Vocational Rehabilitation: Better Measures and Monitoring Could Improve the Performance of the VR Program
Published: 2005-09-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Of the more than 650,000 individuals exiting the state VR programs in fiscal year 2003, one-third (217,557) obtained a new job or maintained their existing job for at least 90 days after receiving services. Education's data showed that the remaining two-thirds exited the VR program without employment most often because the individual refused services or failed to cooperate with the VR counselor (46 percent of the time) or could not be located or contacted (24 percent). The VR program purchased more than $1.3 billion in services for all individuals who exited the program in fiscal year 2003, two-thirds of which were used to provide services to individuals exiting with employment. Employment, earnings, and the amount of purchased services received while in the VR program varied significantly by individuals' disability type and other characteristics. In addition, state VR agencies varied substantially in the employment rates they achieved, the characteristics of individuals they served, their frequency of providing certain services, and their service expenditures. Education's performance measures are not comprehensive, and its monitoring of state VR agencies has not resulted in timely feedback. Education does not comprehensively measure the performance of certain key populations, such as students transitioning from school to work, and tracks only the individuals who exit the program, not those still receiving services. In addition, Education's performance measures do not take into consideration all the variation among the state VR agencies or allow for comparisons with other workforce programs. Education's monitoring reports, which are its primary means of providing feedback to state VR agencies, are frequently late and based on data that are more than 2 years old. Consequently, state VR agencies do not receive the timely feedback needed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their programs. In managing the performance of the VR program, Education also does not censure poorly performing state VR agencies, reward strong performance, or take full advantage of opportunities to disseminate best practices. Education recently decided to eliminate its regional offices, which conducted most of the monitoring of state VR agencies, making the details of the future monitoring process unclear.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Education (Education) provides more than $2.5 billion  annually to the states for a federal-state vocational rehabilitation (VR)  program to help individuals with disabilities become employed, consistent  with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In fiscal year  2003, these state  programs provided services to more than 1 million individuals with  disabilities. Although Education provides more than three-quarters of the  program’s funding, states have significant latitude in how they administer  their VR programs.
In the past several years, key legislative changes have been enacted  relating to the VR program. For example, the Rehabilitation Act was  reauthorized as part of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998, when  VR became 1 of 17 mandated partners in state workforce investment  systems. In addition, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives  Improvement Act of 1999 expanded the types of rehabilitation services  available to Social Security disability beneficiaries by providing for  privatized services in a market previously dominated by the public VR  program.
More recently, in 2003, we placed the modernization of federal disability  programs on our list of high-risk programs because many of these  programs have yet to incorporate scientific advances and economic and  social changes that have redefined the relationship between impairments  and the ability to work. In addition, these programs have faced long- standing challenges in ensuring the timeliness and consistency of  decisions related to benefits and services for people with disabilities. We  have prepared this report under the Comptroller General’s authority as  part of a continued effort to help policy makers better understand the  extent of support provided by federal programs to people with disabilities  and to assist them in determining how these programs could more  effectively meet the needs of individuals with disabilities in the 21st  century. As it may prove helpful in the deliberation of committees with  jurisdiction over VR issues, we have addressed this report to each of these  committees. In this report, we assess (1) the extent to which state VR  agencies assist individuals in achieving employment and (2) the  performance measures and monitoring practices Education uses to  manage this decentralized program and achieve legislative goals.
To perform our review, we analyzed data from two datasets maintained by  Education, one a record of the cases for all individuals who exited the VR  program after their cases were closed during fiscal year 2003 (the most  recent year for which data were available for us to use in time for  production of this report) and the other a record of the expenditures for  each state VR agency in fiscal year 2003. We determined that the data we  used were sufficiently reliable for our purposes by performing electronic  testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, reviewing  available documentation, and interviewing Education and state VR agency  officials knowledgeable about the data. We also reviewed relevant laws,  regulations, Education’s policy documents relating to the VR program, and  the required state plans for each state VR agency’s program. Further, we  interviewed key program officials at the national and regional levels,  selected state VR agency officials, and advocates for people with  disabilities. Finally, we conducted site visits to state VR agencies in  California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Virginia.  We selected these sites to achieve a mix of state VR agency structures,  operations, and performance as well as to achieve geographic diversity.  We conducted our review from August 2004 through September 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. For a  more complete explanation of our methodology, see appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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. 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. State  VR agencies also vary in their operations and locations. For example,  some agencies provide services through several offices located throughout  the state, while others provide services through one central location.
