Education sets for state VR 

agencies do not take into consideration all the demographic or economic 

variations among states. Further, Education’s performance measures do 

not allow for comparison of the VR program with other workforce 

programs. Education’s monitoring reports, which are its primary means of 

providing feedback to state VR agencies, are issued over 2 years after 

performance data have been collected. Consequently, state VR agencies do 

not receive the timely feedback needed to improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of their programs. In managing the performance of the VR 

program, Education also does not censure poor performers, reward strong 

performers, or take full advantage of opportunities to disseminate best 

practices to the state VR agencies. As part of its larger reorganization, 

Education recently decided to eliminate its regional offices, which 

conducted most of the monitoring of state VR agencies, making the details 

of the future monitoring process unclear. 

We are making several recommendations to Education so that it can 

improve its oversight of state VR agencies and help them most effectively 

target their resources to achieve better employment rates. In this regard, 

we recommend that Education reevaluate its performance measures to 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

ensure better alignment with program goals and develop a better 

monitoring process that includes timelier and more effective feedback to 

state VR agencies. In commenting on the report, Education indicated that 

it is in full agreement that better measures and monitoring could improve 

the performance of the VR program. In addition, Education highlighted 

initiatives either planned or under way to improve the management of the 

VR program. 

Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 authorizes a federal-state VR 

program to provide services to persons with disabilities so that they may 

prepare for and engage in gainful employment.2

 Education provided an 

estimated $2.6 billion in fiscal year 2005 in grants to the states and 

territories based on a formula that considers the state’s population and per 

capita income. Grants to individual states ranged from about $9 million to 

nearly $250 million. Four of the five territories received less than 

$3 million each. The act generally requires states to match federal funds at 

a ratio of 78.7 percent federal to 21.3 percent state dollars. 

Each state and territory designates a single VR agency to administer the 

VR program, except where state law authorizes a separate agency to 

administer VR services for individuals who are blind. Education provides a 

single Title I grant to each state. States authorizing a separate blind VR 

agency decide how the grant will be apportioned between the general VR 

agency and the blind VR agency. Education tracks the performance of 

80 state VR agencies—24 states have separate blind and general agencies; 

and 26 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories each have a 

single combined agency. The 80 state VR agencies are housed in various 

departments of state government, such as state departments of labor or 

education, or they may be free-standing agencies or commissions.3

 State 

VR agencies also vary in their operations and locations. For example, 

some agencies provide services through several offices located throughout 

the state, while others provide services through one central location. 

Education collects information about all individuals who exit each state 

VR agency’s program during a particular fiscal year, as reported by the 

 2

This legislation was most recently reauthorized as part of the Workforce Investment Act of 

1998. 

3

In this report, the term state VR agencies refers to agencies in the 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and the territories of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, 

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

80 state VR agencies. The record for each individual exiting the program 

includes information such as whether or not each individual became 

employed, the weekly earnings and hours worked for individuals if they 

exited the VR program with employment, the types and costs of services 

they received, and demographic factors, such as impairment type, gender, 

age, race and ethnicity, public benefits, and income from work at the time 

of application. Education also collects summary information on agency 

expenditures in a number of categories from each state VR agency. 

Education tracks individuals in terms of seven types of case closures, 

which can be collapsed into four categories, for individuals who 

• exited without employment, during the application phase (including 

individuals who were found ineligible; individuals who could not be 

determined to be eligible or ineligible for various reasons such as they 

could not be located or contacted, they failed to cooperate or they refused 

services; and individuals who were found eligible, but were placed on a 

waiting list); 

• exited without employment, with limited services (including individuals 

who were found eligible, but who left the program before an employment 

plan could be developed, or agreed to an employment plan, but left before 

receiving services under that plan);4

• exited without employment, after receiving services under an employment 

plan; and 

• exited with at least 90 days of employment, after receiving services under 

an employment plan. 

Education considers several types of work activities to meet its definition 

of employment. First, Education counts as employment the paid work 

activity of an individual, who may or may not require ongoing support 

services, in an integrated work setting, that is, a setting typically found in 

the community where individuals both with and without disabilities 

 4

State VR agencies are required to develop a written individualized plan for employment for 

each eligible individual that includes the specific employment goal, the rehabilitation 

services needed to achieve that goal, the entities that will provide the services, and the 

methods available for procuring the services. The plan must be agreed to and signed by the 

eligible individual or by the individual’s representative and approved by the VR counselor. 
Page 6 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

interact.5 Second, Education counts self-employment as employment, 

whether the business is managed by the eligible individual or the state VR 

agency. Finally, Education considers certain types of unpaid work activity 

to be employment, such as homemakers whose work activity is keeping 

house for themselves or others in their households and unpaid workers in 

a family business or family farm. 

While the total number of individuals exiting the VR program has 

increased slightly over the past several years, the number of individuals 

exiting with employment has remained relatively stable. (See fig. 1.) 

Figure 1: Individuals Exiting the VR Program, Fiscal Years 1997-2003 

State VR agencies that determine they will not be able to serve all eligible 

individuals who apply for services are required to state the order in which 

they will select individuals for services. Agencies using an order of 

selection process must develop criteria for ensuring that individuals with 

 5

In contrast, Education does not count as employment the work activity of individuals who 

perform their work for a public or nonprofit organization in a segregated or sheltered 

setting, that is, a setting in which the eligible individuals primarily interact with other 

individuals with disabilities. Education’s term for this is “extended employment.” 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Source: GAO analysis of Education data.

Fiscal year

Total exits

Exits with employment
Page 7 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

the most significant disabilities will be selected first for services. Thirtynine of the 80 state VR agencies were using an order of selection process 

in fiscal year 2003. Beginning fiscal year 2004, 42 of the agencies are using 

an order process. 

The Rehabilitation Act requires state VR agencies to enter into cooperative 

agreements with other entities that are part of the state’s workforce 

investment system. This workforce investment system includes a One-Stop 

system, which is required to provide a number of employment-related 

services to job seekers and employers at a single location. The act also 

requires state VR agencies to coordinate with public education officials to 

facilitate the transition of students with disabilities from school to work. 

Students with disabilities receive special education and related services 

from their school under an individualized education program (IEP). 

Beyond these required interactions, state VR agencies may also enter into 

third-party cooperative agreements with other state or local agencies to 

coordinate the services provided to their common program participants. 

Education must abide by several statutes and executive branch directives 

to measure and monitor the performance of the VR program. The 1998 

amendments to the Rehabilitation Act required that Education establish 

and publish evaluation standards and performance indicators for the VR 

program. The standards and indicators were supposed to include outcome 

and related measures of program performance that facilitate the 

accomplishment of the purpose and policy of the act. The act also gave 

Education the authority to reduce or suspend payments to state VR 

agencies that have performance falling below a certain level and fail to 

enter into a program improvement plan or substantially comply with the 

terms and conditions of such a plan. The act also directed Education to 

conduct annual review and periodic on-site monitoring of state VR 

agencies to determine, in part, whether they were complying with the 

standards and indicators. Education performs this monitoring function 

through the 10 regional offices of its Rehabilitation Services 

Administration (RSA). 

In response to the 1998 amendments, Education established new 

performance measures in June 2000 that consisted of two standards for 

evaluating the performance of the state VR agencies, one relating to the 

agencies’ performance in assisting individuals in obtaining, maintaining, or 

regaining high-quality employment and the other relating to the agencies’ 

performance in ensuring that individuals from minority backgrounds have 

equal access to services. In addition, Education published performance 

indicators that establish what constitutes minimum compliance with these 
Page 8 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

evaluation standards and required performance targets for each indicator. 

Six performance indicators were published for the employment standard, 

and one was published for the minority service standard. State VR 

agencies must meet or exceed performance targets in four of the six 

categories for the first standard and meet or exceed the performance 

target for the second standard in order to have passing performance. Table 

1 provides details on these standards and indicators. 
Page 9 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Table 1: Performance Indicators and Performance Targets for State VR Agencies 

 Performance target 

Performance Indicator 

General or combined 

state VR agencies 

Blind state VR 

agenciesa

1. Employment standard

1.1 Change in employment—the number of individuals exiting the 

VR program with employment in the current performance year 

compared with the number exiting with employment in the prior 

performance year 

Equal or exceed previous 

performance year 

Equal or exceed 

previous 

performance year 

1.2 Employment rate—percentage of individuals receiving services 

under an employment plan who exit the VR program with 

employment 

55.8% 68.9% 

1.3 Competitive employment rate—percentage of individuals exiting 

the VR program with employment who were competitively 

employedb

 

72.6% 35.4% 

1.4 Significant disability rate—percentage of individuals exiting the 

VR program with competitive employment who have significant 

disabilitiesc

 

62.4% 89.0% 

1.5 Wage Ratio—ratio of the average hourly earnings of individuals 

exiting the VR program with competitive employment to the 

average hourly earnings for all employed individuals in the state 

0.52 0.59 

1.6 Increase in self-support—the difference between the percentage 

of individuals exiting the VR program with competitive 

employment who report their own income as the largest single 

source of economic support at the time they exit the VR program 

and the percentage who report their own income as the largest 

single source of economic support at the time they apply for VR 

services 

53.0 30.4 

2. Equal access to services standard

2.1 The service rate for all individuals with disabilities from minority 

backgrounds as a ratio to the service rate for all non-minority 

individuals with disabilitiesd

 

0.80 0.80 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

a

Blind state VR agencies must report each year the aggregated data for the 2 previous years for 

performance indicators 1.1 through 1.6. 

b

Education defines competitive employment as work that is performed on a full-time or part-time basis 

in an integrated setting for which the individual is compensated at or above the minimum wage but 

not less than the customary wage and level of benefits paid by the employer for the same or similar 

work performed by individuals without disabilities. Education also counts in this category individuals 

whose earnings from self-employment are equivalent to at least the minimum wage. 

c

The Rehabilitation Act defines a significant disability as one that seriously limits one or more 

functional capacities and can be expected to require multiple VR services over an extended period of 

time. 

d

Education defines service rate as the result obtained by dividing the number of individuals who exit 

the VR program after receiving one or more services under an employment plan by the total number 

of individuals who exit the VR program. 
Page 10 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) also 

requires federal executive branch agencies such as the Department of 

Education to set goals, measure their performance, and report on their 

accomplishments. Agencies are required to develop annual performance 

plans that use performance measurement to reinforce the connection 

between the long-term strategic goals outlined in their strategic plans and 

the day-to-day activities of their managers and staff. Among its 

performance goals for fiscal year 2005, Education is assessing its 

performance in assisting state VR agencies to achieve required 

performance targets on one performance target—1.2. 

In 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed that the 

performance of a range of federal job training and employment programs 

be measured consistently to allow for the comparison of results across 

these programs. These common measures would be consistent with the 

common goals of these programs, that is, to improve participants’ 

employment and earnings and focus on measures of outcomes and 

efficiency. OMB identified the VR program as one of the federal programs 

that would be targeted for using the common measures. 

Using its Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), OMB assessed the 

effectiveness of the VR program in 2003 as part of its effort to hold federal 

agencies accountable for accomplishing results. The PART evaluation 

looks at four areas of assessment—program purpose and design, strategic 

planning, management, and results and accountability. Programs are rated 

in one of five categories: effective, moderately effective, adequate, 

ineffective or results not demonstrated. OMB will use the rating and 

relating findings to make decisions about budget and policy. OMB rated 

the effectiveness of the VR program as adequate and made 

recommendations to Education for improving program management and 

performance measures. As part of its assessment, OMB reviewed 

Education’s performance indicators 1.2, 1.3, and 1.5. 
Page 11 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

More than 217,000 individuals with disabilities exited the state VR 

programs with employment in fiscal year 2003 after receiving customized 

services. This group represents one-third of the 650,543 individuals who 

left the program nationwide in fiscal year 2003 after submitting an 

application for services. The most common reasons that the remaining 

two-thirds of the individuals left the program without a job were that the 

individual refused services, failed to cooperate, or could not be located or 

contacted. State VR agencies collectively purchased more than $1.3 billion 

in services for all individuals who exited the program in fiscal year 2003, 

two-thirds of which was used to provide services to individuals exiting 

with employment. Employment, earnings, and the amount of purchased 

services received while in the VR program varied significantly by 

individuals’ type of disability and other characteristics. In addition, the 

state VR agencies varied substantially in the employment rates they 

achieved, the characteristics of individuals they served, their frequency of 

providing certain services, and their service expenditures. 

Of the more than 650,000 individuals exiting the VR program in fiscal year 

2003, one-third (217,557) obtained a new job or maintained their existing 

job for at least 90 days after receiving customized services.6

 (See fig. 2.) 

Most of these individuals (94 percent) exited the program with jobs that 

paid at least their state’s minimum wage, but about half of them worked 

less than 40 hours per week. Overall, individuals who exited the VR 

program with employment earned a median income of $271 per week, or 

the equivalent of $14,092 per year. In addition, 30 percent of these 

individuals (65,832) were already working when they applied to the 

program, and they increased their median earnings from $225 to $300 per 

week between program entry and exit.7

 One state VR agency official noted 

that this figure may, however, underestimate the actual value of VR 

 6

In this report we calculate the employment rate as the percentage of individuals who 

exited with employment after at least 90 days out of all the individuals who exited the VR 

program in fiscal year 2003. Education calculates the employment rate in a different 

manner, reporting it as the percentage of individuals who exited with employment after at 

least 90 days out of the group of individuals who received services under an employment 

plan. Education’s rate is different from the employment rate we are using because 

Education does not include those individuals who exited without employment during the 

application phase or after limited services. Education’s rate was 58 percent nationwide in 

fiscal year 2003. 

7

We are not able to adjust for inflation because individuals entered the VR program at 

different times. However, most individuals (75 percent) who exited the program in fiscal 

year 2003 entered the program less than 2 years previously. 

