Employment for People with Disabilities: Little Is Known about the Effectiveness of Fragmented and Overlapping Programs
Published: 2012-06-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Many federal programswithin the Departments of Education, Labor, and Veterans Affairs; the Social Security Administration; and other agencieshelp people with disabilities overcome barriers to employment. Section 21 of Pub. L. No. 111-139 requires GAO to identify and report annually on programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives that have duplicative goals or activities. GAO examined the extent to which programs that support employment for people with disabilities (1) provide similar services to similar populations and (2) measure effectiveness. GAO identified programs by searching the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and consulting agency officials. GAO surveyed and interviewed agency officials to determine program objectives and activities. Nine agencies reviewed the draft report and five provided comments. Labor was concerned that GAO characterized its programs as fragmented and potentially duplicative. While multiple programs may be appropriate, GAO maintains that additional review and coordination may reduce inefficiencies and improve effectiveness among overlapping programs.
GAO is not recommending executive action at this time. In a recent report, GAO suggested the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) consider establishing governmentwide goals for employment of people with disabilities, and working with agencies that administer overlapping programs to determine whether consolidation might result in more effective and efficient delivery of services. GAO continues to believe these actions are needed and will follow up with OMB to determine their status.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO identified 45 programs that supported employment for people with disabilities in fiscal year 2010, reflecting a fragmented system of services. The programs were administered by nine federal agencies and overseen by even more congressional committees. All programs overlapped with at least one other program in that they provided one or more similar employment service to a similar populationpeople with disabilities. The greatest overlap occurred in programs serving veterans and servicemembers (19 programs) and youth and young adults (5 programs). In addition, GAO identified seven programs that did not limit eligibility to any particular population and were potentially available to veterans and servicemembers or youth. Some overlapping programs, such as those with specific eligibility requirements, have less potential for duplicationproviding the same services to the same beneficiariesthan others. However, even when the potential for duplication of services is low, there may be inefficiencies associated with operating multiple programs that provide similar services to similar populations. Coordination across programs may help address fragmentation and potential duplication, but officials that GAO surveyed reported only limited coordination. However, among six selected programs that only serve people with disabilitiesincluding the Department of Educations Vocational Rehabilitation program and the Social Security Administrations Ticket to Work programofficials cited more consistent coordination.
Most (32) of the 45 programs surveyed tracked at least one employment-related outcome measure for people with disabilities, but overall little is known about the effectiveness of these programs. The most commonly tracked outcomes for people with disabilities were entered employment (28 programs) and employment retention (18 programs). However, it may be difficult to compare outcomes across programs, in part, because of variation in the type and severity of participants disabilities. In addition, only 10 of the 45 programs reported that an evaluation had been conducted in the last 5 years. Just one of the 45 programs (Job Corps) reported conducting an impact studya study that would most clearly show whether the program (and not other factors) was responsible for improved employment outcomes for people with disabilities. However, additional studies are underway for at least two other programs.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Nearly one in five people in the United States are reported to have a  disability. Although some people are born with disabilities, everyone is at  risk of experiencing a short-term or long-term disability, whether through  accidents, employment-related injuries and illnesses, disease, or aging. In  addition, individuals may have mental disorders or developmental  disabilities, which are severe chronic conditions resulting from mental  and/or physical impairments that can begin at any time during  development and last throughout a person’s lifetime. A body of evidence  indicates that many people with disabilities can and want to work.  However, research has shown that people with disabilities may face  multiple barriers to employment, including poor health or functioning;  inadequate education, skills, or training; lack of transportation; lack of  accessible workplaces or accommodations; and discrimination. Federal  programs reported obligating more than $4 billion in fiscal year 2010 on  employment-related supports for people with disabilities, compared to a  significantly higher amount on income and medical supports for people  with disabilities. Even with these expenditures, historically, people with  disabilities have experienced higher unemployment and poverty rates  than those without disabilities.
GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap, and  Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington,  D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012). This report was our second annual report to Congress in response  to the statutory requirement that we identify and report annually on federal programs,  agencies, offices, and initiatives that have duplicative goals or activities, in accordance  with Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 29 (2010), 31 U.S.C. § 712 Note. and addresses the following objectives: (1) to what extent do federal  programs that support employment for people with disabilities provide  similar services to similar populations and (2) to what extent has the  effectiveness of programs that support employment for people with  disabilities been measured?
To address our first objective, we identified programs that support  employment for people with disabilities by consulting with federal agency  officials and researchers knowledgeable about employment and disability  issues, searching the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, and  reviewing our previous work. Consistent with our prior work on  duplication, we considered “programs” to include a variety of types of  assistance—such as grants, initiatives, and tax expenditures—and will  use that term throughout the report for simplicity. We included programs  that served only people with disabilities, as well as programs that served  a broader population but provided special consideration to people with  disabilities or their employers. We also included programs for wounded,  ill, and injured servicemembers within our scope. After validating the list  of programs with agency officials, we fielded a web-based survey to each  program. The survey collected information on each program’s objectives,  eligibility requirements, services provided, outcome measures, and  obligations, among other data. We incorporated data reliability checks  into the survey instrument, reviewed documentation, and conducted  follow-up interviews as necessary. We determined that the data used in  this report were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We did  not conduct an independent legal analysis to identify relevant programs or  verify the program information provided by survey respondents. To further  explore coordination efforts among overlapping programs, we selected six  programs—administered by three different agencies—that serve only  people with disabilities. We conducted interviews with officials  representing these six programs regarding their coordination efforts,  challenges to coordination, and factors that facilitate or create barriers to  coordination. To address our second objective, we collected data through  our survey on program outcome measures and any studies or evaluations  of program performance conducted since 2006. We reviewed the studies’  methodologies to determine whether they met our definition of an impact  study.2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See Appendix I for a more  detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Improving and Modernizing Federal Disability Programs
paragraphs: In 2003, we first designated federal disability programs as a high-risk area  because the programs require urgent attention and organizational  transformation to ensure that they function in the most economical,   We have also reported that  efficient, and effective manner possible.improving work participation among people with disabilities has been  challenging in part because the United States has a patchwork of  disability programs—developed individually over many years—and lacks  a unified set of national goals that guide coordination among programs or  contribute to measuring desired outcomes.
In February 2012, we identified programs administered by nine federal  agencies that supported employment for people with disabilities, and  many of these programs overlapped in that they provided similar services  to similar populations. We recommended that the Office of Management  and Budget (OMB), in consultation with those agencies that administer  programs that support employment for people with disabilities, take two  actions to improve coordination and program effectiveness and efficiency:  (1) consider establishing measurable, governmentwide goals for  employment of people with disabilities, and (2) continue to work with  executive agencies that administer overlapping programs to determine  whether program consolidation might result in administrative savings and  more effective and efficient delivery of services.
In response, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) noted that, in  fiscal year 2012, the administration’s Domestic Policy Council will conduct  an internal review of ways to improve the effectiveness of disability  programs through better coordination and alignment of policies and  strategies. OMB also noted that the administration has set  governmentwide goals for employment and inclusion of people with  disabilities in the federal government, among other ongoing and planned  efforts to improve employment for people with disabilities.
section_title: GPRA Modernization Act of 2010
paragraphs: Responsibility for many federal efforts, including employment support for  people with disabilities, lies with more than one agency, yet agencies face  a range of challenges and barriers when they attempt to work  collaboratively. Both Congress and the Executive Branch have  recognized this, and in January 2011, the GPRA Modernization Act of  2010 (GPRAMA) was enacted, updating the Government Performance  and Results Act of 1993. GPRAMA establishes a new framework aimed  at taking a more crosscutting and integrated approach for focusing on  results and improving government performance. Effective implementation  of the law could play an important role in clarifying desired outcomes,  addressing program performance spanning multiple organizations, and  facilitating future actions to reduce unnecessary duplication, overlap, and  fragmentation.
GPRAMA requires OMB to coordinate with agencies to establish  outcome-oriented goals covering a limited number of crosscutting policy  areas as well as goals to improve management across the federal  government, and to develop a governmentwide performance plan for  making progress toward achieving those goals. The performance plan is  required to, among other things, identify the agencies and federal  activities—including spending programs, tax expenditures, and  regulations—that contribute to each goal, and establish performance  indicators to measure overall progress toward these goals as well as the  individual contribution of the underlying agencies and federal activities.  GPRAMA also requires similar information at the agency level. Each  agency is required to identify the various federal organizations and  activities—both within and external to the agency—that contribute to its  goals, and describe how the agency is working with other agencies to  achieve its goals as well as any relevant crosscutting goals. OMB officials  stated that their approach to responding to this requirement will address  fragmentation among federal programs. OMB and the agencies within our  scope identified several employment-related goals for fiscal year 2013,  including a goal to increase the percentage of eligible servicemembers  served by career readiness and preparedness programs, and a goal to  provide 2 million workers with skills training by 2015 and improve the  coordination and delivery of job training services. However, none of the  governmentwide goals established for fiscal year 2013 relate specifically  to employment for people with disabilities.