Education collects information about all individuals who exit each state  VR agency’s program during a particular fiscal year, as reported by the   80 state VR agencies. The record for each individual exiting the program  includes information such as whether or not each individual became  employed, the weekly earnings and hours worked for individuals if they  exited the VR program with employment, the types and costs of services  they received, and demographic factors, such as impairment type, gender,  age, race and ethnicity, public benefits, and income from work at the time  of application. Education also collects summary information on agency  expenditures in a number of categories from each state VR agency.
Education tracks individuals in terms of seven types of case closures,  which can be collapsed into four categories, for individuals who    exited without employment, during the application phase (including  individuals who were found ineligible; individuals who could not be  determined to be eligible or ineligible for various reasons such as they  could not be located or contacted, they failed to cooperate or they refused  services; and individuals who were found eligible, but were placed on a  waiting list);   exited without employment, with limited services (including individuals  who were found eligible, but who left the program before an employment  plan could be developed, or agreed to an employment plan, but left before  receiving services under that plan);   exited without employment, after receiving services under an employment    exited with at least 90 days of employment, after receiving services under  an employment plan.
Education considers several types of work activities to meet its definition  of employment. First, Education counts as employment the paid work  activity of an individual, who may or may not require ongoing support  services, in an integrated work setting, that is, a setting typically found in  the community where individuals both with and without disabilities  interact. 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.)
State VR agencies that determine they will not be able to serve all eligible  individuals who apply for services are required to state the order in which  they will select individuals for services. Agencies using an order of  selection process must develop criteria for ensuring that individuals with  the most significant disabilities will be selected first for services. Thirty- nine of the 80 state VR agencies were using an order of selection process  in fiscal year 2003. Beginning fiscal year 2004, 42 of the agencies are using  an order process.
The Rehabilitation Act requires state VR agencies to enter into cooperative  agreements with other entities that are part of the state’s workforce  investment system. This workforce investment system includes a One-Stop  system, which is required to provide a number of employment-related  services to job seekers and employers at a single location. The act also  requires state VR agencies to coordinate with public education officials to  facilitate the transition of students with disabilities from school to work.  Students with disabilities receive special education and related services  from their school under an individualized education program (IEP).  Beyond these required interactions, state VR agencies may also enter into  third-party cooperative agreements with other state or local agencies to  coordinate the services provided to their common program participants.
Education must abide by several statutes and executive branch directives  to measure and monitor the performance of the VR program. The 1998  amendments to the Rehabilitation Act required that Education establish  and publish evaluation standards and performance indicators for the VR  program. The standards and indicators were supposed to include outcome  and related measures of program performance that facilitate the  accomplishment of the purpose and policy of the act. The act also gave  Education the authority to reduce or suspend payments to state VR  agencies that have performance falling below a certain level and fail to  enter into a program improvement plan or substantially comply with the  terms and conditions of such a plan. The act also directed Education to  conduct annual review and periodic on-site monitoring of state VR  agencies to determine, in part, whether they were complying with the  standards and indicators. Education performs this monitoring function  through the 10 regional offices of its Rehabilitation Services  Administration (RSA).