One-Third of 

Individuals Exited the 

VR Program 

Nationwide with 

Employment, 

although Employment 

Rates Varied 

Significantly among 

State VR Agencies 

One-Third of Individuals 

Exited the VR Program 

Nationwide with 

Employment in Fiscal Year 

2003 
Page 12 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

services extended to individuals working at both program entry and exit. 

For example, the VR program will pay for services such as vehicle 

modifications and repairs necessary to help some individuals maintain 

transportation to and from existing jobs, but these individuals typically do 

not experience any earnings increase between program entry and exit. 

Figure 2: Individuals Exiting the VR Program, Fiscal Year 2003 (n = 650,643) 

Note: Numbers do not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

Overall, two-thirds (433,086) of individuals exited the VR program without 

employment at some point following their initial application to the 

program.8

 Of those who exited without employment in fiscal year 2003, 

 8

Almost one-quarter of these individuals had their cases closed without employment 

because state VR agencies could not locate or contact them. As a result, the employment 

status of these individuals was actually unknown at the time of their case closure. It is 

possible that some of these individuals may have found work between their last contact 

with the VR program and when the program actually closed their case. 

Percent

During the application phase

After limited services

After services under an employment plan

Source: GAO analysis of Education data.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

With

Without

 employment

 employment

20

22

24

33
Page 13 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

most did so because they refused services or failed to cooperate with their 

VR counselor (46 percent of the time) or could not be located or contacted 

(24 percent). (See fig. 3.) One state VR agency official told us that the VR 

program has historically closed a large number of cases because 

individuals cannot be located or contacted. However, she also noted that 

individuals with disabilities coming to the VR program are often a 

transient population with high rates of poverty and other multiple 

barriers—issues that can require more time and priority than notifying VR 

counselors that they have moved. 

Figure 3: Reasons for Individuals Exiting the VR Program without Employment, 

Fiscal Year 2003 (n=433,086) 

Note: Numbers do not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

a

Because these individuals could not be located or contacted, their employment status was actually 

unknown at the time of their VR case closure. It is possible that some of these individuals may have 

found work between their last contact with the VR program and when the program actually closed 

their case. 

b

The category of “Other” includes individuals who exited because of institutionalization, transfer to 

other state VR agencies, death, transportation problems, unavailability of extended services, 

extended employment, or “all other” reasons (in 17 percent of all cases). There is no separate 

category for individuals who were unable to find a job or keep a job. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

Disability too

No disabling condition,

Otherb

Unable to locatea

or contact 

Failed to cooperate

Percent

Source: GAO analysis of Education data.

46

24

22

6

3

or refused services

 impediment to employment

 or need for VR services

 significant
Page 14 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Of those who exited during the application phase in fiscal year 2003, the 

majority (105,955) left before an eligibility determination could be made, 

and relatively few (26,563) left because the VR program found them 

ineligible. Specifically, Education’s data show that 20 percent of 

individuals who exited during the application phase were found ineligible: 

2 percent had disabilities deemed too significant to benefit from services, 

and 18 percent had no disabling condition, impediment to employment, or 

need for VR services. 

Overall, the VR program invested nearly two-thirds ($872 million) of its 

$1.3 billion in purchased services on individuals who achieved or retained 

employment upon exiting the program in fiscal year 2003. State VR 

agencies also spent nearly $200 million on individuals who subsequently 

exited the program without employment because they failed to cooperate 

or refused services, and $112 million was spent on those whom state VR 

agencies were unable to locate or contact. As shown in table 2, individuals’ 

average length of time in the program, number of services, and cost of 

purchased services received varied by each of the four exit categories. 

However, the amounts of purchased services reported by state VR 

agencies do not reflect the total cost of services provided to individuals in 

the VR program.9

 For example, state VR agencies do not report the cost of 

counselor time spent with each individual or the cost of services arranged 

for by the state VR agency but paid for by other sources.10 In addition, the 

amounts of purchased services do not reflect the amounts that individuals 

are required to pay for certain services at the majority of state VR agencies 

if they demonstrate the financial ability to do so.11

 9

A study in the late 1980s found that the total dollar cost for all types of services provided 

to VR individuals was actually two to three times greater than the cost of purchased 

services alone. (See M. Berkowitz et al., Enhanced Understanding of the Economics of 

Disability, final report submitted to the National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research, Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Department of Rehabilitative Services, 1988, 

chapter 5). 

10VR agencies are required to utilize certain “comparable” services or benefits, if available, 

in part or in whole through any other program, before providing or paying for those 

services through the VR program. Services provided and/or paid for by other entities are 

included in Education’s data as services furnished to an individual while in the VR program. 

11According to the fiscal year 2003 state plans submitted by each agency to Education, a 

majority of state VR agencies maintain a financial needs test to determine individuals’ level 

of financial participation for certain VR services. 
Page 15 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Table 2: Time in Program, Number of Services, and Cost of Services by Type of Exit from the VR Program, Fiscal Year 2003 

 

Exited without 

employment, during 

the application 

phase

(n = 132,518)

Exited without 

employment, after 

limited services

(n = 145,868)

Exited without 

employment, after 

services under an 

employment plan 

(n = 154,700) 

Exited with 

employment, after 

services under an 

employment plan

(n = 217,557)

Time in program Median 77 days 252 days 667 days 465 days

 Mean 142 days 349 days 880 days 699 days

Number of services 

(purchased and not 

purchased) 

Median 

0 1 3 4

 Mean 0.6 1.4 3.5 4.2

Cost of all purchased 

services 

Median 

 0 $16 $900 $2,010

 Mean $109 $280 $2,659 $4,008

Total cost of all 

purchased services $14 million $41 million $411 million $872 million

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

Services received by individuals in the VR program varied both by whether 

they exited the program with employment after receiving services under 

an employment plan and whether they were employed at entry to the 

program. Regardless of whether they were working at application, 

individuals who received services under an employment plan but exited 

the VR program without employment received fewer job-related services, 

such as job search, job placement, or on-the-job supports than individuals 

who exited with employment. (See table 3.) In general, individuals not 

working when they applied to the VR program received more services than 

those who were already working when they applied to the program. 

However, individuals already working were more likely to receive 

diagnosis and medical treatment of their impairment as well as 

rehabilitation technology. 
Page 16 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Table 3: Percentage of Individuals in the VR Program Receiving Services by Each of the 22 Service Categories Tracked by 

Education, Fiscal Year 2003 

Exited with employment, after services 

under an employment plan 

Exited without employment, after services 

under an employment plan 

Not working at 

application

(n = 151,711)

Working at 

application

 (n = 65,832)

Not working at 

application 

 (n = 136,006) 

Working at 

application

 (n = 18,652)

Assessment 69 68 66 66

Vocational counseling and 

guidance 65 65 60 60

Job placement assistance 41 20 21 16

Diagnosis and medical 

treatment of impairment 38 56 35 40

Job search assistance 37 19 22 16

Transportation services 31 16 29 20

Other services 27 20 20 17

On-the-job supports 21 12 12 9

Maintenance 17 11 12 11

Occupational or vocational 

training 17 9 14 12

College or university training 15 10 14 17

Job readiness training 15 5 11 5

Information and referral 14 15 11 12

Miscellaneous training 14 10 11 10

On-the-job training 6 3 3 2

Rehabilitation technology 6 19 4 7

Disability-related augmentative 

skills training 4 6 3 3

Technical assistance services 4 5 3 4

Basic academic remedial or 

literacy training 2 1 2 1

Interpreter services 1 1 1 1

Personal attendant services < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Reader services < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

Individuals may also benefit from the VR program in important 

nonmonetary ways, aside from employment and earnings. For example, 

regardless of whether individuals leave the VR program with employment, 

they may increase their educational level, psychological or physical 

functioning, productivity in the work setting, independence for self or 
Page 17 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

family members, or integration into the community as a result of receiving 

VR services. However, Education does not collect data on any 

nonmonetary benefits that individuals achieve through the VR program 

aside from educational gains and identification of homemakers and unpaid 

family workers. Moreover, it is difficult to measure the actual influence of 

the VR program in assisting individuals to obtain these benefits, 

employment in general, or any wage increases.12

Individuals exiting the VR program in fiscal year 2003 had a variety of 

primary impairments, and individuals with mental or psychosocial 

impairments (including depression, schizophrenia, and drug and alcohol 

abuse, among others) constituted the largest group. (See fig. 4.) About 

40 percent of all individuals exiting the VR program in fiscal year 2003 also 

had secondary impairments.13

 12Without an experimental or rigorous quasi-experimental design with a valid comparison 

group, studying actual impact of the VR program is limited. 

13Eight percent of all cases were missing values for secondary impairment information. 

Rate of Employment, 

Earnings, and Purchased 

Services Varied by 

Individuals’ Impairments 

and Other Characteristics 
Page 18 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Figure 4: Primary Impairments of Individuals Exiting the VR Program, Fiscal Year 

2003 

a

All individuals classified as having no impairment exited during the application phase. 

Note: Figure reflects all records containing impairment information (n = 617,770). Five percent of the 

records were missing impairment information. Numbers do not add to 100 percent because of 

rounding. 

Individuals with mental or psychosocial impairments collectively realized 

the lowest rate of employment (30 percent). In contrast, deaf and blind 

individuals, each collectively comprising 5 percent of the total VR 

population, achieved the highest rates of employment nationwide, at 

63 percent and 52 percent respectively. (See fig. 5.) Officials at three state 

VR agencies we visited told us that the availability of state-funded 

supports and follow-along services were influential in placing and keeping 

individuals in jobs, especially for individuals with mental impairments. 

12%

20%

23%

32% Other physical

Orthopedic/Neurological

Cognitive

5%

Deaf

Source: GAO analysis of Education data.

5%

Blind

Mental/Psychosocial

2%

No impairmenta
Page 19 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Figure 5: Rates of Exit from the VR Program by Primary Impairment Group, Fiscal 

Year 2003 

Note: N = 604,051. Five percent of the records were missing impairment information. In addition, 

2 percent showed that there was no impairment. All numbers do not add to 100 percent because of 

rounding. 

Individuals with cognitive impairments (including mental retardation and 

specific learning disabilities) collectively achieved the lowest median rate 

of earnings, compared with those for all other impairment groups exiting 

the VR program with employment, as shown in figure 6.14

 14For figure 6, we compared hourly wages only among the 85 percent of individuals exiting 

the VR program in the discrete employment category for individuals not requiring any 

ongoing support services in an integrated setting. We did not compare the hourly wages 

among all individuals exiting with employment because some impairment groups had more 

individuals in certain employment categories not expected to have any earnings, such as 

homemakers and unpaid family workers, which would reduce their overall median hourly 

wages. Although we consider this a less useful measure, when all individuals exiting with 

employment in fiscal year 2003 are included, impairment groups achieved the following 

median hourly wages: $7 for cognitive, $8 for mental/psychosocial, $8 for other physical, 

$6.67 for blind, $8.76 for orthopedic/neurological, and $9.29 for deaf. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

Other physical

Orthopedic/Neurological

Mental/Psychosocial

Exited without employment, during the application phase

Exited without employment, after limited services

Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan

Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan

26

26

24

14 28 28

15 26

23

Source: GAO analysis of Education data.

18

12

16

10

24

12

12 16

20

Cognitive

Blind

Deaf

30

35

52

38

63

33
Page 20 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Figure 6: Median Hourly Wage by Impairment Group among Individuals Exiting the 

VR Program with Employment who did Not Require Ongoing Support Services, 

Fiscal Year 2003 

Individuals exiting the VR program in fiscal year 2003 after having 

previously participated in the VR program did not necessarily gain 

employment after their repeat involvement. More than 96,000 individuals 

(15 percent) exited the VR program in fiscal year 2003 with a prior VR case 

closure during the previous 3 years. As figure 7 shows, nearly threequarters of those who previously exited the program without employment 

failed to achieve employment after their repeat involvement with the VR 

program. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Deaf

Orthopedic/

Blind

Other physical

Mental/

Cognitive

Dollars

Source: GAO analysis of Education data.

7.03

8.00 8.25

8.67

9.00

9.70

Psychosocial

Neurological
Page 21 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Figure 7: Employment Status of Individuals Exiting the VR Program in Fiscal Year 2003 Who Previously Participated in the VR 

Program (n=96,165) 

Individuals also received varying amounts of purchased services from 

state VR agencies, depending on their type of disability. For example, 

among those who exited in fiscal year 2003 with employment and did not 

require ongoing support services, blind or other visually impaired 

individuals received more in purchased service dollars ($2,889 at the 

median) than any other impairment group, while individuals with cognitive 

($1,385) and mental impairments ($1,566) received the least. Officials at 

several state VR agencies for the blind told us that blind and visually 

impaired individuals generally require more expensive services, such as 

assistive technology, than individuals with other types of disabilities. 

Individuals receiving Social Security disability benefits at application to 

the VR program comprised one-quarter (159,739) of the total VR 

population and collectively achieved a lower rate of employment 

39%

Source: GAO analysis of Education data.