Members of Congress have expressed concern that there is no  consolidated list of all federal government programs, and that individual  federal agencies are not able to provide a list of all of their programs and  initiatives. GPRAMA requires OMB to create a single website, no later  than October 1, 2012, that lists each federal agency’s programs.  Agencies are required to identify how they define the term “program,”  consistent with guidance from OMB; a description of the purpose of each  program and how it contributes to the mission and goals of the agency;  and information on funding for the current fiscal year and two previous  fiscal years. In addition, in January 2012, OMB announced that it will work  with agencies to identify a comprehensive list of programs, pursuant to  the law. As a first step, OMB stated it will conduct a pilot for a selected  group of agencies and bureaus with programs related to trade, exports,  and competitiveness. Based on the pilot, OMB plans to issue guidance to  all federal agencies detailing the approach to be taken to develop a  governmentwide inventory of programs.
section_title: Fragmentation and Overlap Prevalent among 45 Programs Serving People with Disabilities
subsections: section_title: Program Oversight and Administration Is Fragmented
paragraphs: Oversight and administration of programs that support employment for  people with disabilities is fragmented among various congressional  committees, multiple federal agencies, and state entities (see fig. 1).  Agency officials reported that 27 of the 45 programs were created by  statute, rather than at the agencies’ initiative. At least 13 congressional  committees are responsible for oversight of the 45 programs, which are  administered by nine federal agencies. In some cases, a range of  departments or offices within an agency are responsible for the programs.  For example, several offices in the Department of Labor (Labor)  administer 14 programs that provide employment-related services to  people with disabilities. Further, the Department of Defense has 10  programs within its purview in part because each service branch  administers its own program or programs to assist wounded, ill, and  injured servicemembers with employment. Adding to the fragmented  landscape, some of these federal programs are administered by  governmental and nongovernmental state or local entities, either in  collaboration or independently. In addition, agency officials noted that  states have various governmental structures to administer the programs.  For example, the Department of Education (Education) allocates formula  funds to states to carry out the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services  (VR) program. The state may create one vocational rehabilitation agency  (VR agency) or designate a separate VR agency to serve individuals who  are blind and a “general” agency for all other disability categories. In  addition, each state may organize its VR agency or agencies within  different government departments relative to other states, such as state  departments of labor or education, or they may be free-standing agencies  or commissions.
The specific definitions of disability and eligibility requirements that  programs use—often established by law—vary, which may contribute to  fragmentation. For example, officials from 34 programs collectively  reported using at least 10 different definitions of disability, and 10  programs reported having no specific definition for disability. In addition,  the 45 programs reported at least 26 specific limitations to eligibility, such  as limiting services to Native Americans or people who are blind. The  variation across programs allows policy makers and program officials to  target certain populations and, as discussed later, may reduce the  potential for duplicative services. However, variation in definitions of  disability and eligibility requirements may lead to confusion among people  with disabilities about their eligibility for a specific program, and may  create additional administrative burdens for state and local agencies and  private partners that deliver services.
To address fragmentation among programs that support employment for  people with disabilities, at least two programs have been created to assist  clients in determining what services and benefits they are eligible for, and  which would best meet their needs. Specifically, according to agency  officials, the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Work Incentives  Planning and Assistance program helps Social Security Disability  Insurance beneficiaries and Supplemental Security Income disability  recipients (for the purposes of this report, we will refer to these  populations collectively as “SSA disability beneficiaries”) understand  SSA’s complex work incentives and how working would affect their  disability benefits or payments. In addition, agency officials noted that  Labor’s Disability Program Navigators, jointly funded with SSA, provided  staff members in one-stop career centers to help people with disabilities  navigate multiple employment programs and services to meet their  employment needs.
The number and range of programs makes it difficult to estimate the total  federal funding dedicated to providing people with disabilities with  employment supports or the number of individuals served. Programs we  surveyed reported obligating about $4.1 billion to provide employment  support to at least 1.5 million individuals with disabilities in fiscal year  2010, but these numbers may be largely underestimated for several  reasons. (See table 1 for summary information on reported numbers of  people served and obligations in fiscal year 2010; see app. III for detailed  fiscal year 2010 participant and obligation data reported by each  program.) Of the 23 programs serving only people with disabilities, 18  reported on the number of people with disabilities receiving employment  supports and 18 reported data on obligations in fiscal year 2010. One  program—Education’s VR program—accounted for most of these funds  and participants (the program obligated $3 billion to serve more than 1  million people with disabilities). Even less is known about expenditures on  and the number of people receiving employment supports from the 22  programs serving people with and without disabilities. Specifically, only 13  of these programs reported how many people with disabilities received  employment supports and 10 reported obligations spent on people with  disabilities. Agency officials from some of these programs reported that  they do not systematically collect information on whether participants  have disabilities, while others indicated that program participants may not  always disclose that they have a disability. SSA officials noted that  Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended—which  prohibits federal agencies and programs that receive federal funding from  discriminating against individuals with disabilities—limits programs’ ability  to require individuals to disclose that they have a disability. Other  programs, such as Labor’s Employer Assistance and Resource Network,  serve employers of people with disabilities and do not track the number of  people with disabilities who indirectly benefit from program services.
All 45 programs overlapped with at least one other program in that they  provided one or more similar employment service to people with  disabilities. To identify services provided, we asked survey respondents  to indicate from a list of employment-related services and supports which  ones their programs provide. Respondents indicated a range of services  provided, with some services being provided more than others. For  example, survey responses revealed that 36 of the 45 programs provided  employment counseling, assessment, and case management, with 23  providing these services to more than half of their participants. On the  other hand, agency officials reported that 17 programs provided remedial  academic English language skills and adult literacy assistance, with 4 of  those providing it to more than half of their participants. Two programs  reported providing tax expenditures related to workers with disabilities.  For example, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit provides a tax credit to  employers who hire individuals from target groups, including disabled  veterans. In addition, two programs—Education’s Randolph-Sheppard  program and the U.S. AbilityOne Commission’s AbilityOne Program— help create jobs for individuals with disabilities through the federal  property management and procurement systems. Randolph-Sheppard  licenses people who are blind to operate vending facilities on federal or  other designated state properties. Under the AbilityOne program, federal  government agencies are generally required to purchase certain goods  and services from nonprofit agencies that employ people who are blind or  have some other severe disability. Several programs also noted that they  provided additional services not included on our list, such as financial  supports, resume preparation, job coaching, transportation, and medical  and psychiatric services.
Overlap was greatest in programs serving two distinct groups;  specifically, we identified 19 programs that provided employment services  to veterans and servicemembers (see fig. 3) and 5 programs that  provided employment services to students and young adults (see fig. 4).  In addition, 7 programs did not limit eligibility to any particular group and  therefore potentially overlapped with these and other programs in our  scope (see fig. 5). For example, 17 of the 19 programs that limit eligibility  to veterans and servicemembers reported providing job-readiness skills.  At the same time, any veteran or servicemember could receive these  services from 5 of the 7 programs that did not limit eligibility to any  particular population. The remaining 14 programs limited eligibility to  other specific groups or types of disabilities, such as SSA disability  beneficiaries, or people who are blind or visually impaired. For a complete  list of programs, their objectives, and eligibility requirements, see  appendix IV. For a list of programs, populations they serve, and the  services they reported providing, see appendix V.
While many programs reported providing similar services to similar  populations, some programs have less potential for duplication— providing the same services to the same beneficiaries—than others.  Some overlapping programs have specific eligibility requirements that  make duplication less likely. For example, the Department of Veterans  Affairs’ (VA) Compensated Work Therapy and Vocational Rehabilitation  and Employment (VR&E) programs both reported providing vocational  rehabilitation and a number of other similar employment services to  veterans with disabilities. However, the work therapy program targets  veterans with mental illness or other severe disabilities who are patients  in VA medical centers, whereas the VR&E program serves veterans with  all types of disabilities. In addition, unlike the work therapy program, the  VR&E program requires that a veteran’s disability be connected to his or  her military service. In another example, the Workforce Recruitment  Program, jointly administered by Labor and the Department of Defense, is  the only one of the five youth programs that reported limiting eligibility to  college students or recent graduates with disabilities.
As shown in table 2, the programs have different age ranges for eligibility, but all allow  eligible youth between the ages of 16 and 21 to participate. program in two states administered in partnership with state-organized  apprenticeship agencies to place young adults with disabilities in  registered apprenticeships in the construction and health care fields.  Labor officials said that case managers may refer a participant from the  WIA Youth program to the YouthBuild program, for example, if they are  interested in learning construction skills. However, it is difficult to  determine the extent to which these different strategies reduce or prevent  potential duplication in services among these programs.
Another factor affecting the potential for duplication is resource levels, in  that some overlapping programs lack the capacity to serve all who apply,  thereby reducing the potential for duplication in services. Six of the 45  programs reported having a waiting list for services (see table 3). Three of  these programs reported serving only people with disabilities. Individuals  who are on a waiting list for one program may be eligible to receive  services from another program. For example, Labor officials told us that  individuals waiting for VR services could be referred to one-stop career  centers for services.
Even when the potential for duplication of services is low, there may be  inefficiencies associated with operating two or more separate programs  that provide similar services to similar populations. For example, in its  budget requests for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, Education proposed  consolidating two smaller programs in our scope—the Migrant and  Seasonal Farmworker and Supported Employment State Grants  programs—into its larger VR program. Education proposed this  consolidation in order to reduce duplication of effort and administrative  costs, streamline program administration at the federal and local levels,  and improve accountability.
Among the 19 programs that serve servicemembers and veterans, we  identified two programs—Labor’s Disabled Veterans’ Outreach and Local  Veterans’ Employment Representatives programs—that provide similar  services at similar locations, potentially by the same staff members. Both  programs reported that they provided job search and placement services  to veterans with disabilities, among other similar services. Labor officials  said that the veterans’ employment representatives were intended to  reach out to employers and the disabled veterans’ outreach specialists  were intended to work with job seekers. However, as we reported in May  2007, staff often performed the same roles in one-stop career centers  and, in some cases, the roles were carried out by the same staff  member. A recent law gave states the flexibility—subject to the approval  of the Secretary of Labor—to consolidate these two programs in order to  promote more efficient provision of services. Labor officials noted that the  agency is in the process of developing criteria and procedures for making  determinations on consolidations. The law also requires the Secretary of  Labor to conduct audits to ensure that the veterans’ employment  representatives and the outreach specialists are performing their required  duties, and officials told us that they are in the process of defining the  requirements and protocols for these audits.