In response to the 1998 amendments, Education established new  performance measures in June 2000 that consisted of two standards for  evaluating the performance of the state VR agencies, one relating to the  agencies’ performance in assisting individuals in obtaining, maintaining, or  regaining high-quality employment and the other relating to the agencies’  performance in ensuring that individuals from minority backgrounds have  equal access to services. In addition, Education published performance  indicators that establish what constitutes minimum compliance with these  evaluation standards and required performance targets for each indicator.  Six performance indicators were published for the employment standard,  and one was published for the minority service standard. State VR  agencies must meet or exceed performance targets in four of the six  categories for the first standard and meet or exceed the performance  target for the second standard in order to have passing performance. Table  1 provides details on these standards and indicators.
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.
section_title: One-Third of Individuals Exited the VR Program Nationwide with Employment, although Employment Rates Varied Significantly among State VR Agencies
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: One-Third of Individuals Exited the VR Program Nationwide with Employment in Fiscal Year 2003
paragraphs: 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. (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. One state VR agency official noted  that this figure may, however, underestimate the actual value of VR  services extended to individuals working at both program entry and exit.  For example, the VR program will pay for services such as vehicle  modifications and repairs necessary to help some individuals maintain  transportation to and from existing jobs, but these individuals typically do  not experience any earnings increase between program entry and exit.
Overall, two-thirds (433,086) of individuals exited the VR program without  employment at some point following their initial application to the  program. Of those who exited without employment in fiscal year 2003,  most did so because they refused services or failed to cooperate with their  VR counselor (46 percent of the time) or could not be located or contacted   (24 percent). (See fig. 3.) One state VR agency official told us that the VR  program has historically closed a large number of cases because  individuals cannot be located or contacted. However, she also noted that  individuals with disabilities coming to the VR program are often a  transient population with high rates of poverty and other multiple  barriers—issues that can require more time and priority than notifying VR  counselors that they have moved.
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. 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. 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.
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.
Individuals may also benefit from the VR program in important  nonmonetary ways, aside from employment and earnings. For example,  regardless of whether individuals leave the VR program with employment,  they may increase their educational level, psychological or physical  functioning, productivity in the work setting, independence for self or  family members, or integration into the community as a result of receiving  VR services. However, Education does not collect data on any  nonmonetary benefits that individuals achieve through the VR program  aside from educational gains and identification of homemakers and unpaid  family workers. Moreover, it is difficult to measure the actual influence of  the VR program in assisting individuals to obtain these benefits,  employment in general, or any wage increases.
section_title: Rate of Employment, Earnings, and Purchased Services Varied by Individuals’ Impairments and Other Characteristics
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
Individuals exiting the VR program in fiscal year 2003 after having  previously participated in the VR program did not necessarily gain  employment after their repeat involvement. More than 96,000 individuals  (15 percent) exited the VR program in fiscal year 2003 with a prior VR case  closure during the previous 3 years. As figure 7 shows, nearly three- quarters of those who previously exited the program without employment  failed to achieve employment after their repeat involvement with the VR  program.
Individuals also received varying amounts of purchased services from  state VR agencies, depending on their type of disability. For example,  among those who exited in fiscal year 2003 with employment and did not  require ongoing support services, blind or other visually impaired  individuals received more in purchased service dollars ($2,889 at the  median) than any other impairment group, while individuals with cognitive  ($1,385) and mental impairments ($1,566) received the least. Officials at  several state VR agencies for the blind told us that blind and visually  impaired individuals generally require more expensive services, such as  assistive technology, than individuals with other types of disabilities.
Individuals receiving Social Security disability benefits at application to  the VR program comprised one-quarter (159,739) of the total VR  population and collectively achieved a lower rate of employment  nationwide than nonbeneficiaries in fiscal year 2003. 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).  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.
Individuals who transitioned from special education services at their  schools into the workplace (transitioning students) achieved about the  same rate of employment as other individuals with impairments who were  under age 22 when they applied to the VR program. (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), of which more than half were specific learning disabilities.
section_title: State VR Agencies Varied Significantly in the Rates of Employment They Achieved, the Populations They Served, and Their Service Expenditures
paragraphs: 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. 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. Specifically, variables found to help  facilitate higher employment rates included an agency’s emphasis on  employment, access to ongoing support service programs, and an agency’s  proportion of individuals with mental retardation, visual impairments, or  existing employment at the time of application to the VR program.  Conversely, poor labor market conditions, particularly high unemployment  rates, were reported as being among the most influential hindrances to an  agency’s performance.