Not employed after prior VR participation

Employed after prior VR participation

61% 26%

74% Not employed after recent exit from VR

program

Employed after recent exit from VR

program
Page 22 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

nationwide than nonbeneficiaries in fiscal year 2003.15 Specifically, 

29 percent of beneficiaries exited the VR program with employment in 

fiscal year 2003 as opposed to 36 percent of nonbeneficiaries. In addition, 

more Social Security disability beneficiaries required ongoing support 

services at their jobs, for earnings that were less than half that of 

nonbeneficiaries ($140 versus $300 per week at the median).16

Beneficiaries exiting with employment (47,142) also received a median 

$2,765 in purchased services during their time in the VR program, or nearly 

$1,000 more than nonbeneficiaries at the median. Separately, beneficiaries’ 

receipt of VR services did not necessarily reduce their dependence on 

Social Security disability benefits. For example, among individuals 

receiving SSDI benefits at their time of exit from the VR program with 

employment in fiscal year 2003, more than 82 percent of blind and visually 

impaired beneficiaries and 65 percent of nonblind beneficiaries did not 

have jobs that were paying enough to disqualify them from receiving 

continued SSDI benefits, if the work was sustained at that level.17

Individuals who transitioned from special education services at their 

schools into the workplace (transitioning students) achieved about the 

same rate of employment as other individuals with impairments who were 

 15These beneficiary figures include individuals receiving either Social Security Disability 

Insurance (SSDI) benefits or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, as well as 

individuals concurrently receiving both SSDI and SSI. Social Security beneficiaries must 

meet a strict definition of disability to qualify for benefits. They are presumed eligible for 

VR services and are considered to have a significant disability. A small number of 

beneficiaries (6 percent) were initially found ineligible for the VR program during the 

application phase because their disability was considered too significant to benefit from 

services (2 percent of all nonbeneficiary applicants were found ineligible for this reason). 

Four percent of all cases were missing values for whether an individual was receiving SSI 

or SSDI benefits at VR program entry. 

16These beneficiaries were receiving SSI and/or SSDI when they exited the program with 

employment. 

17These figures are based on beneficiaries’ earnings at the time they exit the VR program, 

which is after 90 days on the job. SSDI benefits can be ceased after a beneficiary works for 

a 9-month trial work period and then earns a wage greater than the “substantial gainful 

activity” level set by the Social Security Administration, which was $800 per month for 

nonblind individuals and $1,330 per month for blind individuals in fiscal year 2003. We did 

not include individuals receiving SSI benefits in our computation because these benefits 

can be suspended based on an individual’s total income and assets, and not just on 

earnings alone. 
Page 23 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

under age 22 when they applied to the VR program.18 (See table 4.) 

However, the latter group was in the VR program almost twice as long and 

received more than double the amount of purchased services than 

transitioning students, and enrolled in or completed a greater degree of 

postsecondary education than transitioning students. This might be related 

to the fact that more than 70 percent of the transitioning students had 

cognitive impairments (as opposed to 36 percent among their same-age 

counterparts),19 of which more than half were specific learning disabilities. 

Table 4: Transitioning Students Exiting the VR Program with Employment after Services under an Employment Plan, Fiscal 

Year 2003 

 

Transitioning students: individuals under 

age 22 with IEPs at program entry who 

exited with employment (n = 27,223)

Nontransitional students: individuals 

under age 22 without IEPs at program 

entry who exited with employment 

(n = 24,956)

Employment ratea 35% 34%

Median time in VR program 652 days 1,047 days

Median cost of purchased services $1,192 $2,970 

Percent who gained postsecondary 

education between program entry and exit 14% 37%

Median wage at time of exit $6.75/hour $8.00/hour

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

a

This employment rate is derived from the universe of individuals under age 22 at program entry, with 

or without IEPs, who exited the VR program in fiscal year 2003. 

 18Education’s data do not explicitly contain an indicator for transitioning students; 

therefore we classified individuals as transitioning students if they were younger than age 

22 at VR program entry and had previously received special education services under an 

individualized education program (IEP). Overall, transitioning students comprised 

12 percent (77,741) of all VR exits in fiscal year 2003. 

19Two percent of the cases for transitioning students were missing values for impairment 

type, and 3 percent of the cases for individuals under age 22 without IEPs at program entry 

were missing values for impairment type. 
Page 24 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

The 80 state VR agencies’ employment rates ranged from 20 to 74 percent 

in fiscal year 2003. (App. II lists all agencies’ employment and other exit 

rates.) Collectively, the separate state VR agencies for the blind, which 

exclusively serve blind or other visually impaired individuals, achieved an 

employment rate of 49 percent.20 This compared with a collective 

employment rate of 32 percent among the general agencies and 35 percent 

among the combined agencies. A study commissioned by Education found 

that a wide range of agency and external factors may help explain state VR 

agencies’ varied employment rates.21 Specifically, variables found to help 

facilitate higher employment rates included an agency’s emphasis on 

employment, access to ongoing support service programs, and an agency’s 

proportion of individuals with mental retardation, visual impairments, or 

existing employment at the time of application to the VR program. 

Conversely, poor labor market conditions, particularly high unemployment 

rates, were reported as being among the most influential hindrances to an 

agency’s performance. 

The 39 state VR agencies using an order of selection process collectively 

achieved a slightly lower rate of employment in fiscal year 2003 than the 

group of 41 agencies not using an order of selection process. Specifically, 

the collective employment rate was 32 percent among agencies with 

orders and 35 percent among agencies without orders. In addition, both 

groups had a wide range of employment rates among individual agencies. 

Specifically, state VR agencies’ rates of employment ranged from 20 to 

62 percent among agencies with orders and from 21 to 74 percent among 

agencies without orders. State VR agencies with orders are required to 

give priority acceptance to the category of applicants with “most 

significant” disabilities, and accept categories of applicants with 

“significant” and “nonsignificant” disabilities with decreasing priority. As a 

result, while we expected the group of agencies with orders to experience 

more individuals exiting during the application phase, the rate of 

individuals exiting during the application phase was 21 percent among 

agencies with orders as opposed to 19 percent among agencies without 

orders. Moreover, agencies with orders varied in how they administered 

 20This employment rate for the 24 blind agencies includes 32 percent of individuals exiting 

as “homemakers.” If those exiting as homemakers were reclassified from the employment 

category to an unemployment category, the blind agencies’ collective employment rate 

would be 33 percent for fiscal year 2003. 

21See RTI International, Study of Variables Related to State Vocational Rehabilitation 

Agency Performance (Revised Draft Final Report), (October 2004). 

State VR Agencies Varied 

Significantly in the Rates 

of Employment They 

Achieved, the Populations 

They Served, and Their 

Service Expenditures 
Page 25 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

their order of selection policies. For example, agencies with orders 

opened and closed their priority service categories at varying points 

during the year, depending on their available resources and population 

projections, thus affecting the proportion of individuals being accepted 

into their programs with most significant or significant disabilities. 

Further, agencies with orders varied in how they defined a most 

significant disability and how many service categories they expected to 

serve during a particular fiscal year.22 Specifically, according to the state 

plans submitted to Education by state VR agencies for fiscal year 2003, 2 of 

the 39 agencies with orders expected to serve only individuals with most 

significant disabilities. In contrast, 11 agencies had orders of selection in 

place for fiscal year 2003, which indicated they could not serve all eligible 

individuals, yet they expected to serve all eligible individuals who applied 

to their program during fiscal year 2003. 

State VR agencies’ proportion of individuals in each impairment category 

varied significantly. (App. III shows the proportion of individuals in each 

impairment category by agency.) For example, the incidence of individuals 

with mental or psychosocial impairments at combined or general state VR 

agencies ranged from 1 percent to more than 50 percent. Education 

officials told us that one of the reasons for such variation may be state VR 

agencies maintaining third-party cooperative agreements with certain 

outside entities, such as state mental health institutions, which result in 

higher proportions of individuals in their VR population with 

corresponding impairments. 

State VR agencies also varied in the proportion of Social Security disability 

beneficiaries they served, from 7 to 66 percent, and Education and state 

VR agency officials told us that this proportion can influence an agency’s 

overall employment rate and average hourly earnings among those exiting 

with employment. In addition, although beneficiaries’ employment rate 

nationwide was 29 percent, their collective employment rates at individual 

state VR agencies ranged from 9 to 68 percent. (See app. IV for a list of 

 22Under the Rehabilitation Act, state VR agencies invoking orders of selection define what 

constitutes a most significant disability. Many of these agencies define a most significant 

disability as one that seriously limits two or more functional capacities, among other varied 

criteria. Numerous other agencies, however, define it as one that seriously limits three or 

four functional capacities. All agencies must define a significant disability, in accordance 

with the Rehabilitation Act, as one that seriously limits at least one functional capacity and 

can be expected to require multiple VR services over an extended period of time. All Social 

Security disability beneficiaries automatically qualify as having at least a significant 

disability. 
Page 26 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

each agency’s employment rate.) Moreover, agency officials in two states 

told us that because their state legislatures passed Medicaid buy-in 

programs, they expected increasing numbers of Social Security disability 

beneficiaries to begin working or earning higher wages because they no 

longer feared the loss of important health care benefits, which many 

automatically received as disability beneficiaries.23

State VR agencies also varied in the extent to which they worked closely 

with the One-Stop system in their states, although Education’s data did not 

completely capture this variation. Education’s data showed limited 

interaction overall between state VR agencies and One-Stop centers. For 

example, it showed One-Stop centers providing services to less than 

1 percent of all individuals who exited the VR program nationwide in fiscal 

year 2003. In addition, Education’s data indicated that 3 percent of all 

individuals who exited the program in fiscal year 2003 were initially 

referred to the program by a One-Stop center. However, these data 

understate the extent of integration by state VR agencies in some states 

with One-Stop centers or WIA program partners.24 For example, all of 

Minnesota’s VR offices are co-located at One-Stop centers,25 and officials at 

each of the other state VR agencies that we visited told us they had at least 

some staff colocated at One-Stop centers on an itinerant basis. State VR 

agency officials in Minnesota cited a number of benefits to office 

colocation, such as additional services being more readily available, and 

credited the leadership both within their state parent agency at the 

Department of Employment and Economic Development and within local 

regions for the successful colocation of their VR offices. In contrast, 

officials at most of the other state VR agencies that we visited told us that 

their interaction with the One-Stop centers in their state was limited and 

that individuals in their VR programs did not receive very many, if any, 

services at the One-Stop centers, for a variety of reasons. They told us that 

these reasons included delayed or late implementation of One-Stop 

 23The Medicaid Buy-in program was part of the1999 Ticket to Work and Work Incentives 

Improvement Act that allows states to adjust their statutes to enable more persons with 

disabilities to maintain health benefits even after attaining employment. 

24State VR agency officials in Minnesota told us there may be inconsistency in how 

colocated VR offices credit who provides a certain service to an individual in the VR 

program (i.e., the VR office or the One-Stop center) because Education collects information 

on only one possible provider for each service. Education does not collect data about 

services provided at or referrals from colocated VR/One-Stop offices. 

25An exception is the main blind state VR agency office, which is affiliated with the main 

One-Stop center in the area. 
Page 27 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

centers in their state, leasing and other legal problems relating to office 

colocation, lack of physical accessibility at some One-Stop centers, and 

the lack of specialized training or services available at One-Stop centers 

necessary to help individuals with disabilities to obtain or advance in 

employment. 

While state VR agencies varied in the proportions they spent on different 

service categories, there were general trends across all agencies with 

respect to expenditures on certain services.26 Overall, agencies largely 

focused on assessment, guidance, counseling, and job placement, but did 

not focus as much on certain other services, such as postemployment 

services, transportation, or personal assistance services. (See app. V for a 

list of the percentages spent by each state VR agency on each service 

category.) Specifically, state VR agencies spent half of their collective total 

caseload “service budgets” in fiscal year 2003 on assessment, guidance, 

counseling, and placement.27 In contrast, they spent less than 1 percent on 

postemployment services for individuals who previously exited the VR 

program with employment but required additional services to maintain or 

advance in their existing jobs. State VR agency officials told us that VR 

counselors are generally not recognized, in terms of achieving an 

employment exit, for providing postemployment services. However, 

Education and several state VR agency officials told us that 

postemployment services are important for some individuals to maintain 

their employment. For example, services such as updated computerassistive technology or software help to coordinate with an employer’s 

new computer system or ongoing mental health services help individuals 

with mental impairments to cope with new psychosocial issues that arise 

while on the job. 

 26Agencies’ expenditures generally include both actual expenditures and unliquidated 

obligations incurred during the fiscal year. However, during our reliability assessment of 

Education’s RSA-2 dataset containing agencies’ reported expenditures, we found that 2 of 

the 15 agencies we interviewed do not report both their expenditures and unliquidated 

obligations for a particular fiscal year, as instructed by Education’s policy directive. 

Although we did not determine how many agencies only report actual expenditures, we 

were still able to conclude that the RSA-2 dataset was sufficiently reliable for our use. 

27An agency’s service budget includes the total amount of services, including those 

purchased and provided in-house by an agency or agency-operated community 

rehabilitation program, for assessment, counseling, guidance, placement, diagnosis and 

treatment of physical and mental impairments, training (including postsecondary 

education), maintenance, transportation, personal assistance services, and all other 

services. 
Page 28 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

State VR agencies varied in the proportion of their total fiscal year 2003 

budgets that they spent on providing services, from 43 to 95 percent. Their 

remaining expenditures were for administrative costs, which varied from 

5 to 57 percent of their total budgets.28 (See app. VI for a list of each state 

VR agency’s administrative costs as a percentage of total expenditures.) 

The 24 blind state VR agencies collectively spent more of their total 

budgets on administrative costs than did the collective group of general 

agencies or combined agencies.29 This may be because of the cost of 

maintaining separate blind VR agencies that on average serve fewer 

individuals than the general or combined agencies. In addition, the group 

of blind agencies had the highest per capita cost overall for assisting 

individuals to achieve employment. Specifically, blind agencies spent an 

average of $42,392 for every person that exited one of their VR programs 

with employment in fiscal year 2003, compared with an average of 

$13,640 at the general agencies and $21,501 at the combined agencies.30

(See table 5.) For each state VR agency’s average total expenditure per 

person exiting its program with employment in fiscal year 2003, see 

appendix VII. 