42 U.S.C. §§ 422(d) and 1382d(d); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.2101 and 416.2201. Under  thresholds set annually by SSA, individuals are considered engaged in substantial gainful  activity if they had earnings in 2012 above $1,010 per month for nonblind beneficiaries  and $1,690 per month for blind beneficiaries. the two programs provide a continuum of services—VR agencies provide  more intensive, up-front services to help beneficiaries enter or return to  work, while employment networks under the Ticket to Work program can  provide longer-term supports to help beneficiaries stay at work.
section_title: Officials Surveyed Reported Limited Coordination across All Programs
paragraphs: Coordination could help mitigate the potential for duplication among  fragmented programs, but officials we surveyed reported limited  coordination among the 45 programs in our scope. In our survey, we  asked respondents to indicate whether their program coordinated with  any of the other programs receiving our survey. In 13 percent of cases,  two programs mutually reported coordinating with each other. However, in  most cases, respondents either reported not coordinating or  inconsistently reported coordinating with other programs (see table 4).  For example, although VA’s VR&E program reported coordinating with  Labor’s Veterans Workforce Investment Program and Disabled Veterans  Outreach Program, only one of the two Labor programs—the Disabled  Veterans Outreach Program—reported coordinating with the VA program.  Officials explained that, in some cases, federal-level program staff  responding to our survey may not be aware of coordination taking place  at the state and local levels. Further, although the rate of mutual  coordination reported is low among all the programs in our scope,  programs that have different missions or serve different populations may  not be expected to coordinate with one another. For instance, Labor’s  Senior Community Service Employment Program supports part-time work  opportunities for low-income senior citizens, and therefore may not need  to coordinate with Department of Defense transition programs—such as  Operation Warfighter—that help servicemembers returning to civilian life  gain employment experience.
In order to better understand our survey results, we held more detailed  discussions about coordination efforts with six selected programs that  serve only people with disabilities:
Assistive Technology State Grant program (Education)
Disability Employment Initiative (Labor)
State Vocational Rehabilitation Cost Reimbursement Program  (SSA)
Ticket to Work program (SSA)
VR program (Education)
Work Incentives Planning and Assistance program (SSA)
Officials cited more consistent coordination among these programs. In  response to our survey, all six programs had mutually reported  coordinating with the Ticket to Work and the VR programs. This is  perhaps not surprising, given that the VR program reported serving the  largest number of people with disabilities and the Ticket to Work program  is closely related to the VR program.
Although not all of the six programs mutually reported coordination,  federal program officials noted that a significant amount of coordination  occurs at the state and local levels where services are delivered. Labor  officials reported that its Disability Employment Initiative grantees at the  state and local level have established Integrated Resource Teams, which  include representatives from a number of programs—including the VR  program, the Assistive Technology State Grant program, and other state  and local programs—to leverage all available resources for individual  clients. To further encourage local coordination, Labor recently issued  guidance to state and local workforce agencies outlining ways in which  programs housed in one-stop career centers can coordinate with  providers under SSA’s Ticket to Work program. Labor issued similar  guidance listing available resources to help beneficiaries obtain assistive  technology, including Education’s Assistive Technology State Grant  program and SSA’s Ticket to Work program.
Agency officials also described efforts to increase coordination more  broadly among programs that support employment for people with  disabilities. For example, in 2008, Education and SSA established the  Partnership Plus initiative, which is intended to provide a seamless  approach to vocational services for people with disabilities. Individuals  who need intensive employment services, such as education or training,  can receive them first through the VR program, and then transition to an  employment network under Ticket to Work for job retention services, or  other ongoing services and supports to maintain employment and  increase earnings. In addition, officials described a new initiative that  coordinates programs and leverages resources from Education, the  Department of Health and Human Services, Labor, and SSA, and aims to  help youth receiving Supplemental Security Income to transition  successfully to higher education or employment by working with the entire  family to provide supports necessary to reduce barriers and improve  outcomes.
Officials from selected programs reported facing a number of challenges  in coordinating with each other. First, officials noted that coordination can  be challenging because programs are governed by separate statutes and  regulations containing different definitions and program requirements.  One official noted that aligning definitions of disability in statute would be  helpful to ensure programs established by WIA and the Rehabilitation Act  are complementary. In interviews with our six selected programs, officials  from each reported that individual programs lack the resources, both in  terms of funding and staff time, to pursue coordination with one another.  Finally, one official indicated that interagency working groups may have  limited effectiveness. He said that, in general, coordination could be more  effective if programs had a set of outcomes they were expected to  collectively achieve and were given the authority to work together to do  so—including the authority to waive requirements that present barriers— and given funding to support such collaboration. This is consistent with  concerns raised in our 2010 forum on employment for people with  disabilities, where participants noted that past interagency coordination  efforts have not been very successful at achieving significant change  because they have lacked sufficient authority, accountability, or  resources.
section_title: Programs Tracked Varying Outcome Measures, and Little Is Known About Program Effectiveness
subsections: section_title: Programs Reported Tracking Varying Employment Outcomes for People with Disabilities
paragraphs: Coordination efforts can be enhanced when agencies work toward a  common goal, yet outcome measures varied across programs and not all  programs reported outcomes specifically for people with disabilities.  Given a list of typical employment measures, 32 of the 45 programs  reported tracking at least one employment measure specifically for people  with disabilities.measures most commonly tracked were “participants who enter  employment” (28 programs) and “participants’ employment retention” (18  programs). Some programs reported tracking other indicators, such as  quality of life. For instance, both VA’s VR&E program and Education’s  Helen Keller National Center track the number of participants who are  able to live independently or in less-restrictive residential programs. The  remaining 13 programs did not report tracking any employment-related  outcomes for people with disabilities, in part because they have a broader  mission. For instance, Department of Health and Human Services officials  reported that states are required to identify various performance  measures in their applications for the Medicaid 1915(c) Home and  Community-Based Services Waivers and the 1915(i) State Plan Home   The measures varied across programs, but the  and Community-Based Services related to participants’ health and  welfare overall, but are not required to measure employment-related  outcome measures because both programs provide a broad range of  health care and other services beyond employment-related services.See Figure 6 for the number of programs tracking specific outcome  measures.
Despite some similarities in programs’ outcome measures, it can be  difficult to compare relative performance due to variation across programs  in the type and severity of participants’ disabilities. Just over half (24) of  the 45 programs reported targeting or giving priority to people with  significant or severe disabilities for whom it may be challenging to achieve  positive employment outcomes.different thresholds for their employment outcome measures. For  example, although 28 programs reported tracking “participants who enter  employment,” officials told us that some programs may consider just a  few hours of paid work per week as an employment outcome, while  others set a higher bar and require a participant to be working at a level  that would allow them to become self-sufficient and eliminate their  dependence on federal disability benefits.
section_title: Some Programs Have Conducted Evaluations, but Few Have Measured Their Impact
paragraphs: Little is known about the effectiveness of the programs we identified as  supporting employment for people with disabilities because only about  one-quarter reported having a performance review. Ten of the 45  programs in our scope reported that a review or study had been  conducted to evaluate their program’s performance.in methodology, and many examined program outcomes and proposed  ways to improve services, but fell short of determining whether outcomes  were a direct result of program activities. (See app. VII for programs that  reported performance reviews.) For example, the Department of  Agriculture’s AgrAbility program conducted a review of its activities  between 1991 and 2011 that found that 11,000 clients had been served,  and that 88 percent of those clients continued to be engaged in farm or  ranch activities. However, this study did not determine whether other  factors may have contributed to participants’ positive outcomes. Likewise,  a 2009 study evaluated aspects of Labor’s YouthBuild program—such as  recruitment and enrollment procedures, educational and vocational  services, and case management—to understand similarities and   The studies varied  differences across grantees, but the study did not attempt to discern the  effect of the program on participants’ employment.
Only one program in our scope—Labor’s Job Corps program—reported  having a study that meets the criteria of an impact study. Impact studies  examine what would have happened in the absence of a program to  isolate its impact from other factors. Many researchers consider impact  studies to be the best method for determining the extent to which a  program is responsible for participant outcomes, but these studies can be  challenging to conduct. However, there are sometimes opportunities for  agencies to assess impacts without conducting full-scale impact studies.  As an example, Education officials noted that it may be more feasible to  conduct a rigorous study to evaluate the impact of providing enhanced  services over regular services, rather than the impact of providing  services over providing no services at all. The Job Corps impact study  compared the outcomes of participants in the program to outcomes of a  comparable group of individuals who did not participate in the program.  The study concluded that, although there were no long-term program  impacts on earnings for many Job Corps participants, the program  generated earnings gains for participants between the ages of 20 and 24,  who may be more highly motivated and disciplined.
Reports for two additional programs that were excluded from our scope— SSA’s Youth Transition Demonstration and the Mental Health Treatment  Study programs—met the criteria for impact studies. Each of the  programs was a demonstration project that included an impact study to  determine whether the program produced positive outcomes. The Youth  Transition Demonstration Project had interim impact studies for three  project sites. The studies concluded that, while the program did result in  greater use of services to promote employment, it did not impact the  employment of participants from two out of three project sites during the  1-year follow-up period. The program also did not impact the education  or income of participants from the three project sites during the 1-year  follow-up period. The Mental Health Treatment Study program also  published an impact study, which concluded that there was significant  improvement in the 24-month employment rate for the group receiving  services (61 percent versus 40 percent employment for the control  group).