The 39 state VR agencies using an order of selection process collectively  achieved a slightly lower rate of employment in fiscal year 2003 than the  group of 41 agencies not using an order of selection process. Specifically,  the collective employment rate was 32 percent among agencies with  orders and 35 percent among agencies without orders. In addition, both  groups had a wide range of employment rates among individual agencies.  Specifically, state VR agencies’ rates of employment ranged from 20 to   62 percent among agencies with orders and from 21 to 74 percent among  agencies without orders. State VR agencies with orders are required to  give priority acceptance to the category of applicants with “most  significant” disabilities, and accept categories of applicants with  “significant” and “nonsignificant” disabilities with decreasing priority. As a  result, while we expected the group of agencies with orders to experience  more individuals exiting during the application phase, the rate of  individuals exiting during the application phase was 21 percent among  agencies with orders as opposed to 19 percent among agencies without  orders. Moreover, agencies with orders varied in how they administered  their order of selection policies. For example, agencies with orders  opened and closed their priority service categories at varying points  during the year, depending on their available resources and population  projections, thus affecting the proportion of individuals being accepted  into their programs with most significant or significant disabilities.  Further, agencies with orders varied in how they defined a most  significant disability and how many service categories they expected to  serve during a particular fiscal year. Specifically, according to the state  plans submitted to Education by state VR agencies for fiscal year 2003, 2 of  the 39 agencies with orders expected to serve only individuals with most  significant disabilities. In contrast, 11 agencies had orders of selection in  place for fiscal year 2003, which indicated they could not serve all eligible  individuals, yet they expected to serve all eligible individuals who applied  to their program during fiscal year 2003.
State VR agencies’ proportion of individuals in each impairment category  varied significantly. (App. III shows the proportion of individuals in each  impairment category by agency.) For example, the incidence of individuals  with mental or psychosocial impairments at combined or general state VR  agencies ranged from 1 percent to more than 50 percent. Education  officials told us that one of the reasons for such variation may be state VR  agencies maintaining third-party cooperative agreements with certain  outside entities, such as state mental health institutions, which result in  higher proportions of individuals in their VR population with  corresponding impairments.
State VR agencies also varied in the proportion of Social Security disability  beneficiaries they served, from 7 to 66 percent, and Education and state  VR agency officials told us that this proportion can influence an agency’s  overall employment rate and average hourly earnings among those exiting  with employment. In addition, although beneficiaries’ employment rate  nationwide was 29 percent, their collective employment rates at individual  state VR agencies ranged from 9 to 68 percent. (See app. IV for a list of  each agency’s employment rate.) Moreover, agency officials in two states  told us that because their state legislatures passed Medicaid buy-in  programs, they expected increasing numbers of Social Security disability  beneficiaries to begin working or earning higher wages because they no  longer feared the loss of important health care benefits, which many  automatically received as disability beneficiaries.
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. For example, all of  Minnesota’s VR offices are co-located at One-Stop centers, and officials at  each of the other state VR agencies that we visited told us they had at least  some staff colocated at One-Stop centers on an itinerant basis. State VR  agency officials in Minnesota cited a number of benefits to office  colocation, such as additional services being more readily available, and  credited the leadership both within their state parent agency at the  Department of Employment and Economic Development and within local  regions for the successful colocation of their VR offices. In contrast,  officials at most of the other state VR agencies that we visited told us that  their interaction with the One-Stop centers in their state was limited and  that individuals in their VR programs did not receive very many, if any,  services at the One-Stop centers, for a variety of reasons. They told us that  these reasons included delayed or late implementation of One-Stop  centers in their state, leasing and other legal problems relating to office  colocation, lack of physical accessibility at some One-Stop centers, and  the lack of specialized training or services available at One-Stop centers  necessary to help individuals with disabilities to obtain or advance in  employment.