 28While Education’s written guidance informs state VR agencies to include expenditures 

such as administrative staff salaries, rent, utilities and supplies in their reporting of 

administrative costs, Education officials told us there is not uniformity in how agencies 

categorize and report all such expenditures. For example, some state VR agencies report 

actual administrative expenditures at their field offices in the expenditure category for 

counseling and guidance services provided by VR personnel. 

29The average percentage of total agency budgets spent on administrative costs was 

17 percent among the blind agencies, 15 percent among the combined agencies, and 

11 percent among the general agencies. 

30These averages are based on an agency’s total expenditures in fiscal year 2003 as well as 

the total number of individuals who exited their program in fiscal year 2003 with 

employment. 
Page 29 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Table 5: Per Capita Service Costs by Each Type of State VR Agency, Fiscal Year 

2003 

Blind state VR 

agencies 

(n = 24) 

General state 

VR agencies 

(n = 24)

Combined state 

VR agencies 

(n = 32)

Average expended per person 

served in fiscal year 2003 $8,601 $2,908 $3,998

Average expended per person 

exiting with employment in fiscal 

year 2003 $42,392 $13,640 $21,501

Average percentage of persons 

exiting with employment of all 

persons served in fiscal year 2003 23% 22% 20%

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

Officials at one separate state VR agency for the blind that we visited said 

their agency’s specialization allows them to understand and rehabilitate 

blind and visually impaired individuals better than combined VR agencies 

that do not have as specialized a focus on individuals with these 

impairments. However, blind and visually impaired individuals collectively 

achieved a 50 percent employment rate when served at blind state VR 

agencies, compared with a 56 percent employment rate when served at 

combined state VR agencies.31 Moreover, blind and visually impaired 

individuals exiting the VR program with employment in fiscal year 2003 

received less in purchased services while in the program and slightly lower 

weekly earnings when they exited from blind state VR agencies as 

compared with combined agencies. (See table 6.) 

 31We excluded the 6 percent of individuals with blindness or other visual impairments who 

exited the 24 general state VR agencies in fiscal year 2003 because it is possible that those 

with less severe visual impairments would be serviced by these general agencies that also 

have a separate VR agency devoted solely to the blind in their state. However, blind and 

visually impaired individuals exiting general agencies in fiscal year 2003 collectively 

achieved a 39 percent employment rate. If individuals exiting as homemakers were 

reclassified from the employment category to an unemployment category, the blind 

agencies’ employment rate among the blind and visually impaired would be 34 percent, and 

the combined agencies’ rate would be 37 percent. 
Page 30 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Table 6: Blind or Visually Impaired Individuals Exiting with Employment from Blind State VR Agencies versus Combined State 

VR Agencies, Fiscal Year 2003 

Blind or visually impaired individuals 

exiting blind state VR agencies 

with employment (n = 8,210) 

Blind or visually impaired individuals 

exiting combined state VR agencies 

with employment (n = 8,527)

Median earnings at closure $180 / week $195 / week

Median hours worked at closure 21 hours / week 25 hours / week

Median cost of purchased services $1,800 $2,645

Median number of services 4 4

Median time in program 401 days 486 days

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

Education’s VR performance measures are not comprehensive in that they 

count only individuals exiting VR programs and fail to measure key 

populations. Moreover, the targets Education sets for performance do not 

take into consideration regional differences in VR populations or allow for 

comparisons across workforce programs. Education’s monitoring 

reports—state VR agencies’ primary source of feedback—are frequently 

late and based on data that are more than 2 years old. As a result, state VR 

agencies are not getting the kind of timely feedback they need to improve 

the efficiency and effectiveness of their programs. Education’s recent 

decision as part of its restructuring efforts to eliminate its regional VR 

offices, which had conducted most of the monitoring of state VR agencies, 

has made the details of the future monitoring process unclear. 

Education’s performance measures have a number of weaknesses, as they 

are not comprehensive, do not take into account demographic and 

economic variations among states, and do not incorporate common 

measures to allow for comparison of workforce programs across 

executive branch agencies. For example, Education cannot use the current 

performance measures to comprehensively evaluate the state VR agencies’ 

performance because the measures do not include data on the individuals 

still receiving services in the VR system, who made up nearly 40 percent of 

the state VR agencies’ service population in fiscal year 2003. Instead, 

Education’s performance measures reflect only the individuals who exit 

Education’s VR 

Performance 

Measures Are Not 

Comprehensive, and 

Its Monitoring of State 

VR Agencies’ 

Performance Has Not 

Resulted in Timely 

Feedback 

VR Performance Measures 

Are Not Comprehensive, 

Do Not Take into Account 

State Variations, and Do 

Not Allow for Comparison 

with Other Workforce 

Programs 
Page 31 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

the program.32 Education does not track specific information on the 

services provided, costs, and related data until after individuals exit the 

program, although this information is generally collected by each state VR 

agency. As a result, Education cannot determine how well the program is 

accomplishing its purpose of assisting individuals with disabilities to 

maximize their employment, economic self-sufficiency, independence, and 

inclusion and integration into society. Additional measures could also add 

to the balance of performance measurement to ensure that the 

organization’s various priorities are covered and to prevent skewed 

incentives.33 In fact, a study commissioned by Education reported that 

because the VR employment rate includes only those who exited the VR 

program, some agencies avoid closing out certain cases in order to meet 

the performance target for that year.34

The performance measures also do not isolate data on certain key 

populations of VR participants. For example, there are no separate 

performance targets for transitioning students or individuals receiving 

postemployment services. As a result, Education does not know the extent 

of these populations, the services provided to them, or the results they 

achieve. While Education focused on transitioning students in its fiscal 

year 2003 monitoring guide and held a national conference on 

transitioning students in June 2005, it does not use the data captured on 

this population in performance measures or evaluate the results and 

resources necessary to assist them. In contrast, according to Education 

officials, Education wants to move away from counting homemakers as a 

category of employment but continues to measure performance in this 

area, including homemakers in its employment outcome. In addition, 

Education does not capture individual-level data related to 

postemployment services, which some state VR agencies told us are 

important in helping former participants maintain their employment, 

despite the need for these measures to help assess the impact of these 

services. 

 32According to past GAO work, one key attribute of a successful performance measure is its 

coverage of all activities that an entity is expected to perform to support the intent of the 

program. GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season 

Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002). 

33GAO-03-143. 

34See RTI International. 
Page 32 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Education has set uniform performance targets for state VR agencies to 

meet that do not take into account demographic and economic variations 

within states. For example, one performance measure intended to 

measure the quality of job placement compares the average wage of 

individuals exiting the VR program with employment to the average wage 

of the general population within a state overall, rather than to the 

population in similar types of jobs or industries. Recognizing that the VR 

population is different from the general population, Education set the 

performance target for general and combined state VR agencies as a 

0.52:1 ratio to the average state wage. However Education’s performance 

target still does not capture variations in wages within states, which are 

outside the agencies’ control and can affect agencies’ ability to achieve 

performance levels. For example, some states, such as California, have 

wide variations in wages across the state because of high wages in certain 

areas that might skew the wage and make it more difficult to perform well 

on this indicator. In addition, a study commissioned by Education found 

that equaling or exceeding achievement on another performance measure 

intended to compare the number of individuals exiting VR services in the 

current year with that in the prior is “very difficult to achieve in times of 

declining resources and a poor labor market,” both of which may vary by 

region or state.35 Unlike the Department of Labor (Labor), which 

negotiates performance levels for its job training and employment 

programs under WIA, Education does not currently negotiate performance 

targets for performance measures with each state VR agency. The same 

study recommended that Education evaluate the degree to which adoption 

of alternatives to average state wage, such as entry-level wages, median 

wage or national mean wage, might improve this performance measure. 

Education has considered negotiating performance targets by state but has 

not implemented negotiations. 

In contrast to other federal workforce programs, Education’s VR program 

has not yet adopted the OMB-required common measures that allow for 

comparison of these programs across agencies, but agency officials told us 

that they are working toward meeting this requirement. OMB’s PART 

review recommended that Education collect the necessary data to support 

new common measures among workforce programs.36 Labor created a set 

of common measures for job training and employment programs, which 

 35See RTI International. 

36It also recommended that Education consider whether additional measures were 

appropriate for the program. 
Page 33 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

affect programs in Labor, Education, and several other agencies,37 and 

apply to programs serving adults and to those serving youth.38 Labor 

required most of its programs to implement the common measures by July 

1, 2005, and is working with Education to come to an agreement on the 

measures and the data it will use.39 While Labor’s state programs generally 

have access to the data necessary to compute the common measures as 

they are collected by state labor departments,40 some state VR agencies 

have more difficulty obtaining the data because access sometimes requires 

establishment of data-sharing agreements. In addition, some states have 

privacy laws protecting the confidentiality of these data, which may 

further limit the ability of state VR agencies to collect them. Finally, some 

state VR agency officials expressed concerns that common measures will 

invite unfair comparisons between VR and other WIA partner programs. 

For example, they told us that these comparisons would not be fair or 

valid for state VR agencies because the populations they serve are unique 

and require a different mix of services or more resources than the 

populations served by general workforce programs. 

Education has not reviewed or revised its performance measures as 

required under the Rehabilitation Act, although Education plans to 

evaluate them within the next year. Specifically, the act requires 

Education to review and, if necessary, revise the evaluation standards and 

performance measures every 3 years. However, Education has not done so 

since the measures were first regulated in fiscal year 2000. Although 

Education’s existing performance measures are generally consistent with 

the program’s purpose to promote the employment of individuals with 

disabilities, OMB’s PART review, Education’s own study,41 and many of the 

 37Additional agencies affected by the common measures are the Department of Health and 

Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of the Interior, and 

Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

38The measures for adults include the percentage of individuals who entered employment, 

the percentage of individuals who retained employment for at least 6 months, and the 

increase in earnings of these individuals. The measures for youth include the percentage of 

individuals who entered employment or education, the percentage of individuals who 

attained a degree or certificate, and the increase in the literacy and numeracy skills of 

program participants. 

39Labor required other programs to implement the common measures by October 1, 2005. 

40Several of the common measures require access to state Unemployment Insurance wage 

data. 

41See RTI International. 
Page 34 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

state VR agency officials that we contacted, have recommended that 

Education modify some VR performance measures, eliminate some 

measures, or add to its existing measures. 

In monitoring and managing the performance of state VR agencies, 

Education does not provide timely feedback, censure poorly performing 

agencies, or take full advantage of opportunities to promote the sharing of 

best practices among state VR agencies. Education provides feedback to 

state VR agencies through on-site monitoring visits and reports of annual 

reviews of performance, many of which are not issued on a timely basis. 

According to Education officials, as of July 2005 its regional offices had 

not issued 10 of the 80 monitoring reports expected for fiscal year 2003 

and an additional 4 reports are still in process. Further, at least 32 of the 

66 monitoring reports issued as of July 2005 were issued 6 months or more 

after the monitoring reviews.42 In an effort to address the timeliness and 

quality of its monitoring reports, Education discontinued its practice of 

having regional commissioners approve reports and now requires all 

reports to be approved and issued by Education headquarters staff. 

However, as of July 2005 Education had issued 7 out of the 80 state VR 

agency monitoring reports for its revised fiscal year 2004-2005 time 

frame.43

Education’s process for monitoring state VR agencies has been impeded 

by the use of old data.44 As part of its performance assessment of state VR 

agencies, Education requires them to submit performance data by 

December 1, or 60 days after the end of the fiscal year. Until recently, 

Education took more than a year to identify and correct errors in the data 

and produce reliable data for its regional offices to use in monitoring. As a 

 42While Education provided data on the status of fiscal year 2003 monitoring reports 

(issued, not issued, or in process) for all 80 state VR agencies, it only provided data on the 

time period between monitoring reviews and the issuance of fiscal year 2003 monitoring 

reports for 44 of 65 reports issued to date. 

43In early 2004, Education instituted a 2-year monitoring cycle for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal 

year 2005. 

44Education collects a large volume of data from state VR agencies and then compiles these 

data into tables. Education provides these tables containing numerous data elements, such 

as state VR agency expenditures by service and function, participants’ average time 

between various stages of the VR program, and employment rates by impairment category, 

to its regional offices to use to monitor state VR agencies’ performance and give them 

feedback. 

Education Does Not 

Effectively Monitor and 

Manage the Performance 

of State VR Agencies 
Page 35 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

result, regional offices end up using 2-year-old data when conducting 

monitoring reviews and issuing reports. In addition, Education 

consistently processes its VR data too late to meet the deadline of 

November 15 that OMB established in implementing GPRA for executive 

branch agencies to issue annual reports on program performance for the 

previous fiscal year. OMB’s 2006 PART review recommended that 

Education improve program management using existing performance data 

and make these data available to the public in a timelier manner. 

Education has shown improvement by issuing fiscal year 2004 

performance data 5 months after it collected the data, although it still has 

not met OMB’s deadline. 

Education does not consistently censure poorly performing or reward 

high- performing state VR agencies. The Rehabilitation Act requires state 

VR agencies that fail to meet the performance targets for 1 year to develop 

a program improvement plan and allows Education to withhold funds 

from a poorly performing state VR agency—the most severe sanction 

prescribed by the Rehabilitation Act—in cases where agencies fail to meet 

the performance targets for 2 or more consecutive years. However, failing 

agencies do not always develop program improvement plans nor does 

Education follow up to ensure their completion. In addition, Education 

has never withheld funds from a poorly performing state VR agency 

despite the fact that some agencies failed the performance targets for 2 or 

more consecutive years, including two agencies in fiscal year 2003. 

Education could not tell us the extent to which agencies have or have not 

developed improvement plans because of failing targets. Further, while 

Education does not have authority to provide financial rewards for highperforming state VR agencies, it has not developed other means for 

rewarding high performance, even though other federal workforce and 

education programs have developed performance incentives.45 For 

example, Labor awards incentives and imposes sanctions on workforce 

programs based on negotiated performance goals as allowed under WIA. 