Finally, agencies may have published or initiated impact studies after  responding to our survey. For instance, officials at Labor notified us of two  impact studies currently being planned or underway, for the YouthBuild  program and for the Disability Employment Initiative.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: The number of programs providing similar employment services to people  with disabilities—and the range of requirements and approaches they  entail—raises questions about the current structure of federal disability  programs. In fact, several of the programs we identified were created in  order to help people with disabilities navigate this fragmented system.  Efforts such as Education’s proposed consolidation of several smaller  programs into its VR program also indicate an awareness of the need to  simplify the system and increase effectiveness and ease of use. In our  February 2012 report on duplication and overlap in government  programs, we suggested that OMB continue to work with executive  agencies that administer overlapping programs to identify any  opportunities for cost savings or streamlining, such as program  consolidation. We continue to believe that such a review could result in  more effective and efficient delivery of services to help people with  disabilities obtain and retain employment.
We identified limited coordination among programs that provide  employment support for people with disabilities, which may exacerbate  the potential for duplication among fragmented programs. In addition,  many programs have not evaluated their programs for effectiveness, and  little is known about effectiveness overall, such that policymakers have  limited information to help them make informed decisions on allocating  scarce resources. In our February 2012 report, we noted that OMB  should consider establishing governmentwide goals related to  employment of people with disabilities, with agencies establishing related  outcome measures. We continue to believe that setting common goals  across programs that support employment for people with disabilities  could help spur greater coordination and more efficient and economical  service delivery in overlapping program areas, and plan to follow up with  OMB on its progress with respect to both of the actions we suggested in  our February 2012 report.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided copies of our draft report to the nine federal agencies that  administer programs within the scope of this report for comment. The  AbilityOne Commission; the Departments of Defense and Health and  Human Services; and the Internal Revenue Service had no comments.  The Departments of Education, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, and SSA  provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report, as  appropriate. The Departments of Agriculture, Education, and Labor also  provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendixes VIII, IX,  and X, respectively.
In its comments, the Department of Agriculture noted that it generally  concurred with our findings. Education provided additional information  and examples of how its VR program coordinates services at the state  and local level that were not fully described in our report. For example,  Education noted that the program coordinates at the state level with each  state’s workforce investment system, and state VR agencies have staff  who provide a variety of education, training, and rehabilitation services to  one-stop career center customers with disabilities. Education also stated  that the capacity of the VR program to provide and coordinate a wide  range of individualized services to achieve employment outcomes for  individuals with disabilities—particularly individuals with significant  disabilities—is not duplicated by any other program.
Labor generally expressed concern that we found fragmentation among  the programs we examined, noting that our definition of fragmentation is  broad. We continue to believe that fragmentation—defined as more than  one federal agency (or organization within an agency) being involved in  the same broad area of national need—exists among the 45 programs we  identified across nine federal agencies. As we have noted, unless  programs coordinate effectively, fragmentation could lead to inefficient  use of scarce resources, confuse program beneficiaries, and ultimately,  limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort. Labor also expressed  concern about our statement that certain youth programs with similar  eligibility requirements present a greater risk of potential duplication than  other programs, noting that we did not consider the unique characteristics  of the programs, such as the individual services provided, the program  design used, or the populations served. We did consider such factors and  provided some information in our report about the different ways these  programs serve the youth population. However, we were unable to  determine the extent to which these factors reduce the potential for  duplication.
Further, while Labor acknowledged that it is important to minimize  duplication and maximize efficiency, it noted that some overlap is  necessary and appropriate to ensure that all participants receive  comprehensive employment and training services. We agree that, in  some instances, overlap among programs involved in providing services  to similar populations may be appropriate. However, we continue to  believe there is value in examining overlapping programs to identify  opportunities for streamlining and coordination to more efficiently provide  services.
Labor also pointed out that several of its programs included in the scope  of our study were created to serve all job-seekers rather than specifically  to provide employment support for people with disabilities. Labor also  noted that, rather than being seen as duplicative or undesirable, service  integration and diversity of design are important for achieving inclusion of  people with disabilities consistent with what Congress envisioned. We  included such programs to provide a more comprehensive picture of the  services and supports available to help people with disabilities stay at  work or return to work. We did not label any given program as duplicative  or undesirable, but noted that, in some cases, having many programs  serving similar populations may result in administrative inefficiencies.
We are sending copies of this report to the AbilityOne Commission; the  Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Health and Human  Services, Labor, and Veterans Affairs; the Internal Revenue Service; and  SSA. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website  at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov. 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 key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix XI.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to examine: (1) to what extent do federal programs  that support employment for people with disabilities provide similar  services to similar populations and (2) to what extent has the  effectiveness of programs that support employment for people with  disabilities been measured? The interim results for this report were  included in our February 2012 report on duplication and overlap in  government programs.
subsections: section_title: Identifying Programs that Provide Employment-Related Services to People with Disabilities
paragraphs: We determined that programs included in the scope of our work should  meet two sets of criteria. Specifically, they should: (1) be targeted to  people with disabilities or their employers and (2) have provided specific  employment and training services in fiscal year 2010. See figure 7 for a  detailed description of both sets of criteria.
We identified and selected programs for inclusion in our review leveraging  a variety of sources and a multi-step process. Specifically, we identified  programs for potential inclusion using key terms to search the Catalog of  Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA), reviewing our previous work on  related topics, and consulting with internal and external stakeholders. We  then reviewed the programs’ objectives and eligibility criteria from CFDA  or program websites to determine if the program met our inclusion  criteria. If key information, such as how a program focuses on people with  disabilities or provides employment-related services, was incomplete or  ambiguous, we kept the program in our preliminary list.
We sent our preliminary list of programs for validation to the 10 agencies  that administer the programs. The agencies requested we add several  programs to our list, and determined that others did not meet the criteria  for inclusion. We held follow-up meetings with agency officials to clarify  criteria, as appropriate. We determined that the two programs in our  preliminary list administered by the Small Business Administration did not  meet our criteria and thus we excluded the agency and the programs  from our review.
Our validation process yielded a total of 56 programs administered by  nine federal agencies. We surveyed these programs from August to  October 2011. Based on agency responses and follow-up conversations,  we omitted six surveyed programs because we found they did not meet  the inclusion criteria. We reported on 50 of those programs in our  February 2012 report.
For this final report, we have omitted an additional 7 programs and added  2 new programs, for a total of 45 programs. We omitted six programs that  had ended as of April 2012, and one demonstration program—the Benefit  Offset National Demonstration—that did not begin enrolling participants  until January 2011. (See app. II for a list of programs we omitted.) In  commenting on a draft of our February 2012 report and, later, in verifying  data previously provided, Department of Defense officials requested that  we add three programs that they believed to be within the scope of this  review. After identifying the programs’ employment services to people  with disabilities, we determined that two—the Army Warrior Care and  Transition and the Marines Wounded Warrior Regiment programs—met  our criteria and thus were included in our analyses for this report.
We did not include or review programs that may have been created or  revised to meet our inclusion criteria after fiscal year 2010.
section_title: Surveying Programs
paragraphs: We designed a web-based survey to collect information on program  background, eligibility requirements and populations served, services,  outcome measures, and budget information. In designing this survey, we  reviewed our prior surveys used to collect similar information. We  pretested the survey with three programs to minimize errors that may  arise from differences in how questions might be interpreted and ensure  that response categories were appropriate.
From August through October 2011, we fielded the web-based survey of  56 federal programs that support employment for people with disabilities.  Program representatives were identified by the agencies. Where  programs were jointly administered by two or more federal agencies, we  consulted with the agencies and asked them to designate one official to  fill out the survey and respond to questions for that program. In March  2012, we fielded the web-based survey to two additional programs that  were later determined to meet our inclusion criteria (Army Warrior Care  and Transition Program and the Marine Corps Wounded Warrior  Regiment, discussed earlier). We received completed questionnaires  from 58 programs, for a 100 percent response rate.
section_title: Quality Assurance
paragraphs: We used standard descriptive statistics to analyze responses to the  questionnaire. Because this was not a sample survey, there were no  sampling errors. To minimize other types of errors, commonly referred to  as nonsampling errors, and to enhance data quality, we employed  recognized survey design practices in the development of the  questionnaire and in the collection, processing, and analysis of the survey  data. For instance, as previously mentioned, we pretested the  questionnaire with program officials. We further reviewed the survey to  ensure the ordering of survey sections was appropriate and that the  questions within each section were clearly stated and easy to  comprehend. To reduce nonresponse, another source of nonsampling  error, we sent out e-mail reminder messages and made telephone calls to  encourage officials to complete the survey.
In reviewing the survey data, we performed automated checks to identify  inconsistent answers. We further reviewed the data for missing,  ambiguous, or illogical responses and followed up with agency officials  when necessary to clarify their responses. In addition, we compared 2010  obligations data provided by survey respondents with data provided to us  in a previous survey and with appropriations data from the Consolidated  Federal Funds Report. Where obligations differed from the comparison  sources by 10 percent or more, we contacted program officials to confirm  reported data. Finally, in March and April 2012, we collected some  additional data from agencies and verified select data collected during the  initial survey. Because we updated selected data and the list of programs  included in our analyses, some data in our analyses have changed since  our February 2012 report. On the basis of our application of recognized  survey design practices and follow-up procedures, we determined that the  data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We did not conduct an  independent legal analysis to verify the program information provided by  survey respondents.
section_title: Survey Analysis
subsections: section_title: Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential Duplication
paragraphs: We have defined fragmentation to be when more than one federal agency  is involved in the same broad area of national need. To further expand on  this definition, we used the survey responses to identify: the number of  programs created in statute and variability in definitions of disability and  the ways in which programs deliver supports (e.g., directly to individuals,  or through federal, state, or local entities).
We have defined overlap to be instances where programs provide similar  services to similar populations. To identify areas of potential overlap  among programs that support employment for people with disabilities, we  reviewed survey responses from agency officials. We analyzed  responses to survey questions regarding any limitations in eligibility  based on populations or disability.
We sorted the 45 programs into 4 groups:  1.  Programs that limit eligibility to servicemembers and veterans (19  programs).2.  Programs that limit eligibility to students, transition-age youth and/or  young adults (5 programs). 3.  Programs that limit eligibility to other populations or specific types of  disabilities (14 programs). 4.  Programs that serve all people with disabilities (7 programs).