While state VR agencies varied in the proportions they spent on different  service categories, there were general trends across all agencies with  respect to expenditures on certain services. 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. In contrast, they spent less than 1 percent on  postemployment services for individuals who previously exited the VR  program with employment but required additional services to maintain or  advance in their existing jobs. State VR agency officials told us that VR  counselors are generally not recognized, in terms of achieving an  employment exit, for providing postemployment services. However,  Education and several state VR agency officials told us that  postemployment services are important for some individuals to maintain  their employment. For example, services such as updated computer- assistive technology or software help to coordinate with an employer’s  new computer system or ongoing mental health services help individuals  with mental impairments to cope with new psychosocial issues that arise  while on the job.
State VR agencies varied in the proportion of their total fiscal year 2003  budgets that they spent on providing services, from 43 to 95 percent. Their  remaining expenditures were for administrative costs, which varied from   5 to 57 percent of their total budgets. (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. 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.  (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.
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. 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.)
section_title: Education’s VR Performance Measures Are Not Comprehensive, and Its Monitoring of State VR Agencies’ Performance Has Not Resulted in Timely Feedback
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: VR Performance Measures Are Not Comprehensive, Do Not Take into Account State Variations, and Do Not Allow for Comparison with Other Workforce Programs
paragraphs: Education’s performance measures have a number of weaknesses, as they  are not comprehensive, do not take into account demographic and  economic variations among states, and do not incorporate common  measures to allow for comparison of workforce programs across  executive branch agencies. For example, Education cannot use the current  performance measures to comprehensively evaluate the state VR agencies’  performance because the measures do not include data on the individuals  still receiving services in the VR system, who made up nearly 40 percent of  the state VR agencies’ service population in fiscal year 2003. Instead,  Education’s performance measures reflect only the individuals who exit  the program. 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. 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.
The performance measures also do not isolate data on certain key  populations of VR participants. For example, there are no separate  performance targets for transitioning students or individuals receiving  postemployment services. As a result, Education does not know the extent  of these populations, the services provided to them, or the results they  achieve. While Education focused on transitioning students in its fiscal  year 2003 monitoring guide and held a national conference on  transitioning students in June 2005, it does not use the data captured on  this population in performance measures or evaluate the results and  resources necessary to assist them. In contrast, according to Education  officials, Education wants to move away from counting homemakers as a  category of employment but continues to measure performance in this  area, including homemakers in its employment outcome. In addition,  Education does not capture individual-level data related to  postemployment services, which some state VR agencies told us are  important in helping former participants maintain their employment,  despite the need for these measures to help assess the impact of these  services.
Education has set uniform performance targets for state VR agencies to  meet that do not take into account demographic and economic variations  within states. For example, one performance measure intended to  measure the quality of job placement compares the average wage of  individuals exiting the VR program with employment to the average wage  of the general population within a state overall, rather than to the  population in similar types of jobs or industries. Recognizing that the VR  population is different from the general population, Education set the  performance target for general and combined state VR agencies as a   0.52:1 ratio to the average state wage. However Education’s performance  target still does not capture variations in wages within states, which are  outside the agencies’ control and can affect agencies’ ability to achieve  performance levels. For example, some states, such as California, have  wide variations in wages across the state because of high wages in certain  areas that might skew the wage and make it more difficult to perform well  on this indicator. In addition, a study commissioned by Education found  that equaling or exceeding achievement on another performance measure  intended to compare the number of individuals exiting VR services in the  current year with that in the prior is “very difficult to achieve in times of  declining resources and a poor labor market,” both of which may vary by  region or state. 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. Labor created a set  of common measures for job training and employment programs, which  affect programs in Labor, Education, and several other agencies, and  apply to programs serving adults and to those serving youth. 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. 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, 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, and many of the  state VR agency officials that we contacted, have recommended that  Education modify some VR performance measures, eliminate some  measures, or add to its existing measures.
section_title: Education Does Not Effectively Monitor and Manage the Performance of State VR Agencies
paragraphs: 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. 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.