 45However, WIA reauthorization legislation pending as of July 2005 contains incentives for 

successful state VR agencies, including incentive grants for state VR agencies that 

demonstrate a high level of performance or significantly improve their level of performance 

in a reporting period. 
Page 36 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Beyond the monitoring process, Education relies on the regional offices to 

promote the sharing of best practices among state VR agencies.46 Meetings 

organized by the regional office provide opportunities for state VR 

agencies in the region to share information on best practices. Education 

also uses its Web site to disseminate information on best practices. 

However, as of July 2005 Education’s Web site related to featured 

practices contained two practices submitted by state VR agencies, and the 

site is not frequently updated. Further, Education collects a large 

repository of data and the results of performance measures, but it does not 

review them to identify best practices among the state VR agencies.47

Education also hosts several national conferences, which provide a venue 

for state VR agency staff to share information with one another.48 In 

addition, Education hosts e-mail list services relating to issues such as the 

Social Security Administration’s Ticket to Work program, deafness, mental 

illness, and informational issuances. 

In early 2005, Education decided to restructure its VR program. As part of 

the restructuring, Education decided to eliminate its regional offices, 

which had conducted most of the monitoring of state VR agencies to date. 

According to Education officials, the restructuring was necessary to align 

the program in a manner to help meet the priorities of the administration 

and the Secretary. As part of its restructuring plan, Education included an 

interim monitoring plan that did not contain many details. Education has 

created a steering committee to look at how monitoring might be 

accomplished under the new structure and held a conference in August 

2005 in order to create a blueprint for monitoring, but it has not completed 

a final monitoring plan and does not expect to have one in place until 

about one year after the conference. 

 46Best practices refer to the processes, practices, and systems identified in public and 

private organizations that performed exceptionally well and are widely recognized as 

improving an organization’s performance and efficiency in specific areas. Successfully 

identifying and applying best practices can reduce expenses and improve organizational 

efficiency. 

47Although Education requires the collection of certain data during monitoring visits to 

state VR agencies, such as data on transitioning students in fiscal year 2003 and on 

homemakers in fiscal year 2004, as of June 2005 it had yet to analyze these data. 

48These conferences included the National Transition Conference and National Forum of 

the Thirty-First Institute on Rehabilitation Issues (IRI). 

Decision to Eliminate 

Regional Offices Has Made 

Details of the Future 

Monitoring Process 

Unclear 
Page 37 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

In the absence of a final monitoring plan, VR agency officials in several 

states expressed concern that the elimination of the regional offices may 

make the monitoring process more difficult for a number of reasons. 

Specifically, they expressed concern that 

• Education’s proposed reduction of its RSA staff will leave an insufficient 

number of staff to provide any significant feedback and to carry out the 

monitoring functions,49

• the reduction in staff would result in a loss of institutional knowledge on 

the details of their particular program, and 

• the elimination of the regional offices will make it difficult to have a 

knowledgeable single point of contact within Education. 

When announcing its decision to restructure, Education stated that it plans 

to devote as many staff as necessary to monitor state VR agency 

performance. In addition, an Education official said that the plans are to 

continue its annual reviews of the agencies, but it will conduct on-site 

monitoring review visits less frequently than the annual reviews done in 

the past. Education also announced that it will assign a single point of 

contact to each state VR agency under its new structure. 

Many people with disabilities face a number of barriers to entering or 

returning to the workforce, and ultimately achieving independence. The 

VR program was conceived to provide the comprehensive and intensive 

services needed to overcome these barriers, and indeed more than 

200,000 individuals with disabilities were working in fiscal year 2003 after 

receiving VR services. However, twice as many individuals left the VR 

program in fiscal year 2003 without getting a job, and individual state VR 

agencies varied widely in the proportion of individuals who exited their 

programs with jobs as compared with those who did not. 

Education designed its system of performance measures to focus on the 

group of individuals who exit the VR program with employment. In doing 

so, it has made evaluating state VR agencies’ performance with respect to 

the rest of the service population difficult. Little is known about the 

 49As of April 2005, RSA had 138 staff members. Once its restructuring is completed, RSA 

projects that it will have 81 staff members. 

Conclusions 
Page 38 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

hundreds of thousands of individuals who received services but had not 

left the program by the end of fiscal year 2003 because Education does not 

require the state VR agencies to report detailed information about them. 

As a result, it is difficult for Education to assess performance in areas such 

as the timeliness, cost, and quality of the services provided to this 

population. In addition, this system fails to account for performance 

relating to special populations, such as transitioning students, that 

Education has encouraged the state VR agencies to serve. Further, its 

performance measures do not take into account demographic and 

economic variations among states. As a result, it is difficult for Education 

to assess whether or not state VR agencies are effectively and efficiently 

serving these individuals. 

Whatever system of performance measures Education chooses to use, it 

will have little impact on changing the performance of state VR agencies 

unless Education provides timely and effective feedback to the agencies 

regarding their performance. Without timely information, state VR 

agencies may delay in undertaking necessary corrective action to improve 

performance. Further, in the absence of incentives for good performance 

or consequences for poor performance, state VR agencies may not find 

sufficient reasons for performing at the level that Education sets out for 

them. Yet Education’s provision of constructive feedback has been 

hindered because of untimely or incomplete monitoring reports. Until 

recently, the time Education needed to analyze performance data also 

contributed to delays in providing feedback. Although Education 

significantly reduced the time it needed to analyze fiscal year 2004 data, it 

has yet the meet OMB’s reporting requirements related to GPRA. Further, 

Education has missed opportunities for providing feedback by failing to 

require that some poorly performing agencies develop performance 

improvement plans. 

While Education has begun planning for alterations to its monitoring 

process to provide better and timelier feedback to state VR agencies, there 

are too few details at this point to be able to assess whether the new 

process will achieve this intent. As it deliberates on these changes, it will 

be important for Education to consider the input of all stakeholders in the 

current monitoring process. In addition, it will be important to consider 

such issues as how frequently monitoring visits should be made and how 

much data the monitoring staff will need to conduct such reviews. 

Finally, with the elimination of the regional offices, officials in each of the 

80 separate VR agencies may find it more difficult to learn about best 

practices used by other agencies. Education will need to explore 
Page 39 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

alternative means to share information about best practices in an efficient 

manner. 

To improve Education’s performance measures and its monitoring of state 

VR agencies, we recommend that the Secretary of Education 

• Reevaluate Education’s performance measures to determine whether they 

reflect the agency’s goals and values and ensure that sufficient data are 

collected to measure the performance of this program. As part of this 

evaluation, Education should consider: 

• developing additional measures to evaluate performance relating to 

individuals who remain in the VR program as well as to certain special 

needs populations, such as transitioning students; 

• revising performance measures to account for additional factors such 

as the economy and demographics of the states’ populations or 

adjusting performance targets for individual state VR agencies to 

address these issues, while also considering the costs and benefits 

associated with collecting additional data; and 

• continuing its work to develop performance measures in line with 

OMB’s common measures. 

• Take steps to continue improving the timeliness of the performance data 

Education collects and analyzes to ensure that data are available for timely 

feedback to state VR agencies as well as to comply with the GPRA 

reporting requirements established by OMB. 

• Ensure that Education’s new plan for the monitoring of state VR agency 

performance addresses issues such as the timeliness of monitoring reports 

and the frequency of on-site visits that will be necessary to adequately 

gauge performance. 

• Ensure that it consistently applies its existing consequences for failure to 

meet required performance targets or consider developing new 

consequences that it will be willing to apply in such situations. Further, 

Education should consider whether developing incentives such as 

recognition for successful performance would provide a more useful tool 

for encouraging good performance. 

• Develop alternative means of disseminating best practices among state VR 

agencies in light of the elimination of the regional offices, such as a central 

repository of best practices information. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Page 40 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

We provided a draft of this report to Education for comment. In 

commenting on the report, Education indicated that it is in full agreement 

that better measures and monitoring could improve the performance of 

the VR program. However, Education did not specifically comment on 

each recommendation. 

In addition, Education highlighted initiatives either planned or under way 

to improve the management of the VR program. Several of these initiatives 

addressed issues raised in our report for which we recommended changes. 

In particular, Education agreed with our findings on performance 

measures and indicated that the department is currently working to 

address these issues. Education also described the steps it is taking to 

implement a new system for monitoring state VR agencies. Further, the 

agency indicated that it will broaden the dissemination of the information 

it produces and will publicize the availability of its monitoring and analytic 

work products. Moreover, Education acknowledged that it will do more to 

highlight performance related to certain key populations such as 

transitioning students. 

While acknowledging the importance of monitoring and feedback, 

Education pointed out that state VR agency performance is influenced by a 

number of factors that are beyond Education’s control. It also pointed out 

that the state VR agencies are aware of their own patterns of expenditures 

and outcomes and that the most fundamental opportunities for 

improvement are at the state level. We recognize the challenge Education 

faces in managing a program that is carried out through agencies that are 

not under its direct control. However, we believe that, by establishing 

better performance measures and implementing a better monitoring 

system that includes dissemination of comparative information about the 

performance of state VR agencies, Education will be in a better position to 

manage this decentralized program. 

Education also expressed concern that the manner in which we calculated 

the employment rate for individuals exiting the VR program might be 

confusing because it differs from the way in which Education calculates 

this rate. We believe that it is important to report the outcomes of all the 

individuals who exited the VR program in fiscal year 2003 because more 

than 40 percent of those who applied for services left the program before 

receiving services and because a low percentage of the individuals who 

left before receiving services were found ineligible. 

Education also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated 

as appropriate. Education’s comments are provided in appendix VIII. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 41 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Copies of this report are being sent to the Department of Education, 

appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. The 

report will also be made available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7215. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in 

appendix IX. 

Robert E. Robertson 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 42 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

To determine the extent to which state vocational rehabilitation (VR) 

agencies assist individuals in achieving employment, we primarily used the 

Department of Education’s (Education) Rehabilitation Services 

Administration (RSA) RSA-911 case service dataset from fiscal year 2003, 

which was the most recently available in time for us to use in production 

of this report. We used Education’s RSA-2 expenditure dataset from fiscal 

year 2003 to compute service expenditures and to compute the 

information in appendix V, appendix VI, and appendix VII. 

The RSA-911 is an individual-level dataset collected annually by Education 

from each of the 80 state VR agencies regarding every individual who exits 

the VR program during a particular fiscal year. The record for each 

individual includes information such as whether or not the individual 

exited the VR program with employment, the weekly earnings and hours 

worked if the individual exited with employment,1

 the types of services 

received, and numerous demographic factors, such as disability type, 

gender, age, race and ethnicity, public benefits at program entry and exit, 

and any income from work at program entry. Counselors or other staff at 

each state VR agency typically input this information from each 

individual’s case file into their agency’s data system, which ultimately 

produces the RSA-911 file sent annually by that agency to Education. 

Education uses standardized, electronic testing to check each agency’s 

submitted data for errors and anomalies before publishing them and 

requires agencies to correct or verify data elements that are missing, 

“impossible,” or outside “reasonable” ranges. 

We assessed the fiscal year 2003 RSA-911 dataset and determined that it 

was sufficiently reliable for our use. Specifically, we performed electronic 

testing on all 650,643 case records contained in this dataset to identify any 

missing data, errors, or anomalies. In addition, we interviewed key 

Education officials responsible for collecting, verifying, and publishing 

RSA-911 data to better understand their data reliability assessment 

process, as described above, in part. We also performed structured 

interviews with key officials who work with RSA-911 data at multiple state 

VR agencies to better understand the processes by which agencies collect, 

safeguard, and report these data to Education. 

 1

For individuals exiting in the homemaker or unpaid family worker categories of 

employment, who are not expected to achieve any earnings, we converted to zeros all of 

the missing values that existed in the dataset for these individuals’ earnings at exit. 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 43 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

In order to more easily report some of our data findings, we recombined 

the categories for certain RSA-911 data elements, such as type of 

disability2

 and type of exit or case closure.3 We then computed descriptive 

statistics, including frequencies and cross-tabulations, to produce the 

majority of data findings described in this report. Using these data, we 

calculated the employment rate in a different manner than Education. 

Education calculates the employment rate as the percentage of individuals 

who exited with employment after at least 90 days out of the group of 

individuals who received services under an employment plan, but does not 

include those individuals who exited without employment during the 

application phase or after limited services. 

We also assessed the fiscal year 2003 RSA-2 dataset and determined that it 

was sufficiently reliable for our use. The RSA-2 contains aggregated 

agency expenditures from each of the 80 state VR agencies as reported in 

various categories, such as administration and different types of services. 

We interviewed key Education officials and learned that each state VR 

agency may use a different system for aggregating and reporting its RSA-2 

data to Education. Therefore, we performed structured interviews with 

key officials at 15 state VR agencies in order to assess the processes, 

safeguards, and overall reliability in agency production and reporting of 

these data. We selected these 15 state VR agencies to interview because 

they collectively constituted more than 50 percent of all total expenditures 

by the VR program in fiscal year 2003 and included blind, general, and 

combined state VR agencies. Among these 15 agencies, we generally found 

that their processes and policies were sufficient to ensure data reliability 

for the purposes of this report. 

To further determine the extent to which state VR agencies assist 

individuals in achieving employment as well as the extent to which 

 2

Education collects 19 different data codes for type of primary impairment and 37 codes for 

an impairment’s cause or source. We collapsed these 19 primary impairment codes into the 

6 categories, used in this report, as follows: codes for Blindness, Other Visual Impairments, 

and Deaf-Blindness became our “Blind” category; the 5 codes relating to deafness or 

hearing loss became our “Deaf” category; the 4 codes relating to orthopedic or neurological 

impairments became our “Orthopedic/neurological” category; the codes for Communicative 

impairments, Respiratory impairments, General physical debilitation, and Other physical 

impairments became our “Other physical” category; the code for Cognitive impairments 

remained our “Cognitive” category; the codes for Psychosocial and Other mental 

impairments became our “Mental/psychosocial” category. 