We have defined duplication as when the same beneficiaries receive the  same or similar services. Although fragmentation and overlap may  indicate the potential for duplication, we did not identify actual duplication  in programs that provide employment support to people with disabilities  because (1) due to data limitations, we did not attempt an intensive data  matching among our universe of programs to identify instances where  programs were providing the same or similar services to the same  beneficiaries, and (2) programs do not consistently collect information on  beneficiaries.
Instead, we examined the potential for duplication by more closely  examining the reported eligibility requirements among programs in our  four groups.
section_title: Coordination
paragraphs: We asked survey respondents if their program coordinated with each of  the other programs in our scope to reduce duplication and gaps and  services. While we surveyed federal program officials, our survey  question did not specify if we were requesting information on coordination  at the federal level, or at the state and local level where services and  supports may be delivered. We analyzed the data to identify mismatches  in reported coordination. For example, we identified cases in which  program A reported that they coordinated with program B, but program B  did not report coordinating with program A.
To further understand the nature and challenges of coordination, we  selected a subgroup of programs with which to hold further discussion on  coordination. Specifically, we selected six programs—administered by  three different agencies—that served only people with disabilities:
Assistive Technology State Grant program [Department of Education
Disability Employment Initiative (a new program that replaced the  Work Incentive Grants)
State Vocational Rehabilitation Cost Reimbursement Program [Social  Security Administration (SSA)]
Ticket to Work program (SSA)
State Vocational Rehabilitation Services program (VR) (Education)
Work Incentives Planning and Assistance program (SSA)
We interviewed agency representatives for each program regarding their  coordination efforts, challenges to coordination, and factors that facilitate  or create barriers to coordination.
section_title: Performance Evaluations: Impact Studies and Other Studies
paragraphs: We asked all survey respondents to provide information on any  performance evaluations that have been completed since 2006 related to  employment for people with disabilities for their program and to provide  citations to those studies. We selected 2006 because studies conducted  in the past 5 years were most likely to include services still offered by  each program and be relevant to the employment market participants are  currently facing. We reviewed the findings and conclusions of a total of 14  studies identified by programs in our scope to determine the elements of  program performance that had been evaluated. Although programs  identified a total of 18 program studies, 1 was not publicly available and 2  programs had identified a GAO report that had been published prior to  2006. In addition, we evaluated the methodology section of 11 of those  studies, which were identified as impact studies by 7 programs, to  determine if they met our criteria for an impact study—that is, the study  provides an assessment of the net effect of a program by comparing  program outcomes with an estimate of what would have happened in the  absence of the program.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 through June 2012  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Selected Survey Data from Programs That Have Ended Since Fiscal Year 2010
paragraphs: Details on status   The program, authorized for 11 years,  expired at the close of fiscal year 2011.
The study to test how better access to  treatment and employment services  would affect outcomes such as  medical recovery, employment, and  benefit receipt for Social Security  Disability Insurance ended field  operations on July 31, 2010.  According to the agency’s budget  justification for fiscal year 2013, the  project’s funding continued and, going  forward, the agency will focus on best  practices in services to individuals with  schizophrenia and affective disorder  and track employment and benefit  payments.
subsections: section_title: Number of people with disabilities receiving employment services (fiscal year 2010) 1,300
paragraphs: Details on status   This program, administered by the  National Organization of Disability,  provided services to wounded, ill, and  injured U.S. Army personnel through a  memorandum of agreement, which  ended October, 2010.
The program was eliminated in the  fiscal year 2011 appropriation.
section_title: Number of people with disabilities receiving employment services (fiscal year 2010) Program did not provide data
paragraphs: Details on status   The Work Incentives Grant funded the  Disability Program Navigator Initiative.  Both programs ended effective June  30, 2010. A new program, the  Disability Employment Initiative, was  informed by the best practices learned  through the Work Incentive  Grant/Disability Program Navigator  initiative.
Employment counseling, assessment and case  management  Assistance in earning a high school diploma or its  equivalent  Job development  Job readiness skills  Job recruitment and referrals  Job retention training  Job search or placement activities  On-the-job training  Remedial academic, English language skills, or  adult literacy  Work experience  Employment-related information dissemination  Entrepreneurship training and support  Support services to employers of people with  disabilities  Assistive technology and workplace  accommodation.
The program suspended services at  the end of calendar year 2011. A 36- month evaluation of the impact of the  program is scheduled to follow.  Funding was approximately $1.35  million in fiscal years 2012 and 2013.
This program enrolled participants on a rolling basis between 2006 and 2009 and served 1,121  individuals over the course of the project.
section_title: Appendix III: Reported Program Obligations and Number of People with Disabilities Served
paragraphs: Department of Agriculture  Assistive Technology Program for Farmers with  Disabilities: AgrAbility Project  Army Warrior Care and Transition Program  Marine Corps Wounded Warrior Regiment  Marine Corps Wounded Warrior Intern Program  Recovery Coordination Program – Operation  Warfighter (Internships)
Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives  program   Registered Apprenticeship for Youth and Young  Adults with Disabilities Initiative  Community Service Employment for Older  Americans/Senior Community Service  Employment Program Veterans’ Workforce Investment Program Work Opportunity Tax Credit (joint with the Internal  Revenue Service)
Workforce Investment Act Youth Activities  Workforce Recruitment Program (joint with the  Department of Defense)
Some programs were not able to identify obligations related to providing employment supports to  people with disabilities.
A significant portion of these obligations ($578,500,000) was for constructing healing campuses for  wounded, ill, and injured soldiers.
This program was proposed to be consolidated or eliminated in Education’s fiscal year 2012 budget  request, but the department reported that funds were appropriated in fiscal year 2012. The program  was also proposed to be consolidated or eliminated in Education’s fiscal year 2013 budget request. In  addition, Education officials noted that the Supported Employment Services program provides  supplemental funding to help state VR agencies cover the costs of Supported Employment State  Grants participating in the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services program. ”No response” indicates that the program did not respond to this survey question or otherwise provide  this information.
Total program obligations for Job Corps includes $102 million in American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act obligations. Data on participants is from program year 2009, and is based on self- disclosed and readily observable disabilities.
Data are from May 2008 to October 2010. This data includes the number of participants contacted  and services provided, including to spouses and caregivers.
This program was proposed to be transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services in  Labor’s fiscal year 2013 budget request.
Data are from July 2010 to June 2011.
This program was proposed to be consolidated or eliminated in Labor’s fiscal year 2013 budget  request.
Data are from July 2009 to June 2010.
Data are from April 2009 to March 2010.
Program reported appropriated funds instead of obligations.
According to program officials, this program is expected to end by the end of fiscal year 2012.
This number represents the number of people who achieved the outcome of 9 months of working  and earning at the substantial gainful activity level. As of October 25, 2010, the State Vocational  Rehabilitation Cost Reimbursement Program had served 235,346 people. In addition, an SSA official  noted that these participants may also be counted as participants in Education’s State Vocational  Rehabilitation Services program.
section_title: Appendix IV: Reported Program Objectives and Eligibility Requirements
subsections: section_title: Program title U.S. AbilityOne Commission AbilityOne Program
paragraphs: The purpose of the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act is to  generate employment and training opportunities for  people who are blind or have other severe  disabilities in the manufacture and delivery of  products and services to the federal government.  The law requires federal agencies to procure certain  products and services that are produced and  provided by community-based nonprofit agencies  that are dedicated to training and employing  persons who are blind or have other severe  disabilities.
The primary requirement for a nonprofit agency to  participate in the AbilityOne Program is that, on an  annual basis, 75 percent of all of the direct labor done  at a nonprofit agency be performed by people who are  blind or severely disabled. The term ‘‘blind’’ refers to  an individual or class of individuals whose central  visual acuity does not exceed 20/200 in the better eye  with correcting lenses or whose visual acuity, if better  than 20/200, is accompanied by a limit to the field of  vision in the better eye to such a degree that its widest  diameter subtends an angle of no greater than 20  degrees. The term “severely disabled” refers to an  individual or class of individuals who has a severe  physical or mental impairment other than blindness,  which so limits the person’s functional capabilities  (mobility, communication, self-care, self direction, work  tolerance, or work skills) that the individual is unable to  engage in normal competitive employment, over an  extended period of time.
AgrAbility increases the likelihood that individuals  with disabilities and their families engaged in  production agriculture (AgrAbility’s customers)  become more successful. The program supports  cooperative projects in which State Cooperative  Extension Services based at either 1862 or 1890  Land-Grant Universities or the University of the  District of Columbia subcontract to private, nonprofit  disability organizations. Measures of success may  include improvements in customers’ financial  stability or access to life activities and in the  capacity of the states and regions to deliver  services this population requires in a timely and  satisfying manner. To address the specialized  needs of AgrAbility’s customers, the program builds  service capacity on national, regional, state, and  local levels through education and networking. In  the absence of capacity, projects provide assistance  to customers. The primary function of the National  AgrAbility Project is to support the state and  regional projects in developing their capacity to  meet these objectives.
The program targets accommodating disability in  production agriculture. It provides education and  awareness to the public, agricultural, and rehabilitation  professionals on what can be done to accommodate  disability in the agricultural workplace. The program  does not fund rehabilitation equipment or payments to  individuals.
section_title: Program title Department of Defense Air Force Warrior and Survivor Care
paragraphs: Develop programs to help identify all airmen that  need assistance; continue to build mentorship  program to aid and benefit recovering airmen;  employ dedicated qualified staff as Recovery Care  Coordinators and provide them with tools and  support needed to be successful; provide  comprehensive policy for Mortuary, Casualty Affairs,  Wounded Warrior, and Recovery Care Coordinator  programs.