Education’s process for monitoring state VR agencies has been impeded  by the use of old data. As part of its performance assessment of state VR  agencies, Education requires them to submit performance data by  December 1, or 60 days after the end of the fiscal year. Until recently,  Education took more than a year to identify and correct errors in the data  and produce reliable data for its regional offices to use in monitoring. As a  result, regional offices end up using 2-year-old data when conducting  monitoring reviews and issuing reports. In addition, Education  consistently processes its VR data too late to meet the deadline of  November 15 that OMB established in implementing GPRA for executive  branch agencies to issue annual reports on program performance for the  previous fiscal year. OMB’s 2006 PART review recommended that  Education improve program management using existing performance data  and make these data available to the public in a timelier manner.  Education has shown improvement by issuing fiscal year 2004  performance data 5 months after it collected the data, although it still has  not met OMB’s deadline.
Education does not consistently censure poorly performing or reward  high- performing state VR agencies. The Rehabilitation Act requires state  VR agencies that fail to meet the performance targets for 1 year to develop  a program improvement plan and allows Education to withhold funds  from a poorly performing state VR agency—the most severe sanction  prescribed by the Rehabilitation Act—in cases where agencies fail to meet  the performance targets for 2 or more consecutive years. However, failing  agencies do not always develop program improvement plans nor does  Education follow up to ensure their completion. In addition, Education  has never withheld funds from a poorly performing state VR agency  despite the fact that some agencies failed the performance targets for 2 or  more consecutive years, including two agencies in fiscal year 2003.  Education could not tell us the extent to which agencies have or have not  developed improvement plans because of failing targets. Further, while  Education does not have authority to provide financial rewards for high- performing state VR agencies, it has not developed other means for  rewarding high performance, even though other federal workforce and  education programs have developed performance incentives. For  example, Labor awards incentives and imposes sanctions on workforce  programs based on negotiated performance goals as allowed under WIA.
Beyond the monitoring process, Education relies on the regional offices to  promote the sharing of best practices among state VR agencies. 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.  Education also hosts several national conferences, which provide a venue  for state VR agency staff to share information with one another. 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.
section_title: Decision to Eliminate Regional Offices Has Made Details of the Future Monitoring Process Unclear
paragraphs: In early 2005, Education decided to restructure its VR program. As part of  the restructuring, Education decided to eliminate its regional offices,  which had conducted most of the monitoring of state VR agencies to date.  According to Education officials, the restructuring was necessary to align  the program in a manner to help meet the priorities of the administration  and the Secretary. As part of its restructuring plan, Education included an  interim monitoring plan that did not contain many details. Education has  created a steering committee to look at how monitoring might be  accomplished under the new structure and held a conference in August  2005 in order to create a blueprint for monitoring, but it has not completed  a final monitoring plan and does not expect to have one in place until  about one year after the conference.
In the absence of a final monitoring plan, VR agency officials in several  states expressed concern that the elimination of the regional offices may  make the monitoring process more difficult for a number of reasons.  Specifically, they expressed concern that    Education’s proposed reduction of its RSA staff will leave an insufficient  number of staff to provide any significant feedback and to carry out the  monitoring functions, 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Many people with disabilities face a number of barriers to entering or  returning to the workforce, and ultimately achieving independence. The  VR program was conceived to provide the comprehensive and intensive  services needed to overcome these barriers, and indeed more than   200,000 individuals with disabilities were working in fiscal year 2003 after  receiving VR services. However, twice as many individuals left the VR  program in fiscal year 2003 without getting a job, and individual state VR  agencies varied widely in the proportion of individuals who exited their  programs with jobs as compared with those who did not.