3

The background section of this report describes how we collapsed Education’s seven case 

closure categories into the four exit categories used in this report. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 44 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Education monitors and measures performance to manage this 

decentralized VR program, we interviewed key program officials at 

Education’s headquarters and each regional office responsible for 

monitoring the state VR agencies. In addition, we reviewed relevant laws 

and regulations, Education policy documents relating to the VR program, 

and the 80 state VR agency’s fiscal year 2003 state plans. We also 

conducted site visits to the 9 state VR agencies in California, Maryland, 

Minnesota, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Virginia. We selected these sites 

to achieve a mix of state VR agency structures (including general, blind, 

and combined agencies), operations, performance, and geographic 

diversity. We conducted our review from August 2004 through September 

2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 
Appendix II: State VR Agency Exit and 

Employment Rates, Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 45 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

 

Exited without 

employment, 

during the 

application phase

Exited without 

employment, 

after limited

services

Exited without 

employment, after 

services under an 

employment plan 

Exited with 

employment, after 

services under an 

employment plan

Alabama combined 14.0% 9.5% 22.4% 54.1%

Alaska combined 17.4% 27.0% 22.6% 33.0%

American Samoa combined 28.0% 18.7% 1.3% 52.0%

Arizona combined 19.3% 23.4% 35.9% 21.5%

Arkansas blind 21.2% 6.3% 10.2% 62.3%

Arkansas general 37.7% 7.8% 26.2% 28.3%

California combined 15.8% 23.6% 27.5% 33.1%

Colorado combined 25.3% 31.7% 18.0% 25.0%

Connecticut blind 0.4% 12.7% 12.7% 74.2%

Connecticut general 11.0% 27.1% 27.2% 34.7%

Delaware blind 15.3% 23.7% 20.3% 40.7%

Delaware general 23.1% 17.6% 20.4% 38.9%

District of Columbia 

combined 

19.6% 33.1% 17.7% 29.6%

Florida blind 31.7% 5.6% 23.3% 39.3%

Florida general 25.7% 21.9% 24.4% 28.0%

Georgia combined 22.7% 15.3% 30.6% 31.3%

Guam combined 32.0% 28.0% 16.0% 24.0%

Hawaii combined 16.4% 23.1% 25.6% 34.9%

Idaho blind 18.8% 14.9% 18.2% 48.1%

Idaho general 17.2% 28.8% 22.0% 32.0%

Illinois combined 15.7% 17.3% 20.9% 46.1%

Indiana combined 16.9% 23.8% 26.2% 33.1%

Iowa blind 8.2% 12.3% 9.7% 69.7%

Iowa general 20.4% 26.1% 29.3% 24.2%

Kansas combined 22.5% 17.9% 28.0% 31.6%

Kentucky blind 16.4% 13.6% 14.7% 55.4%

Kentucky general 19.1% 27.6% 16.9% 36.5%

Louisiana combined 24.7% 26.9% 22.3% 26.1%

Maine blind 14.8% 10.9% 12.7% 61.5%

Maine general 12.6% 29.5% 28.4% 29.5%

Maryland combined 34.7% 21.7% 10.1% 33.6%

Massachusetts blind 3.1% 7.7% 15.8% 73.4%

Massachusetts general 12.9% 41.7% 21.8% 23.7%

Appendix II: State VR Agency Exit and 

Employment Rates, Fiscal Year 2003 
Appendix II: State VR Agency Exit and 

Employment Rates, Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 46 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

 

Exited without 

employment, 

during the 

application phase

Exited without 

employment, 

after limited

services

Exited without 

employment, after 

services under an 

employment plan 

Exited with 

employment, after 

services under an 

employment plan

Michigan blind 17.7% 11.9% 27.3% 43.1%

Michigan general 13.8% 23.0% 29.2% 34.0%

Minnesota blind 19.8% 17.0% 37.7% 25.5%

Minnesota general 20.8% 28.8% 22.9% 27.5%

Mississippi combined 21.5% 13.6% 19.9% 45.0%

Missouri blind 12.6% 8.3% 37.2% 41.9%

Missouri general 17.5% 43.0% 8.4% 31.1%

Montana combined 16.1% 40.5% 16.1% 27.3%

Nebraska blind 58.0% 7.5% 13.8% 20.7%

Nebraska general 11.7% 29.0% 25.2% 34.1%

Nevada combined 18.6% 27.6% 26.1% 27.8%

New Hampshire combined 6.5% 32.4% 13.8% 47.3%

New Jersey blind 13.3% 21.1% 18.1% 47.5%

New Jersey general 14.2% 31.6% 21.3% 32.9%

New Mexico blind 16.3% 11.1% 36.3% 36.3%

New Mexico general 29.6% 21.2% 19.7% 29.5%

New York blind 8.0% 12.5% 17.1% 62.4%

New York general 16.3% 27.2% 23.9% 32.6%

North Carolina blind 19.2% 8.5% 22.1% 50.3%

North Carolina general 26.5% 17.4% 25.7% 30.4%

North Dakota combined 14.5% 28.6% 18.6% 38.4%

Northern Marianas 

combined 

30.7% 16.8% 20.8% 31.7%

Ohio combined 21.7% 26.5% 21.0% 30.8%

Oklahoma combined 18.7% 22.5% 33.1% 25.7%

Oregon blind 13.2% 14.7% 28.9% 43.1%

Oregon general 17.3% 34.2% 19.5% 29.0%

Pennsylvania combined 15.9% 11.9% 27.1% 45.0%

Puerto Rico combined 32.1% 14.3% 14.8% 38.9%

Rhode Island combined 16.0% 27.6% 22.9% 33.4%

South Carolina blind 10.6% 5.9% 26.9% 56.6%

South Carolina general 17.9% 10.4% 23.2% 48.5%

South Dakota blind 26.9% 9.2% 13.8% 50.0%

South Dakota general 28.6% 21.0% 18.8% 31.6%

Tennessee combined 44.2% 11.7% 18.9% 25.2%
Appendix II: State VR Agency Exit and 

Employment Rates, Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 47 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

 

Exited without 

employment, 

during the 

application phase

Exited without 

employment, 

after limited

services

Exited without 

employment, after 

services under an 

employment plan 

Exited with 

employment, after 

services under an 

employment plan

Texas blind 34.9% 6.2% 15.6% 43.4%

Texas general 21.4% 18.9% 27.6% 32.2%

Utah combined 19.4% 22.6% 23.1% 34.9%

Vermont blind 2.3% 5.4% 23.1% 69.2%

Vermont general 4.9% 26.3% 27.4% 41.4%

Virgin Islands combined 18.8% 13.5% 27.1% 40.6%

Virginia blind 8.9% 16.6% 16.6% 57.8%

Virginia general 13.6% 22.6% 31.4% 32.4%

Washington blind 11.0% 23.9% 27.8% 37.3%

Washington general 21.6% 36.9% 21.3% 20.2%

West Virginia combined 11.7% 36.7% 15.2% 36.4%

Wisconsin combined 34.4% 15.4% 26.5% 23.7%

Wyoming combined 20.7% 24.6% 16.4% 38.3%

National average 20.4% 22.4% 23.8% 33.4%

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 
Appendix III: State VR Agency Population 

Proportions by Primary Impairment, Fiscal 

Year 2003 

Page 48 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

 

No 

impairment 

Blind or 

other 

visual 

impairment

Deaf 

or other 

hearing 

impairment

Orthopedic 

or 

neurological 

impairment

Other 

physical 

impairment 

Cognitive 

impairment

Mental or 

psychosocial 

impairment

Alabama combined 6.3% 6.2% 6.6% 17.3% 10.2% 30.1% 23.3%

Alaska combined 4.6% 3.5% 5.6% 31.8% 10.4% 16.1% 28.0%

American Samoa 

combined 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 56.9% 27.8% 5.6% 1.4%

Arizona combined 0.3% 4.0% 5.0% 17.7% 8.5% 28.9% 35.6%

Arkansas blind 17.7% 82.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Arkansas general 0.2% 4.1% 31.6% 23.2% 24.8% 16.2%

California combined 0.3% 7.1% 4.7% 18.8% 9.1% 35.5% 24.6%

Colorado combined 5.3% 5.5% 5.7% 25.4% 10.1% 20.9% 27.3%

Connecticut blind 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Connecticut general 5.1% 0.6% 12.8% 17.9% 7.3% 22.3% 34.1%

Delaware blind 5.1% 91.5% 0.0% 1.7% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Delaware general 0.1% 0.6% 3.3% 22.0% 9.2% 31.1% 33.8%

District of Columbia 

combined 11.4% 4.0% 1.9% 7.6% 14.7% 13.9% 46.5%

Florida blind 1.1% 98.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 

Florida general 1.4% 9.2% 22.3% 20.0% 11.1% 35.9%

Georgia combined 7.0% 4.0% 6.4% 16.6% 12.3% 28.5% 25.2%

Guam combined 1.0% 6.1% 10.1% 28.3% 12.1% 20.2% 22.2%

Hawaii combined 1.6% 6.0% 4.3% 14.1% 8.3% 23.9% 41.8%

Idaho blind 0.6% 96.8% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Idaho general 0.0% 0.7% 3.8% 25.3% 11.0% 22.5% 36.6%

Illinois combined 0.0% 7.2% 6.2% 16.7% 11.0% 32.0% 26.9%

Indiana combined 4.0% 5.5% 14.2% 22.5% 9.2% 22.0% 22.6%

Iowa blind 4.1% 94.8% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 

Iowa general 6.9% 0.4% 3.9% 17.9% 10.8% 27.5% 32.6%

Kansas combined 0.0% 6.3% 5.7% 21.2% 10.2% 24.8% 31.8%

Kentucky blind 0.0% 99.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Kentucky general 0.3% 0.1% 6.1% 21.2% 11.0% 19.6% 41.9%

Louisiana combined 19.8% 3.7% 5.2% 15.6% 10.6% 21.0% 24.1%

Maine blind 0.3% 98.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.3% 0.3%

Maine general 0.2% 0.2% 6.9% 21.8% 9.0% 24.6% 37.2%

Maryland combined 0.1% 3.5% 6.3% 14.0% 9.0% 24.3% 42.8%

Massachusetts blind 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Appendix III: State VR Agency Population 

Proportions by Primary Impairment, Fiscal 

Year 2003 
Appendix III: State VR Agency Population 

Proportions by Primary Impairment, Fiscal 

Year 2003 

Page 49 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

 

No 

impairment 

Blind or 

other 

visual 

impairment

Deaf 

or other 

hearing 

impairment

Orthopedic 

or 

neurological 

impairment

Other 

physical 

impairment 

Cognitive 

impairment

Mental or 

psychosocial 

impairment

Massachusetts general 0.0% 0.8% 5.2% 18.0% 10.9% 18.5% 46.6%

Michigan blind 1.7% 97.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2%

Michigan general 0.0% 0.8% 7.0% 13.0% 13.1% 29.3% 36.8%

Minnesota blind 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Minnesota general 0.0% 0.2% 3.7% 16.8% 10.7% 27.7% 40.9%

Mississippi combined 0.1% 10.1% 11.4% 17.3% 22.1% 19.9% 19.2%

Missouri blind 6.4% 92.4% 0.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1%

Missouri general 4.2% 1.0% 5.5% 21.3% 13.8% 24.1% 30.2%

Montana combined 0.0% 4.5% 2.5% 34.6% 11.4% 21.8% 25.2%

Nebraska blind 1.3% 98.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Nebraska general 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 21.0% 18.7% 47.6% 9.3%

Nevada combined 0.0% 9.7% 5.3% 24.3% 12.8% 17.2% 30.7%

New Hampshire 

combined 

0.1% 5.6% 10.2% 22.9% 11.0% 25.1% 25.1%

New Jersey blind 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

New Jersey general 14.2% 0.5% 6.0% 16.1% 8.8% 21.9% 32.6%

New Mexico blind 0.8% 97.5% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0%

New Mexico general 0.0% 1.1% 6.0% 26.8% 12.1% 20.6% 33.4%

New York blind 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

New York general 0.1% 0.5% 3.0% 19.9% 9.3% 26.0% 41.1%

North Carolina blind 3.7% 96.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

North Carolina general 1.1% 0.4% 3.4% 22.3% 13.9% 23.3% 35.6%

North Dakota combined 0.9% 3.2% 5.6% 20.9% 10.0% 24.6% 34.8%

Northern Marianas 

combined 

0.0% 23.8% 15.8% 14.9% 31.7% 10.9% 3.0%

Ohio combined 0.0% 8.5% 7.4% 20.0% 14.6% 21.1% 28.3%

Oklahoma combined 4.5% 7.4% 4.3% 23.7% 15.9% 21.3% 22.9%

Oregon blind 0.0% 95.4% 0.0% 1.5% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5%

Oregon general 0.0% 1.0% 4.6% 25.7% 18.5% 20.0% 30.2%

Pennsylvania combined 0.0% 3.5% 6.6% 21.1% 11.8% 22.8% 34.2%

Puerto Rico combined 7.3% 8.5% 5.3% 24.5% 15.9% 14.8% 23.7%

Rhode Island combined 0.0% 6.2% 3.2% 17.0% 8.6% 22.8% 42.2%

South Carolina blind 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

South Carolina general 1.1% 0.6% 4.8% 14.1% 17.0% 9.5% 52.9%

South Dakota blind 1.7% 95.7% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9%