The Air Force Warrior and Survivor Care programs are  made available to all Active Duty, Air National Guard,  and Air Force Reserve members and their families to  provide support in the event an airman is seriously  wounded, ill, or injured while serving. The level of  support and benefit assistance provided is dependent  solely on need and is provided throughout the  continuum of care. If injuries or illness warrant, airmen  may enter the program at any time by self-referral or  be referred by commander, spouses, supervisors, and  medical personnel.
An Army-wide structure to provide support and  services for wounded, ill, and injured soldiers. The  program enables the Army to evaluate and treat  soldiers through a comprehensive, soldier-centric  process of medical care, rehabilitation, professional  development, and achievement of personal goals.
The Warrior Care and Transition Program is available  to soldiers of all components (active and reserve  components/active guard and reserve) on active duty  who require complex medical care management of 6  months or longer duration. Additionally, eligibility is  extended to activated reserve component soldiers  requiring definitive medical care who have been  approved by a Medical Review Board.
The Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program  (CAP) is a program in the TRICARE Management  Activity, under the direction of the Assistant  Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. CAP’s  mission is to provide assistive technology and  accommodation services to federal employees with  disabilities and wounded servicemembers to  increase access to information environment and  employment opportunities in the federal  government.
To be eligible for CAP services, an individual must be  a federal employee with a disability in the Department  of Defense or an employee with a disability at one of  the federal partners with CAP or an active duty  wounded or ill servicemember.
To maintain a high level of coordination through a  single command structure that delivers or facilitates  delivery of nonmedical care to wounded, ill, or  injured Marines and their families.
Must be an active duty, reserve, retired, or veteran  wounded, ill, or injured Marine.
To provide job skills and training to wounded, ill,  and injured Marines pending medical separation.
The Marine Corps Wounded Warrior Intern Program is  open to all wounded, ill, and injured Marines. Spouses  and caregivers of active duty wounded, ill, and injured  Marines are eligible for some of the program benefits.
Beneficiary eligibility requirements   All seriously wounded, ill, or injured sailors and Coast  Guardsmen not likely to return to duty in 180 days and  likely to be medically retired or separated; and high- risk, nonseriously wounded, ill, or injured sailors,  Coast Guardsmen and their families (case-by-case).
3.  Provide focused outreach opportunities for  4.  5.  Align resources to effectively and efficiently  wounded, ill, or injured sailors’ and Coast  Guardsmen’s family members, caregivers and  their support network  Increase awareness of Navy Safe Harbor  execute the Safe Harbor mission  6.  Attract and retain sustained superior  performers with demonstrated leadership  expertise to the Safe Harbor staff.
The Recovery Care Coordinators (RCC) assist in  the creation and management of the  Comprehensive Recovery Plans for Wounded  Warriors—Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and U.S.  Special Operations Command—until they are either  returned to duty or separated from the service due  to the extent of their injuries. The RCCs act as the  single point of contact for the Wounded Warriors  and their families as they receive care from multi- disciplinary support teams, both medical and  nonmedical, in helping them obtain required  treatment, care, and family assistance.
Populations served by the RCCs are wounded, ill and  injured warriors and their families: troop program unit,  Active Guard Reserve, Individual Mobilization  Augmentee, Individual Ready Reserve, retirees, and  veterans.
Beneficiary eligibility requirements   Eligibility criteria require participants to be  servicemembers in an active duty status assigned to a  military treatment facility or a service wounded warrior  program. If not assigned to one of these programs,  servicemembers can still be eligible if they are going  through the medical evaluation board and their chain  of command approves their participation.
Program objectives   Operation Warfighter (OWF) is a federal internship  program for wounded, ill, and injured  servicemembers. The main objective of OWF is to  place servicemembers in supportive work settings  that positively impact their recuperation. The  program represents a great opportunity for  transitioning servicemembers to augment their  employment readiness by building their resumes,  exploring employment interests, developing job  skills, benefiting from both formal and on-the-job  training opportunities, and gaining valuable federal  government work experience that will help prepare  them for the future. Operation Warfighter strives to  demonstrate to participants that the skills they have  obtained in the military are transferable into civilian  employment. For servicemembers returning to duty,  the program enables these participants to maintain  their skill sets and provides the opportunity for  additional training and experience that can  subsequently benefit the military. Operation  Warfighter simultaneously enables federal  employers to better familiarize themselves with the  skill sets and challenges of wounded, ill, and injured  servicemembers as well as benefit from the  considerable talent and dedication of these  servicemembers.  To provide Special Operations Forces warriors and  their families a model advocacy program in order to  enhance their quality of life and strengthen overall  readiness of Special Operations.
To provide vocational rehabilitation services to  American Indians with disabilities who reside on or  near federal or state reservations in order to  achieve gainful employment.
American Indians with disabilities residing on or near a  federal or state reservation (including Native Alaskans)  who meet the definition of an individual with a disability  in Section 7 (8)(A) of the Rehabilitation Act.
To provide states with financial assistance that  supports programs designed to maximize the ability  of individuals of all ages with disabilities and their  family members, guardians, advocates, and  authorized representatives to obtain assistive  technology devices and assistive technology  services.
Individuals with disabilities.
Program objectives   Authorized by an Act of Congress in 1967, the  Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths  and Adults is a national rehabilitation program  serving youth and adults who are deaf-blind. The  purposes of the Center are to (1) provide  specialized intensive services, or any other  services, at the Center or anywhere else in the  United States, which are necessary to encourage  the maximum personal development of any  individual who is deaf-blind; (2) train family  members of individuals who are deaf-blind at the  Center or anywhere else in the United States, in  order to assist family members in providing and  obtaining appropriate services for the individual who  is deaf-blind; (3) train professionals and allied  personnel at the Center or anywhere else in the  United States to provide services to individuals who  are deaf-blind; and (4) conduct applied research,  development programs, and demonstrations with  respect to communication techniques, teaching  methods, aids and devices, and delivery of services.
Beneficiary eligibility requirements   The Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind  Youths and Adults provides services on a national  basis to adults who are deaf-blind, their families, and  service providers. The term “individual who is deaf- blind” means any individual - (A)(i) who has a central  visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with  corrective lenses, or a field defect such that the  peripheral diameter of visual field subtends an angular  distance no greater than 20 degrees, or a progressive  visual loss having a prognosis leading to one or both  these conditions; (ii) who has a chronic hearing  impairment so severe that most speech cannot be  understood with optimum amplification, or a  progressive hearing loss having a prognosis leading to  this condition; and (iii) for whom the combination of  impairments described in clauses (i) and (ii) cause  extreme difficulty in attaining independence in daily life  activities, achieving psychosocial adjustment, or  obtaining a vocation; (B) who despite the inability to be  measured accurately for hearing and vision loss due to  cognitive or behavioral constraints, or both, can be  determined through functional and performance  assessment to have severe hearing and visual  disabilities that cause extreme difficulty in attaining  independence in daily life activities, achieving  psychosocial adjustment, or obtaining vocational  objectives; or (C) meets such other requirements as  the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.”
The Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers program  provides comprehensive vocational rehabilitation  (VR) services available to migrant and seasonal  farmworkers with disabilities with the goal of  increasing employment opportunities for these  individuals. Projects also develop innovative  methods for reaching and serving this population.  Projects are required to coordinate with the VR  State Grants program.
Individuals with disabilities and individuals with  significant disabilities as defined in Sections 7(9)(A)(B)  and 7(20)(A), respectively, of the Rehabilitation Act of  1973, as amended.
Create or expand model comprehensive transition  and postsecondary programs for students with  intellectual disabilities. Funds also support a  coordinating center that provides related services.
Students with intellectual disabilities enrolled in model  programs or other comprehensive transition and  postsecondary programs.
Program objectives   According to the statute creating the Randolph- Sheppard program, the objectives of this initiative  include providing blind persons with remunerative  employment, enlarging the economic opportunities  of the blind, and stimulating the blind to greater  efforts in striving to make themselves self- supporting. Toward this end, blind persons licensed  under the provisions of this chapter shall be  authorized to operate vending facilities on any  federal property. In layman language, the program’s  objectives are to create employment opportunities  by creating a priority for eligible blind people to  operate entrepreneurial ventures on federal and  other designated state properties. Throughout the  country, states have created similar priorities to  mirror the federal program in their specific  jurisdictions.  To provide financial assistance to projects and  demonstrations for expanding and improving the  provision of rehabilitation and other services  authorized under the Rehabilitation Act, or that  further the purposes of the act, including related  research and evaluation activities.
Beneficiary eligibility requirements   To be eligible for this program, participants must be  blind, citizens of the United States, and meet any other  specific standards that individual state licensing  agencies may require.
Individuals with disabilities.
To assist states in operating comprehensive,  coordinated, effective, efficient, and accountable  programs of vocational rehabilitation; to assess,  plan, develop, and provide vocational rehabilitation  services for individuals with disabilities, consistent  with their strengths, resources, priorities, concerns,  abilities, and capabilities so they may prepare for  and engage in competitive employment.
Eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services is based  on the presence of a physical or mental impairment,  which for such an individual constitutes or results in a  substantial impediment to employment, and the need  for vocational rehabilitation services that may be  expected to benefit the individual in terms of an  employment outcome.
To provide grants for time-limited services leading  to supported employment for individuals with the  most severe disabilities to enable such individuals  to achieve the employment outcome of supported  employment.
Individuals with the most severe disabilities whose  ability or potential to engage in a training program  leading to supported employment has been  determined by evaluating rehabilitation potential. In  addition, individuals must need extended services in  order to perform competitive work and have the ability  to work in a supported employment setting.
The Medicaid Home and Community-based  Services waiver program is authorized in section  1915(c) of the Social Security Act. The program  permits a state to furnish an array of home and  community based services that assist Medicaid  beneficiaries to live in the community and avoid  institutionalization.
In order to participate in a waiver, a person must meet  the level of care specified for the waiver and also be a  member of a Medicaid eligibility group that a state  includes in the waiver. A state may include a Medicaid  eligibility group in the waiver only when it includes the  same group in its state plan.
Program objectives   1915(i) allows states the option to add home and  community-based services to their Medicaid State  Plans.
Beneficiary eligibility requirements   Financial eligibility requirements: (1) eligible for  Medicaid and have income up to 150 percent of the  federal poverty level, and (2) at the state’s option,  eligible through a new Medicaid eligibility category at  income up to 300 percent of Supplemental Security  Income Federal Benefit Rate and eligible for a 1915(c)  waiver or 1115 demonstration program in their state.  Other eligibility requirements: (1) meet state-defined  needs-based criteria, and (2) at the state’s option,  meet the state-specified targeted population group for  the 1915(i) benefit.
To provide parameters for the coverage of services  authorized by the Social Security Act to be part of  the Medicaid State Plan.
Each state plan service contains, either in statute or  regulation, parameters for service provision, including  any functional eligibility requirements to be met.
The Money Follows the Person (MFP) Rebalancing  Demonstration, authorized by section 6071 of the  Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Pub. Law No.109- 171), was designed to assist States to balance their  long-term care systems and help Medicaid enrollees  transition from institutions to the community.  Congress initially authorized up to $1.75 billion in  funds through federal fiscal year 2011. With the  subsequent passage of the Patient Protection and  Affordable Care Act (Pub. Law No.111-148) in  2010, Section 2403 extended the program through  September 30, 2016. An additional $2.25 billion in  federal funds was appropriated through federal  fiscal year 2016. The MFP Demonstration supports  state efforts to rebalance their long-term support  system so that individuals have a choice of where  they live and receive services. Transition individuals  from institutions who want to live in the community.
As defined in Section 6071(b)(2) of the DRA and  amended by Section 2403 of the Affordable Care Act,  the term “eligible individual” means an individual in the  state who, immediately before beginning participation  in the MFP demonstration project: (1) resides (and has  resided, for a period of not less than 90 consecutive  days) in a qualified institution or inpatient setting  (excluding days solely for the purpose of short-term  rehabilitation services); (2) is receiving Medicaid  benefits for services furnished by such qualified  institution or inpatient setting; and (3) with respect to  whom a determination has been made that, but for the  provision of home and community-based long-term  care services, the individual would continue to require  the level of care provided in a qualified institution or  inpatient setting.
America’s Heroes at Work is a Department of Labor  project that addresses the employment challenges  of returning servicemembers living with Traumatic  Brain Injury (TBI) or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder  (PTSD)—an important focus of the President’s  veterans agenda. The project equips employers and  the workforce development system with the tools  they need to help returning servicemembers  affected by TBI and/or PTSD succeed in the  workplace—particularly servicemembers returning  from Iraq and Afghanistan.
No eligibility requirements. Support services (website,  toll-free assistance, and presentations) are available to  any group or individual that requests them.
Program objectives   The purpose of the Senior Community Service  Employment Program (SCSEP) program is to  provide, foster, and promote useful part-time work  opportunities (usually 20 hours per week) in  community service training and employment  activities for unemployed low-income persons who  are 55 years of age and older. To the extent  feasible, SCSEP assists and promotes the transition  of program participants into unsubsidized  employment.
Beneficiary eligibility requirements   Unemployed persons 55 years or older whose family is  low-income (i.e., income does not exceed the low- income standards defined in 20 CFR section 641.507)  are eligible for enrollment (20 CFR section 641.500).  Low-income means an income of the family which,  during the preceding 6 months on an annualized basis  or the actual income during the preceding 12 months,  at the option of the grantee, is not more than 125  percent of the poverty levels established and  periodically updated by the Department of Health and  Human Services (42 USC 3056p(a)(4)). The poverty  guidelines are issued each year in the Federal  Register and the Department of Health and Human  Services maintains a page on the Internet which  provides the poverty guidelines  (http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/index.shtml,  accessed May 30, 2012). Enrollee eligibility is re- determined on an annual basis (20 CFR section  641.505).
To provide intensive services to meet the  employment needs of disabled and other eligible  veterans with maximum emphasis in meeting the  employment needs of those who are economically  or educationally disadvantaged, including homeless  veterans and veterans with barriers to employment.
Eligible veterans and eligible persons with emphasis  on Special Disabled veterans, disabled veterans,  economically or educationally disadvantaged veterans,  and veterans with other barriers to employment.
EARN is a resource for employers seeking to  recruit, retain and advance individuals with  disabilities. (www.askearn.org, accessed May 30,  2012)
Any public or private employer seeking to advance the  employment of individuals with disabilities is eligible for  services.
The mission of JAN is to facilitate the employment  and retention of workers with disabilities by  providing employers, employment providers, people  with disabilities, their family members, and other  interested parties with technical assistance on job  accommodations, entrepreneurship, and related  subjects. JAN’s efforts are in support of the  employment, including self-employment and small  business ownership, of people with disabilities. This  free, confidential technical assistance is provided in  English and Spanish via telephone, email, chat, and  postal mail.
JAN services are available to all interested parties.
section_title: Program title Job Corps
paragraphs: Program objectives   Job Corps is the nation’s largest federally funded  training program that provides at-risk youth, ages  16-24, with academic instruction, toward the  achievement of a High School Diploma or General  Education Development (GED) certificate, and  career training in high-growth, high-demand  industries. Upon exit from the program, participants  receive transition assistance to employment, higher  education, or the military. The program is primarily  residential, serving nearly 60,000 students at 125  centers nationwide.
Beneficiary eligibility requirements   To be eligible to become an enrollee, an individual  shall be: (1) not less than age 16 and not more than  age 21 on the date of enrollment, except that (a) not  more than 20 percent of the individuals enrolled in the  Job Corps may be not less than age 22 and not more  than age 24 on the date of enrollment, and (b) either  such maximum age limitation may be waived by the  Secretary, in accordance with regulations of the  Secretary, in the case of an individual with a disability;  (2) a low-income individual; and (3) an individual who  is one or more of the following: (a) basic skills  deficient; (b) a school dropout; (c) homeless, a  runaway, or a foster child; (d) a parent; (e) an  individual who requires additional education,  vocational training, or intensive counseling and related  assistance, in order to participate successfully in  regular schoolwork or to secure and hold employment.
Eligible veterans and eligible persons.
Conduct outreach and provide seminars to  employers which advocates hiring of veterans;  facilitate Transition Assistance Program  employment workshops to transitioning  servicemembers; establish and conduct job search  workshops; facilitate employment, training, and  placement services furnished to veterans in a state  under the applicable state employment service or  one-stop career center delivery systems whose sole  purpose is to assist veterans in gaining and  retaining employment.  The objective of REALifelines is to support the  economic recovery of transitioning servicemembers  and veterans who were wounded or injured while  serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation  Enduring Freedom. The transition services are  extended to spouses and caregivers through the  resources at the one-stop career centers. Intensive  services are provided by our Disabled Veterans  Outreach Program specialists. The specialized  services are intended to identify and address any  barriers to employment.
Transitioning servicemembers and veterans who were  wounded or injured while serving in Operation Iraqi  Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.
Youth and young adults with disabilities ages 16  through 27.
To provide services to assist in reintegrating eligible  veterans into meaningful employment within the  labor force and to stimulate the development of  effective service delivery systems that will address  the complex problems facing eligible veterans.
Service-connected disabled veterans, veterans who  have significant barriers to employment, veterans who  served on active duty in the armed forces during a war  or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign  badge has been authorized, and veterans who are  recently separated from military service (48 months).
Program objectives   To help low-income youth, between the ages of 14  and 21, acquire the educational and occupational  skills, training, and support needed to achieve  academic and employment success and  successfully transition to careers and productive  adulthood.
Beneficiary eligibility requirements   An eligible youth is an individual who: (1) is 14 to 21  years of age; (2) is an individual who received an  income or is a member of a family that received a total  family income that, in relation to family size, does not  exceed the higher of (a) the poverty line or (b) 70  percent of the lower living standard income; and (3)  meets one or more of the following criteria: is an  individual who is deficient in basic literacy skills, a  school dropout, homeless, a runaway, a foster child,  pregnant or a parent, an offender, or requires  additional assistance to complete their education or  secure and hold employment.  There is an exception to permit youth who are not low- income individuals to receive youth services. Up to 5  percent of youth participants served by youth  programs in a local area may be individuals who do  not meet the income criterion for eligible youth,  provided that they are within one or more of the  following categories: school dropout; basic skills  deficient; are one or more grade levels below the  grade level appropriate to the individual’s age;  pregnant or parenting; possess one or more  disabilities, including learn disabilities; homeless or  runaway; offender; or face serious barriers to  employment as identified by the local board.
The tax credit was designed to help individuals from  12 target groups who consistently have faced  significant barriers to employment move from  economic dependency to self-sufficiency by  encouraging businesses in the private sector to hire  target group members and be eligible to claim tax  credits based on the wages they paid to the new  hires during the first year of employment, up to a  dollar wage limit.
All employers seeking Work Opportunity Tax Credit  target group workers and target group members  seeking employment. The members of the different  target groups have statutory definitions (per Pub. Law  No. 109-188, as amended) with specific eligibility  requirements that must be verified by the state  workforce agencies before a certification can be  issued to an employer or his representatives.  Participating employers and their representatives must  file their certification requests using Internal Revenue  Service Form 8850 and ETA Form 9061 or 9062 within  28 days after the employment-start day of the new  hires. This timeliness requirement cannot be waived  and must be met before a state can issue a  certification for eligible target group members.
The Workforce Recruitment Program is a  recruitment and referral program that connects  federal and private sector employers nationwide  with highly motivated postsecondary students and  recent graduates with disabilities who are eager to  prove their abilities in the workplace through  summer or permanent jobs.
The Workforce Recruitment Program for College  Students with Disabilities serves individuals who have  disabilities, are enrolled at an accredited institution of  higher learning on a substantially full-time basis  (unless the severity of the disability precludes the  student from taking a substantially full-time load) to  seek a degree or are enrolled at such an institution as  a degree-seeking student taking less than a  substantially full-time load in the enrollment period  immediately prior to graduation or have graduated with  a degree from such an institution within the past year,  and are U.S. citizens.
section_title: Program title YouthBuild
paragraphs: Beneficiary eligibility requirements   Youth ages 16 through 24 and a member of a  disadvantaged population, such as: low-income, foster  care (including youth aging out of foster care), youth  offender, youth with a disability, child of an  incarcerated parent, high school dropout, or migrant  youth.
Compensated Work Therapy is a recovery-oriented,  vocational model integrated into the continuum of  Veterans Health Administration’s services, as  authorized by 38 USC § 1718. Department of  Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers offer  Compensated Work Therapy with both Transitional  Work Experience and Supported Employment  services for veterans with occupational dysfunctions  resulting from their mental health conditions, or who  are unsuccessful at obtaining or maintaining stable  employment patterns due to mental illnesses or  physical impairments co-occurring with mental  illnesses. The scope of Therapeutic and Supported  Employment Services (TSES) includes skill  development opportunities both for veterans for  whom the primary objective is competitive  employment, and for veterans in need of therapeutic  pre-employment services designed to ameliorate  the consequences of long standing mental health  problems alone or with co-occurring physical illness.  The mission of TSES is to improve the veteran’s  overall quality of life through a vocational  rehabilitation experience in which the veteran learns  new job skills, strengthen successful work habits,  and regains a sense of self-esteem and self-worth.  The vision of TSES is that all veterans challenged  with physical or mental illness can obtain  meaningful competitive employment in the  community, working in jobs of their choice, while  receiving necessary and appropriate support  services. The goal of TSES is to provide a  continuum of therapeutic and skill development  services for veterans who have difficulty obtaining  or maintaining stable employment patterns due to  mental illnesses or physical impairments co- occurring with mental illnesses. The objectives of  TSES are to provide an opportunity for work  hardening and skill development services to eligible  veterans regardless of diagnosis, disability, or  treatment goals; Collaborate with veterans and their  primary treatment team to assure each veteran has  the support necessary to achieve his or her  vocational goals; Ensure access to all components  in the continuum of TSES services as the veteran’s  needs change over the course of treatment,  rehabilitation, and recovery.
A person who served in the active military, naval, or air  service and who was discharged or released under  conditions other than dishonorable may qualify for VA  health care benefits. Reservists and National Guard  members may also qualify for VA health care benefits  if they were called to active duty (other than for training  only) by a federal order and completed the full period  for which they were called or ordered to active duty.
Program objectives   DTAP is an integral component of transition  assistance that involves intervening on behalf of  servicemembers who may be released because of a  disability or who believe they have a disability  qualifying them for VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation  and Employment program (VR&E). The goal of  DTAP is to encourage and assist potentially eligible  servicemembers in making an informed decision  about VA’s VR&E program. It is also intended to  facilitate the expeditious delivery of vocational  rehabilitation services to eligible persons by  assisting them in filing an application for vocational  rehabilitation benefits.
Beneficiary eligibility requirements   Servicemembers who may be released because of  injuries or diseases that happened while on active  duty, or were made worse by active military service.
To provide all services and assistance necessary to  enable service-disabled veterans and service  persons hospitalized or receiving outpatient medical  care services or treatment for a service-connected  disability pending discharge to gain and maintain  suitable employment. When employment is not  reasonably feasible, the program can provide the  needed services and assistance to help the  individual achieve maximum independence in daily  living.  The VR&E program is a comprehensive vocational  rehabilitation program that provides up to 48 months  of extensive services leading to employment. Every  VR&E program participant is provided a  comprehensive vocational evaluation to determine  transferable skills, aptitudes, and interests; explore  labor market and wage information; and to focus on  vocational options that will lead to a viable suitable  employment or independent living goal. Results  from the evaluation help determine which of the five  tracks to success (Reemployment, Rapid Access to  Employment, Self Employment, Employment  Through Long-term Services, or Independent  Living) is most appropriate. Depending on the  rehabilitation needs of the individual, services may  include training such as on-the-job,  vocational/technical school, college-level  (certificate, 2-year degree, 4-year degree, or  beyond). VR&E pays for tuition, fees, books, and  supplies associated with training, as well as a  monthly subsistence allowance.
Veterans of World War II and later service with a  service-connected disability or disabilities rated at  least 20 percent compensable and certain service- disabled servicepersons pending discharge or release  from service if VA determines the servicepersons will  likely receive at least a 20 percent rating and they  need vocational rehabilitation because of an  employment handicap. Veterans with compensable  ratings of 10 percent may also be eligible if they are  found to have a serious employment handicap. To  receive an evaluation for vocational rehabilitation  services, a veteran must have received, or eventually  receive, an honorable or other than dishonorable  discharge, have a VA service-connected disability  rating of 10 percent or more, and apply for vocational  rehabilitation services.
Program objectives   To provide vocational training and rehabilitation to  certain children born with spina bifida or other  covered birth defects who are children of Vietnam  veterans and some Korean veterans.
Beneficiary eligibility requirements   A child born with spina bifida or other covered birth  defects, except spina bifida occulta, who is the natural  child of a Vietnam veteran and some Korean veterans,  regardless of the age or marital status of the child,  conceived after the date on which the veteran first  served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam  era and in particular areas near the demilitarized zone  (DMZ) in the Korean conflict. VA must also determine  that it is feasible for the child to achieve a vocational  goal.
To comply with the Ticket to Work and Work  Incentives Improvement Act which was passed in  December 1999, and reauthorized by the Social  Security Protection Act of 2004, which requires SSA  to establish a community based work incentives  planning and assistance program. The purpose of  this program is to disseminate accurate information  to SSA disability beneficiaries (including transition to  work aged youth) about work incentives programs,  and issues related to such programs, to enable  them to make informed choices about working and  whether or when to assign their Ticket to Work, as  well as how available work incentives can facilitate  their transition into the workforce. The ultimate goal  of the Work Incentives Planning and Assistance  program is to assist SSA disability beneficiaries  succeed in their return to work efforts.
All individuals within the state who are entitled to  Social Security Disability Insurance benefits or eligible  for Supplemental Security Income payments based on  disability or blindness.
Makes vocational rehabilitation services more  readily available to disabled or blind SSA disability  beneficiaries.
Ticket to Work program  Provides SSA disability beneficiaries more choices  for receiving employment services.
Social Security Disability Insurance beneficiaries and  Supplemental Security Income disability recipients  ages 18 through 64.
In commenting on a draft of this report, Education noted that Rehabilitation Services Demonstration  and Training Programs grantees may use funds to conduct a broad range of activities, the ultimate  goal of which is to improve services for individuals with disabilities. However, in some cases,  individuals with disabilities may not be the direct target population. For example, some of the program  funds are used for providing training and technical assistance to service providers and parents of  individuals with disabilities.
section_title: Appendix VI: Employment-Related Outcome Measures Programs Reported Tracking for People with Disabilities in Fiscal Year 2010
subsections: section_title: U.S. AbilityOne Commission AbilityOne Program
section_title: Educational
section_title: Educational
section_title: Educational
section_title: Educational
section_title: Educational
section_title: Educational
paragraphs: In commenting on a draft of this report, Education officials noted that Rehabilitation Services Demonstration and Training Programs may track  some of these measures on a project-specific basis, depending on the purpose of the demonstration project.
section_title: Appendix VII: Programs That Identified Performance Reviews Completed Since 2006, by Type of Study
paragraphs: Program (agency)  AgrAbility (Department of Agriculture)
Compensated Work Therapy program (Department of  Veteran Affairs)
Employer Assistance and Resource Network (Labor)
Helen Keller National Center (Education)
Job Corps (Labor)
Mental Health Treatment Study (SSA)
Randolph Sheppard Vending Facilities Program  (Education)
Recovery Care Coordinator–Operation Warfighter  (Department of Defense)
Ticket to Work program (SSA)
Work Incentives Planning and Assistance program (SSA)
Youth Transition Demonstration Projects (SSA)
YouthBuild (Labor)
In response to our survey questions that asked whether any impact studies had been conducted,  officials from five program provided references. We evaluated the methodology of each study and  determined that three of them met the definition of an impact study provided in our questionnaire—a  study that assessed the net effect of a program by comparing program outcomes with an estimate of  what would have happened in the absence of the program—and had been completed since 2006.  The other studies either did not meet our definition or were not available for review.
This program reported having conducted an impact study, but that it was still in progress as part of a  larger effort.
Two of the three programs that conducted impact studies were excluded from our scope because  they ended prior to April 2012, but are listed here because the studies are discussed in the report.
This program cited a previous GAO study, which is not an program evaluation.
section_title: Appendix VIII: Agency Comments from the Department of Agriculture
section_title: Appendix IX: Agency Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix X: Agency Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix XI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Michele Grgich, Assistant Director; Rachael Chamberlin Valliere, Analyst- in-Charge; Margaret J. Weber; and Miriam Hill made significant  contributions to all aspects of this engagement. Stuart M. Kaufmann,  Christine C. San, and Walter Vance assisted with the methodology,  survey development, and data analysis. Jessica A. Botsford and Sheila  McCoy provided legal assistance. Kate van Gelder and James Bennett  helped prepare the final report and graphics. Tom Moscovitch, John S.  Townes, and Jacques Arsenault verified our findings.