Education designed its system of performance measures to focus on the  group of individuals who exit the VR program with employment. In doing  so, it has made evaluating state VR agencies’ performance with respect to  the rest of the service population difficult. Little is known about the  hundreds of thousands of individuals who received services but had not  left the program by the end of fiscal year 2003 because Education does not  require the state VR agencies to report detailed information about them.  As a result, it is difficult for Education to assess performance in areas such  as the timeliness, cost, and quality of the services provided to this  population. In addition, this system fails to account for performance  relating to special populations, such as transitioning students, that  Education has encouraged the state VR agencies to serve. Further, its  performance measures do not take into account demographic and  economic variations among states. As a result, it is difficult for Education  to assess whether or not state VR agencies are effectively and efficiently  serving these individuals.
Whatever system of performance measures Education chooses to use, it  will have little impact on changing the performance of state VR agencies  unless Education provides timely and effective feedback to the agencies  regarding their performance. Without timely information, state VR  agencies may delay in undertaking necessary corrective action to improve  performance. Further, in the absence of incentives for good performance  or consequences for poor performance, state VR agencies may not find  sufficient reasons for performing at the level that Education sets out for  them. Yet Education’s provision of constructive feedback has been  hindered because of untimely or incomplete monitoring reports. Until  recently, the time Education needed to analyze performance data also  contributed to delays in providing feedback. Although Education  significantly reduced the time it needed to analyze fiscal year 2004 data, it  has yet the meet OMB’s reporting requirements related to GPRA. Further,  Education has missed opportunities for providing feedback by failing to  require that some poorly performing agencies develop performance  improvement plans.
While Education has begun planning for alterations to its monitoring  process to provide better and timelier feedback to state VR agencies, there  are too few details at this point to be able to assess whether the new  process will achieve this intent. As it deliberates on these changes, it will  be important for Education to consider the input of all stakeholders in the  current monitoring process. In addition, it will be important to consider  such issues as how frequently monitoring visits should be made and how  much data the monitoring staff will need to conduct such reviews.
Finally, with the elimination of the regional offices, officials in each of the  80 separate VR agencies may find it more difficult to learn about best  practices used by other agencies. Education will need to explore  alternative means to share information about best practices in an efficient  manner.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Education for comment. In  commenting on the report, Education indicated that it is in full agreement  that better measures and monitoring could improve the performance of  the VR program. However, Education did not specifically comment on  each recommendation.
In addition, Education highlighted initiatives either planned or under way  to improve the management of the VR program. Several of these initiatives  addressed issues raised in our report for which we recommended changes.  In particular, Education agreed with our findings on performance  measures and indicated that the department is currently working to  address these issues. Education also described the steps it is taking to  implement a new system for monitoring state VR agencies. Further, the  agency indicated that it will broaden the dissemination of the information  it produces and will publicize the availability of its monitoring and analytic  work products. Moreover, Education acknowledged that it will do more to  highlight performance related to certain key populations such as  transitioning students.
While acknowledging the importance of monitoring and feedback,  Education pointed out that state VR agency performance is influenced by a  number of factors that are beyond Education’s control. It also pointed out  that the state VR agencies are aware of their own patterns of expenditures  and outcomes and that the most fundamental opportunities for  improvement are at the state level. We recognize the challenge Education  faces in managing a program that is carried out through agencies that are  not under its direct control. However, we believe that, by establishing  better performance measures and implementing a better monitoring  system that includes dissemination of comparative information about the  performance of state VR agencies, Education will be in a better position to  manage this decentralized program.
Education also expressed concern that the manner in which we calculated  the employment rate for individuals exiting the VR program might be  confusing because it differs from the way in which Education calculates  this rate. We believe that it is important to report the outcomes of all the  individuals who exited the VR program in fiscal year 2003 because more  than 40 percent of those who applied for services left the program before  receiving services and because a low percentage of the individuals who  left before receiving services were found ineligible.
Education also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated  as appropriate. Education’s comments are provided in appendix VIII.
Copies of this report are being sent to the Department of Education,  appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. The  report will also be made available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions, please contact  me at (202) 512-7215. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in  appendix IX.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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, the types of services  received, and numerous demographic factors, such as disability type,  gender, age, race and ethnicity, public benefits at program entry and exit,  and any income from work at program entry. Counselors or other staff at  each state VR agency typically input this information from each  individual’s case file into their agency’s data system, which ultimately  produces the RSA-911 file sent annually by that agency to Education.  Education uses standardized, electronic testing to check each agency’s  submitted data for errors and anomalies before publishing them and  requires agencies to correct or verify data elements that are missing,  “impossible,” or outside “reasonable” ranges.
We assessed the fiscal year 2003 RSA-911 dataset and determined that it  was sufficiently reliable for our use. Specifically, we performed electronic  testing on all 650,643 case records contained in this dataset to identify any  missing data, errors, or anomalies. In addition, we interviewed key  Education officials responsible for collecting, verifying, and publishing  RSA-911 data to better understand their data reliability assessment  process, as described above, in part. We also performed structured  interviews with key officials who work with RSA-911 data at multiple state  VR agencies to better understand the processes by which agencies collect,  safeguard, and report these data to Education.
In order to more easily report some of our data findings, we recombined  the categories for certain RSA-911 data elements, such as type of  disability and type of exit or case closure. We then computed descriptive  statistics, including frequencies and cross-tabulations, to produce the  majority of data findings described in this report. Using these data, we  calculated the employment rate in a different manner than Education.  Education calculates the employment rate as the percentage of individuals  who exited with employment after at least 90 days out of the group of  individuals who received services under an employment plan, but does not  include those individuals who exited without employment during the  application phase or after limited services.
We also assessed the fiscal year 2003 RSA-2 dataset and determined that it  was sufficiently reliable for our use. The RSA-2 contains aggregated  agency expenditures from each of the 80 state VR agencies as reported in  various categories, such as administration and different types of services.  We interviewed key Education officials and learned that each state VR  agency may use a different system for aggregating and reporting its RSA-2  data to Education. Therefore, we performed structured interviews with  key officials at 15 state VR agencies in order to assess the processes,  safeguards, and overall reliability in agency production and reporting of  these data. We selected these 15 state VR agencies to interview because  they collectively constituted more than 50 percent of all total expenditures  by the VR program in fiscal year 2003 and included blind, general, and  combined state VR agencies. Among these 15 agencies, we generally found  that their processes and policies were sufficient to ensure data reliability  for the purposes of this report.
To further determine the extent to which state VR agencies assist  individuals in achieving employment as well as the extent to which  Education monitors and measures performance to manage this  decentralized VR program, we interviewed key program officials at  Education’s headquarters and each regional office responsible for  monitoring the state VR agencies. In addition, we reviewed relevant laws  and regulations, Education policy documents relating to the VR program,  and the 80 state VR agency’s fiscal year 2003 state plans. We also  conducted site visits to the 9 state VR agencies in California, Maryland,  Minnesota, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Virginia. We selected these sites  to achieve a mix of state VR agency structures (including general, blind,  and combined agencies), operations, performance, and geographic  diversity. We conducted our review from August 2004 through September  2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
section_title: Appendix II: State VR Agency Exit and Employment Rates, Fiscal Year 2003
section_title: Appendix III: State VR Agency Population Proportions by Primary Impairment, Fiscal Year 2003
subsections: section_title: No impairment
section_title: Appendix IV: Social Security Beneficiaries’ Employment Rates by State VR Agency, Fiscal Year 2003
section_title: Appendix V: State VR Agency Percentages of Total Agency Service Budget Spent on Each Service Category, Fiscal Year 2003
section_title: Appendix VI: State VR Agency Total Administrative Costs as a Percentage of Total Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003
section_title: Appendix VII: State VR Agency Average Total Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2003 Per Person Exiting with Employment in Fiscal Year 2003
section_title: Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.