South Dakota general 1.2% 0.1% 3.5% 25.2% 10.2% 27.8% 32.0%
Appendix III: State VR Agency Population 

Proportions by Primary Impairment, Fiscal 

Year 2003 

Page 50 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

 

No 

impairment 

Blind or 

other 

visual 

impairment

Deaf 

or other 

hearing 

impairment

Orthopedic 

or 

neurological 

impairment

Other 

physical 

impairment 

Cognitive 

impairment

Mental or 

psychosocial 

impairment

Tennessee combined 0.4% 3.9% 2.6% 17.5% 12.6% 33.3% 29.7%

Texas blind 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Texas general 0.0% 0.1% 5.2% 27.1% 15.9% 15.6% 36.2%

Utah combined 0.0% 3.0% 4.0% 24.0% 8.7% 15.1% 45.1%

Vermont blind 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Vermont general 0.0% 0.4% 4.3% 23.5% 13.2% 21.5% 37.2%

Virgin Islands combined 0.0% 9.4% 6.3% 14.6% 11.5% 46.9% 11.5%

Virginia blind 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Virginia general 0.0% 0.6% 4.4% 17.3% 11.9% 32.0% 33.7%

Washington blind 0.0% 97.9% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3%

Washington general 0.0% 2.1% 4.9% 27.0% 8.4% 30.1% 27.6%

West Virginia combined 1.4% 3.4% 8.0% 22.7% 14.9% 26.0% 23.5%

Wisconsin combined 26.2% 2.2% 3.0% 22.5% 10.0% 15.2% 20.9%

Wyoming combined 0.0% 2.8% 4.3% 34.5% 10.7% 12.3% 35.4%

National average 2.2% 5.4% 5.4% 20.2% 12.4% 22.6% 31.7%

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 
Appendix IV: Social Security Beneficiaries’ 

Employment Rates by State VR Agency, 

Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 51 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

 Exited without 

employment, during 

the application 

phase

Exited without 

employment, 

after limited 

services

Exited without 

employment, after 

services under an 

employment plan 

Exited with 

employment, after 

services under an 

employment plan

Alabama combined 11.1% 12.5% 33.5% 42.9%

Alaska combined 11.8% 31.9% 26.3% 29.9%

American Samoa combined 31.0% 10.3% 0.0% 58.6%

Arizona combined 14.1% 27.2% 39.4% 19.3%

Arkansas blind 13.2% 7.5% 14.4% 64.9%

Arkansas general 24.8% 13.2% 44.5% 17.4%

California combined 9.5% 23.2% 35.8% 31.4%

Colorado combined 17.0% 36.5% 23.6% 22.9%

Connecticut blind 1.1% 24.5% 17.0% 57.4%

Connecticut general 6.9% 33.2% 33.3% 26.6%

Delaware blind 12.8% 25.6% 25.6% 35.9%

Delaware general 26.3% 14.5% 27.7% 31.5%

District of Columbia combined 9.8% 45.7% 24.2% 20.2%

Florida blind 23.3% 7.9% 29.8% 39.1%

Florida general 3.1% 32.5% 40.7% 23.7%

Georgia combined 13.4% 19.2% 37.3% 30.1%

Guam combined 45.5% 36.4% 9.1% 9.1%

Hawaii combined 7.4% 31.8% 27.3% 33.4%

Idaho blind 8.9% 19.6% 25.0% 46.4%

Idaho general 7.3% 31.3% 29.4% 32.0%

Illinois combined 15.4% 17.6% 30.5% 36.4%

Indiana combined 9.1% 27.5% 35.3% 28.2%

Iowa blind 2.5% 16.3% 16.3% 65.0%

Iowa general 15.0% 29.0% 35.0% 21.0%

Kansas combined 17.9% 16.4% 34.1% 31.6%

Kentucky blind 7.8% 23.0% 19.4% 49.8%

Kentucky general 14.9% 33.6% 25.8% 25.7%

Louisiana combined 23.2% 31.5% 27.8% 17.4%

Maine blind 11.2% 14.6% 14.6% 59.6%

Maine general 7.4% 31.3% 31.5% 29.7%

Maryland combined 35.0% 19.7% 12.4% 33.0%

Massachusetts blind 4.1% 6.5% 21.1% 68.3%

Massachusetts general 9.4% 44.3% 25.8% 20.5%

Michigan blind 15.6% 11.7% 31.3% 41.4%

Appendix IV: Social Security Beneficiaries’ 

Employment Rates by State VR Agency, 

Fiscal Year 2003 
Appendix IV: Social Security Beneficiaries’ 

Employment Rates by State VR Agency, 

Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 52 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

 Exited without 

employment, during 

the application 

phase

Exited without 

employment, 

after limited 

services

Exited without 

employment, after 

services under an 

employment plan 

Exited with 

employment, after 

services under an 

employment plan

Michigan general 12.5% 24.5% 34.0% 29.1%

Minnesota blind 16.7% 17.9% 40.9% 24.6%

Minnesota general 14.4% 31.8% 27.8% 26.0%

Mississippi combined 19.2% 23.6% 27.2% 30.0%

Missouri blind 7.4% 13.8% 47.5% 31.3%

Missouri general 5.7% 54.1% 13.0% 27.2%

Montana combined 2.4% 44.6% 22.8% 30.2%

Nebraska blind 26.4% 12.5% 33.3% 27.8%

Nebraska general 3.9% 32.0% 36.6% 27.5%

Nevada combined 14.4% 31.9% 32.6% 21.1%

New Hampshire combined 5.7% 32.7% 16.7% 44.9%

New Jersey blind 13.6% 27.2% 21.5% 37.7%

New Jersey general 12.6% 32.9% 30.1% 24.5%

New Mexico blind 10.8% 14.9% 37.8% 36.5%

New Mexico general 28.8% 18.9% 24.4% 28.0%

New York blind 9.0% 23.1% 23.7% 44.1%

New York general 8.2% 29.7% 29.3% 32.8%

North Carolina blind 8.5% 17.1% 35.4% 39.0%

North Carolina general 15.3% 25.1% 33.8% 25.8%

North Dakota combined 2.1% 27.9% 28.2% 41.8%

Northern Marianas combined 5.6% 27.8% 50.0% 16.7%

Ohio combined 14.8% 30.8% 29.0% 25.4%

Oklahoma combined 10.1% 29.1% 41.7% 19.1%

Oregon blind 10.4% 17.9% 38.7% 33.0%

Oregon general 13.6% 37.8% 24.0% 24.6%

Pennsylvania combined 7.2% 13.9% 42.1% 36.8%

Puerto Rico combined 20.3% 19.4% 18.3% 41.9%

Rhode Island combined 8.1% 31.4% 29.3% 31.2%

South Carolina blind 5.5% 6.7% 33.9% 53.9%

South Carolina general 17.7% 16.6% 34.5% 31.2%

South Dakota blind 12.9% 19.4% 32.3% 35.5%

South Dakota general 19.0% 21.3% 25.7% 34.1%

Tennessee combined 29.7% 20.6% 25.0% 24.7%

Texas blind 17.2% 8.3% 24.8% 49.7%

Texas general 17.5% 23.3% 37.0% 22.2%
Appendix IV: Social Security Beneficiaries’ 

Employment Rates by State VR Agency, 

Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 53 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

 Exited without 

employment, during 

the application 

phase

Exited without 

employment, 

after limited 

services

Exited without 

employment, after 

services under an 

employment plan 

Exited with 

employment, after 

services under an 

employment plan

Utah combined 1.0% 25.0% 40.0% 34.1%

Vermont blind 3.8% 5.7% 35.8% 54.7%

Vermont general 2.5% 23.2% 30.4% 43.9%

Virgin Islands combined 21.1% 21.1% 10.5% 47.4%

Virginia blind 7.9% 22.3% 19.5% 50.2%

Virginia general 14.0% 22.1% 34.2% 29.7%

Washington blind 11.4% 26.6% 34.2% 27.8%

Washington general 11.4% 41.8% 26.6% 20.2%

West Virginia combined 5.4% 47.9% 20.3% 26.4%

Wisconsin combined 15.4% 27.6% 32.5% 24.5%

Wyoming combined 9.4% 22.7% 23.1% 44.9%

National average 12.6% 27.0% 31.3% 29.1%

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 
Appendix V: State VR Agency Percentages of 

Total Agency Service Budget Spent on Each 

Service Category, Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 54 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Assessment, 

counseling, 

guidance and 

placement

Diagnosis 

and treatment 

of impairments

Postsecondary 

education training 

Job readiness, 

vocational, 

occupational and all 

other training 

Alabama combined 48% 10% 10% 21%

Alaska combined 57% 5% 5% 11%

American Samoa combined 15% 9% 1% 55%

Arizona combined 58% 8% 7% 14%

Arkansas blind 42% 21% 7% 23%

Arkansas general 66% 5% 19% 6%

California combined 50% 1% 7% 17%

Colorado combined 60% 6% 4% 19%

Connecticut blind 37% 4% 15% 17%

Connecticut general 65% 7% 5% 4%

Delaware blind 27% 1% 15% 34%

Delaware general 59% 4% 8% 26%

District of Columbia combined 47% 7% 17% 23%

Florida blind 37% 11% 4% 11%

Florida general 42% 24% 4% 9%

Georgia combined 65% 3% 5% 14%

Guam combined 78% 2% 6% 8%

Hawaii combined 58% 1% 9% 16%

Idaho blind 46% 7% 4% 31%

Idaho general 57% 5% 9% 18%

Illinois combined 55% 6% 7% 19%

Indiana combined 31% 18% 9% 23%

Iowa blind 29% 0% 4% 45%

Iowa general 64% 2% 17% 9%

Kansas combined 53% 9% 5% 18%

Kentucky blind 50% 14% 6% 2%

Kentucky general 59% 3% 15% 9%

Louisiana combined 47% 13% 15% 16%

Maine blind 48% 4% 3% 1%

Appendix V: State VR Agency Percentages of 

Total Agency Service Budget Spent on Each 

Service Category, Fiscal Year 2003 
Appendix V: State VR Agency Percentages of 

Total Agency Service Budget Spent on Each 

Service Category, Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 55 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Maintenance Transportation 

Personal 

assistance 

services 

All other 

services

Postemployment 

services

Rehabilitation 

technology 

services

Small business 

enterprises

4.5% 1.3% 0.6% 5% 0.1% 5.7% 0.0%

2.5% 3.4% 0.7% 15% 1.8% 3.3% 0.4%

0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 20% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1.7% 2.2% 2.5% 7% 2.2% 4.6% 0.8%

1.0% 0.7% 0.1% 5% 0.5% 3.4% 0.2%

0.8% 0.4% 2.0% 1% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0%

0.3% 4.3% 0.4% 20% 0.1% 1.9% 0.0%

0.7% 1.5% 0.8% 7% 0.3% 2.8% 1.3%

0.0% 1.4% 1.0% 25% 0.0% 11.2% 0.0%

3.3% 0.8% 0.3% 15% 0.3% 9.8% 0.1%

0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 23% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0%

2.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

6.3% 1.1% 0.2% 0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0%

6.7% 1.9% 0.2% 28% 0.0% 13.3% 0.4%

1.0% 1.9% 0.0% 18% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0%

5.5% 2.6% 0.6% 4% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0%

0.0% 0.3% 2.6% 3% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0%

0.7% 1.2% 0.2% 14% 0.1% 8.2% 0.0%

2.7% 1.7% 0.2% 8% 0.8% 4.8% 0.0%

1.3% 3.2% 0.3% 6% 0.4% 4.6% 2.2%

4.1% 2.2% 1.2% 6% 0.1% 3.1% 0.8%

3.1% 2.3% 4.0% 10% 0.3% 6.0% 1.2%

4.3% 0.5% 1.9% 16% 0.0% 2.3% 1.4%

1.0% 0.8% 2.0% 5% 0.3% 1.9% 2.6%

6.0% 5.6% 1.4% 2% 0.7% 0.6% 0.1%

4.4% 0.0% 0.4% 23% 1.3% 2.2% 9.9%

1.3% 0.3% 0.6% 11% 0.1% 4.8% 0.3%

4.0% 2.2% 1.6% 1% 0.8% 10.9% 0.6%

0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 45% 0.3% 1.1% 0.0%
Appendix V: State VR Agency Percentages of 

Total Agency Service Budget Spent on Each 

Service Category, Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 56 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Assessment, 

counseling, 

guidance and 

placement

Diagnosis and 

treatment of 

impairments

Postsecondary 

education training 

Job readiness, 

vocational, 

occupational and all 

other training 

Maine general 50% 4% 9% 8%

Maryland combined 69% 3% 8% 14%

Massachusetts blind 63% 2% 5% 20%

Massachusetts general 63% 2% 8% 18%

Michigan blind 54% 2% 12% 9%

Michigan general 55% 4% 13% 13%

Minnesota blind 55% 0% 6% 19%

Minnesota general 69% 0% 7% 13%

Mississippi combined 48% 36% 3% 3%

Missouri blind 30% 7% 9% 23%

Missouri general 38% 7% 12% 29%

Montana combined 41% 3% 30% 7%

Nebraska blind 44% 0% 6% 37%

Nebraska general 68% 0% 9% 15%

Nevada combined 53% 10% 6% 11%

New Hampshire combined 54% 8% 10% 12%

New Jersey blind 47% 5% 5% 35%

New Jersey general 55% 3% 10% 20%

New Mexico blind 69% 0% 5% 3%

New Mexico general 60% 6% 12% 5%

New York blind 25% 0% 6% 64%

New York general 59% 0% 6% 23%

North Carolina blind 62% 22% 5% 0%

North Carolina general 41% 29% 10% 15%

North Dakota combined 45% 6% 19% 21%

Northern Marianas combined 49% 20% 0% 4%

Ohio combined 53% 6% 17% 9%

Oklahoma combined 47% 12% 19% 18%

Oregon blind 42% 1% 5% 19%

Oregon general 64% 3% 3% 5%

Pennsylvania combined 38% 15% 12% 21%

Puerto Rico combined 43% 1% 23% 3%
Appendix V: State VR Agency Percentages of 

Total Agency Service Budget Spent on Each 

Service Category, Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 57 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Maintenance Transportation 

Personal 

assistance 

services 

All other 

services

Postemployment 

services

Rehabilitation 

technology 

services

Small business 

enterprises

2.0% 3.5% 0.9% 23% 5.2% 4.0% 0.0%

1.4% 1.1% 0.4% 3% 0.5% 2.8% 0.6%

0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 10% 0.8% 9.8% 0.0%

1.1% 2.0% 0.6% 6% 0.2% 2.4% 0.0%

2.8% 0.3% 7.5% 11% 1.1% 6.6% 0.0%

3.3% 4.9% 0.4% 6% 0.4% 1.1% 0.8%

7.9% 1.3% 0.0% 11% 0.8% 6.6% 0.0%

1.3% 2.8% 0.1% 7% 0.2% 1.5% 0.0%

1.7% 0.4% 1.0% 7% 0.2% 2.5% 0.1%

4.4% 4.1% 0.0% 23% 0.7% 3.9% 0.0%

5.8% 3.5% 1.9% 3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

1.1% 2.8% 0.4% 14% 0.5% 2.4% 0.1%

3.4% 0.5% 1.4% 6% 0.0% 6.0% 0.2%

0.6% 1.0% 0.2% 7% 0.8% 5.2% 1.0%

1.1% 2.4% 1.4% 16% 0.2% 1.1% 0.0%

1.0% 2.3% 0.1% 12% 0.1% 7.3% 0.0%

3.0% 3.3% 2.0% 1% 0.9% 0.4% 0.0%

2.5% 1.5% 0.0% 7% 0.0% 6.1% 0.0%

7.1% 1.2% 0.5% 15% 0.7% 10.7% 1.5%

2.6% 3.4% 1.3% 10% 1.1% 2.7% 2.8%

2.3% 1.0% 0.0% 1% 0.2% 8.6% 0.1%

1.6% 3.8% 2.2% 4% 0.3% 1.9% 0.0%

2.4% 1.3% 1.2% 5% 0.4% 3.0% 0.1%

2.6% 2.3% 0.2% 0% 0.1% 0.9% 0.0%

3.4% 2.7% 0.5% 2% 0.3% 4.3% 1.1%

0.4% 4.6% 0.0% 22% 0.0% 19.6% 0.0%

1.9% 1.2% 0.6% 11% 0.4% 3.5% 0.4%

0.8% 2.0% 0.1% 1% 0.2% 2.0% 0.0%

1.6% 0.7% 1.0% 29% 2.4% 9.5% 0.0%

0.3% 4.3% 0.4% 18% 0.8% 3.2% 1.8%

3.3% 0.7% 0.9% 9% 0.4% 11.7% 0.0%

16.2% 9.4% 1.7% 2% 0.0% 1.3% 4.0%
Appendix V: State VR Agency Percentages of 

Total Agency Service Budget Spent on Each 

Service Category, Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 58 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Assessment, 

counseling, guidance 

and placement

Diagnosis and 

treatment of 

impairments

Postsecondary 

education training 

Job readiness, 

vocational, 

occupational and all 

other training 

Rhode Island combined 70% 0% 6% 13%

South Carolina blind 43% 10% 11% 22%

South Carolina general 50% 5% 2% 39%

South Dakota blind 53% 12% 4% 6%

South Dakota general 43% 4% 9% 17%

Tennessee combined 33% 1% 35% 24%

Texas blind 64% 10% 1% 12%

Texas general 47% 24% 5% 16%

Utah combined 41% 9% 28% 13%

Vermont blind 50% 12% 3% 10%

Vermont general 60% 2% 3% 16%

Virgin Islands combined 34% 11% 5% 23%

Virginia blind 43% 4% 4% 29%

Virginia general 51% 4% 2% 5%

Washington blind 57% 0% 8% 17%

Washington general 60% 3% 10% 10%

West Virginia combined 41% 11% 17% 26%

Wisconsin combined 46% 2% 6% 17%

Wyoming combined 48% 11% 12% 21%

National average 50% 7% 9% 17%

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

Note: Service budget does not include the three categories of “post-employment services,” 

“rehabilitation technology services,” or “small business enterprises” because expenditures in these 

categories have already been captured in one of the other eight service categories, depending on the 

actual nature of the service (i.e., a type of training, transportation, etc.) As a result, only the first eight 

columns in this appendix add to 100 percent for each state VR agency, or about 100 percent because 

of rounding. 
Appendix V: State VR Agency Percentages of 

Total Agency Service Budget Spent on Each 

Service Category, Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 59 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Maintenance Transportation 

Personal 

assistance 

services 

All other 

services

Postemployment 

services

Rehabilitation 

technology 

services

Small business 

enterprises

0.0% 1.0% 1.3% 9% 0.8% 5.2% 0.0%

0.6% 3.2% 0.0% 11% 0.1% 3.0% 0.0%

1.6% 1.2% 0.7% 0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0%

2.1% 1.6% 0.5% 22% 0.8% 14.5% 3.4%

2.0% 1.8% 3.7% 20% 0.4% 5.9% 0.7%

1.9% 1.5% 0.7% 3% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0%

0.7% 0.7% 1.1% 11% 2.1% 1.2% 1.6%

0.9% 0.6% 0.3% 6% 1.8% 2.3% 0.1%

2.2% 2.7% 0.1% 3% 1.2% 8.3% 0.9%

0.5% 1.2% 0.5% 21% 2.1% 17.5% 0.0%

0.9% 5.4% 0.4% 13% 1.3% 0.4% 0.2%

6.4% 8.4% 4.1% 7% 2.7% 2.9% 0.0%

3.0% 1.9% 1.3% 14% 0.1% 13.6% 0.0%

1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 35% 0.3% 0.7% 0.0%

1.6% 1.1% 1.2% 13% 0.2% 15.1% 0.0%

1.5% 4.7% 0.3% 11% 1.0% 2.5% 0.0%

2.5% 0.1% 0.4% 2% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0%

1.7% 7.0% 0.5% 19% 0.0% 5.8% 0.8%

2.9% 2.7% 0.5% 3% 1.6% 5.4% 1.9%

2.4% 2.1% 0.9% 11% 0.6% 4.7% 0.6%
Appendix VI: State VR Agency Total 

Administrative Costs as a Percentage of Total 

Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 60 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Administrative costs as a percentage 

of total agency expenditures

Alabama combined 6%

Alaska combined 10%

American Samoa combined 23%

Arizona combined 12%

Arkansas blind 13%

Arkansas general 12%

California combined 8%

Colorado combined 15%

Connecticut blind 17%

Connecticut general 14%

Delaware blind 30%

Delaware general 14%

District of Columbia combined 33%

Florida blind 10%

Florida general 12%

Georgia combined 8%

Guam combined 32%

Hawaii combined 11%

Idaho blind 16%

Idaho general 9%

Illinois combined 5%

Indiana combined 4%

Iowa blind 9%

Iowa general 10%

Kansas combined 11%

Kentucky blind 13%

Kentucky general 10%

Louisiana combined 11%

Maine blind 13%

Maine general 12%

Maryland combined 13%

Massachusetts blind 32%

Massachusetts general 13%

Michigan blind 31%

Michigan general 12%

Appendix VI: State VR Agency Total 

Administrative Costs as a Percentage of Total 

Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003 
Appendix VI: State VR Agency Total 

Administrative Costs as a Percentage of Total 

Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 61 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Administrative costs as a percentage 

of total agency expenditures

Minnesota blind 16%

Minnesota general 13%

Mississippi combined 15%

Missouri blind 12%

Missouri general 5%

Montana combined 9%

Nebraska blind 14%

Nebraska general 13%

Nevada combined 23%

New Hampshire combined 18%

New Jersey blind 18%

New Jersey general 9%

New Mexico blind 20%

New Mexico general 16%

New York blind 11%

New York general 9%

North Carolina blind 15%

North Carolina general 7%

North Dakota combined 18%

Northern Marianas combined 57%

Ohio combined 9%

Oklahoma combined 10%

Oregon blind 12%

Oregon general 6%

Pennsylvania combined 9%

Puerto Rico combined 14%

Rhode Island combined 24%

South Carolina blind 30%

South Carolina general 7%

South Dakota blind 13%

South Dakota general 9%

Tennessee combined 14%

Texas blind 14%

Texas general 8%

Utah combined 7%

Vermont blind 14%
Appendix VI: State VR Agency Total 

Administrative Costs as a Percentage of Total 

Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 62 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Administrative costs as a percentage 

of total agency expenditures

Vermont general 16%

Virgin Islands combined 12%

Virginia blind 13%

Virginia general 8%

Washington blind 16%

Washington general 10%

West Virginia combined 17%

Wisconsin combined 10%

Wyoming combined 17%

National average 10%

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 
Appendix VII: State VR Agency Average Total 

Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2003 Per Person 

Exiting with Employment in Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 63 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

 

Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person 

exiting with employment in fiscal year 2003 

Alabama combined $ 9,147.18 

Alaska combined $ 24,709.69 

American Samoa combined $ 20,162.77 

Arizona combined $ 32,761.67 

Arkansas blind $ 16,326.45 

Arkansas general $ 16,952.49 

California combined $ 24,128.90 

Colorado combined $ 21,522.42 

Connecticut blind $ 13,081.71 

Connecticut general $ 14,101.03 

Delaware blind $ 74,690.00 

Delaware general $ 11,316.19 

District of Columbia combined $ 27,751.07 

Florida blind $ 37,040.38 

Florida general $ 13,393.87 

Georgia combined $ 24,005.87 

Guam combined $ 53,709.54 

Hawaii combined $ 20,579.51 

Idaho blind $ 27,716.22 

Idaho general $ 7,688.59 

Illinois combined $ 13,711.01 

Indiana combined $ 15,893.24 

Iowa blind $ 56,907.73 

Iowa general $ 13,808.72 

Kansas combined $ 16,159.61 

Kentucky blind $ 27,367.03 

Kentucky general $ 11,465.51 

Louisiana combined $ 27,213.90 

Maine blind $ 17,585.56 

Maine general $ 17,973.61 

Maryland combined $ 17,905.81 

Massachusetts blind $ 57,309.36 

Massachusetts general $ 19,491.41 

Michigan blind $ 50,281.12 

Michigan general $ 14,790.42 

Appendix VII: State VR Agency Average Total 

Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2003 Per Person 

Exiting with Employment in Fiscal Year 2003 
Appendix VII: State VR Agency Average Total 

Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2003 Per Person 

Exiting with Employment in Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 64 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

 

Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person 

exiting with employment in fiscal year 2003 

Minnesota blind $ 73,034.65 

Minnesota general $ 13,687.42 

Mississippi combined $ 11,373.87 

Missouri blind $ 31,100.48 

Missouri general $ 12,337.21 

Montana combined $ 13,638.62 

Nebraska blind $ 47,396.30 

Nebraska general $ 12,185.01 

Nevada combined $ 18,618.61 

New Hampshire combined $ 10,227.07 

New Jersey blind $ 42,340.65 

New Jersey general $ 12,952.84 

New Mexico blind $ 131,027.65 

New Mexico general $ 15,159.09 

New York blind $ 19,137.95 

New York general $ 11,860.90 

North Carolina blind $ 24,436.74 

North Carolina general $ 12,167.74 

North Dakota combined $ 11,679.61 

Northern Marianas combined $ 28,500.53 

Ohio combined $ 22,382.25 

Oklahoma combined $ 16,971.47 

Oregon blind $ 56,235.22 

Oregon general $ 13,480.54 

Pennsylvania combined $ 13,751.45 

Puerto Rico combined $ 34,680.64 

Rhode Island combined $ 18,595.19 

South Carolina blind $ 23,025.59 

South Carolina general $ 7,408.41 

South Dakota blind $ 34,478.06 

South Dakota general $ 14,062.02 

Tennessee combined $ 20,476.00 

Texas blind $ 26,992.63 

Texas general $ 9,327.45 

Utah combined $ 10,947.74 

Vermont blind $ 15,060.00 
Appendix VII: State VR Agency Average Total 

Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2003 Per Person 

Exiting with Employment in Fiscal Year 2003 

Page 65 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

 

Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person 

exiting with employment in fiscal year 2003 

Vermont general $ 9,208.06 

Virgin Islands combined $ 58,988.15 

Virginia blind $ 44,716.19 

Virginia general $ 16,076.59 

Washington blind $ 70,120.85 

Washington general $ 26,467.08 

West Virginia combined $ 17,069.67 

Wisconsin combined $ 17,666.19 

Wyoming combined $ 13,102.07 

National average $ 15,544.08 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 
Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 

Page 66 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 
Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 

Page 67 GAO-05-865 VR Review 
Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 

Page 68 GAO-05-865 VR Review 
Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 

Page 69 GAO-05-865 VR Review 
Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 

Page 70 GAO-05-865 VR Review 
Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 

Page 71 GAO-05-865 VR Review 
Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of Education 

Page 72 GAO-05-865 VR Review 
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 73 GAO-05-865 VR Review 

Robert E. Robertson 202-512-7215 or robertsonr@gao.gov 

In addition to the contact named above, Michele Grgich, Assistant 

Director; Beverly Crawford; Shannon K. Groff ; and Megan Matselboba 

made key contributions to this report. Also, Elizabeth H. Curda, 

Wilfred B. Holloway, Jonathan McMurray, Luann Moy, Peter Rumble, 

Daniel A. Schwimer, and Susan B. Wallace provided technical assistance. 

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(130392) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER