This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-865 
entitled 'Vocational Rehabilitation: Better Measures and Monitoring 
Could Improve the Performance of the VR Program' which was released on 
September 23, 2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

September 2005: 

Vocational Rehabilitation: 

Better Measures and Monitoring Could Improve the Performance of the VR 
Program: 

GAO-05-865: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-865, a report to congressional committees: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Department of Education (Education) provides more than $2.5 billion 
annually to the states for a federal-state vocational rehabilitation 
(VR) program to help individuals with disabilities become employed. 
This program is among a large number of federal programs intended to 
assist people with disabilities. In 2003 GAO placed federal disability 
programs on its list of high-risk programs because many of these 
programs have not kept up with scientific advances and economic and 
social changes. GAO prepared this report under the Comptroller 
General’s authority as part of an effort to assist policy makers in 
determining how federal disability programs could more effectively meet 
the needs of individuals with disabilities and addressed it to each 
committee of jurisdiction. In this report, GAO assesses the (1) extent 
to which state VR agencies assist individuals in achieving employment, 
and (2) performance measures and monitoring practices Education uses to 
manage this decentralized program and achieve legislative goals. 

What GAO Found: 

Of the more than 650,000 individuals exiting the state VR programs in 
fiscal year 2003, one-third (217,557) obtained a new job or maintained 
their existing job for at least 90 days after receiving services. 
Education’s data showed that the remaining two-thirds exited the VR 
program without employment most often because the individual refused 
services or failed to cooperate with the VR counselor (46 percent of 
the time) or could not be located or contacted (24 percent). The VR 
program purchased more than $1.3 billion in services for all 
individuals who exited the program in fiscal year 2003, two-thirds of 
which were used to provide services to individuals exiting with 
employment. Employment, earnings, and the amount of purchased services 
received while in the VR program varied significantly by individuals’ 
disability type and other characteristics. In addition, state VR 
agencies varied substantially in the employment rates they achieved, 
the characteristics of individuals they served, their frequency of 
providing certain services, and their service expenditures. 

Individuals Exiting the VR Program, Fiscal Year 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Education’s performance measures are not comprehensive, and its 
monitoring of state VR agencies has not resulted in timely feedback. 
Education does not comprehensively measure the performance of certain 
key populations, such as students transitioning from school to work, 
and tracks only the individuals who exit the program, not those still 
receiving services. In addition, Education’s performance measures do 
not take into consideration all the variation among the state VR 
agencies or allow for comparisons with other workforce programs. 
Education’s monitoring reports, which are its primary means of 
providing feedback to state VR agencies, are frequently late and based 
on data that are more than 2 years old. Consequently, state VR agencies 
do not receive the timely feedback needed to improve the efficiency and 
effectiveness of their programs. In managing the performance of the VR 
program, Education also does not censure poorly performing state VR 
agencies, reward strong performance, or take full advantage of 
opportunities to disseminate best practices. Education recently decided 
to eliminate its regional offices, which conducted most of the 
monitoring of state VR agencies, making the details of the future 
monitoring process unclear. 

What GAO Recommends: 

Education agreed that better measures and monitoring could improve the 
performance of the VR program, as GAO recommended. These 
recommendations included aligning performance measures with program 
goals and developing a better monitoring process that includes timelier 
feedback to state VR agencies. 

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

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Robert E. Robertson at 
(202) 512-7215 or robertsonr@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

One-Third of Individuals Exited the VR Program Nationwide with 
Employment, although Employment Rates Varied Significantly among State 
VR Agencies: 

Education's VR Performance Measures Are Not Comprehensive, and Its 
Monitoring of State VR Agencies' Performance Has Not Resulted in Timely 
Feedback: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: State VR Agency Exit and Employment Rates, Fiscal Year 
2003: 

Appendix III: State VR Agency Population Proportions by Primary 
Impairment, Fiscal Year 2003: 

Appendix IV: Social Security Beneficiaries' Employment Rates by State 
VR Agency, Fiscal Year 2003: 

Appendix V: State VR Agency Percentages of Total Agency Service Budget 
Spent on Each Service Category, Fiscal Year 2003: 

Appendix VI: State VR Agency Total Administrative Costs as a Percentage 
of Total Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003: 

Appendix VII: State VR Agency Average Total Expenditures in Fiscal Year 
2003 Per Person Exiting with Employment in Fiscal Year 2003: 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Education: 

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

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

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

Table 3: Percentage of Individuals in the VR Program Receiving Services 
by Each of the 22 Service Categories Tracked by Education, Fiscal Year 
2003: 

Table 4: Transitioning Students Exiting the VR Program with Employment 
after Services under an Employment Plan, Fiscal Year 2003: 

Table 5: Per Capita Service Costs by Each Type of State VR Agency, 
Fiscal Year 2003: 

Table 6: Blind or Visually Impaired Individuals Exiting with Employment 
from Blind State VR Agencies versus Combined State VR Agencies, Fiscal 
Year 2003: 

Figures: 

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

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

Figure 3: Reasons for Individuals Exiting the VR Program without 
Employment, Fiscal Year 2003: 

Figure 4: Primary Impairments of Individuals Exiting the VR Program, 
Fiscal Year 2003: 

Figure 5: Rates of Exit from the VR Program by Primary Impairment 
Group, Fiscal Year 2003: 

Figure 6: Median Hourly Wage by Impairment Group among Individuals 
Exiting the VR Program with Employment who did Not Require Ongoing 
Support Services, Fiscal Year 2003: 

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

Abbreviations: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act: 

IEP: individualized education program: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

PART: Program Assessment Rating Tool: 

RSA: Rehabilitation Services Administration: 

VR: vocational rehabilitation: 

WIA: Workforce Investment Act: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

September 23, 2005: 

The Honorable Michael B. Enzi: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable John A. Boehner: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable George Miller: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Education and the Workforce: 
House of Representatives: 

The Department of Education (Education) provides more than $2.5 billion 
annually to the states for a federal-state vocational rehabilitation 
(VR) program to help individuals with disabilities become employed, 
consistent with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In fiscal year 2003, 
these state programs provided services to more than 1 million 
individuals with disabilities. Although Education provides more than 
three-quarters of the program's funding, states have significant 
latitude in how they administer their VR programs. 

In the past several years, key legislative changes have been enacted 
relating to the VR program. For example, the Rehabilitation Act was 
reauthorized as part of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998, 
when VR became 1 of 17 mandated partners in state workforce investment 
systems. In addition, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives 
Improvement Act of 1999 expanded the types of rehabilitation services 
available to Social Security disability beneficiaries by providing for 
privatized services in a market previously dominated by the public VR 
program. 

More recently, in 2003, we placed the modernization of federal 
disability programs on our list of high-risk programs because many of 
these programs have yet to incorporate scientific advances and economic 
and social changes that have redefined the relationship between 
impairments and the ability to work.[Footnote 1] In addition, these 
programs have faced long-standing challenges in ensuring the timeliness 
and consistency of decisions related to benefits and services for 
people with disabilities. We have prepared this report under the 
Comptroller General's authority as part of a continued effort to help 
policy makers better understand the extent of support provided by 
federal programs to people with disabilities and to assist them in 
determining how these programs could more effectively meet the needs of 
individuals with disabilities in the 21st century. As it may prove 
helpful in the deliberation of committees with jurisdiction over VR 
issues, we have addressed this report to each of these committees. In 
this report, we assess (1) the extent to which state VR agencies assist 
individuals in achieving employment and (2) the performance measures 
and monitoring practices Education uses to manage this decentralized 
program and achieve legislative goals. 

To perform our review, we analyzed data from two datasets maintained by 
Education, one a record of the cases for all individuals who exited the 
VR program after their cases were closed during fiscal year 2003 (the 
most recent year for which data were available for us to use in time 
for production of this report) and the other a record of the 
expenditures for each state VR agency in fiscal year 2003. We 
determined that the data we used were sufficiently reliable for our 
purposes by performing electronic testing for obvious errors in 
accuracy and completeness, reviewing available documentation, and 
interviewing Education and state VR agency officials knowledgeable 
about the data. We also reviewed relevant laws, regulations, 
Education's policy documents relating to the VR program, and the 
required state plans for each state VR agency's program. Further, we 
interviewed key program officials at the national and regional levels, 
selected state VR agency officials, and advocates for people with 
disabilities. Finally, we conducted site visits to state VR agencies in 
California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Virginia. 
We selected these sites to achieve a mix of state VR agency structures, 
operations, and performance as well as to achieve geographic diversity. 
We conducted our review from August 2004 through September 2005 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. For a 
more complete explanation of our methodology, see appendix I. 

Results in Brief: 

Of the more than 650,000 individuals exiting the state VR programs in 
fiscal year 2003, one-third (217,557) obtained a new job or maintained 
their existing job for at least 90 days after receiving customized 
services. Education's data showed that the remaining two-thirds exited 
the VR program without employment most often because the individual 
refused services or failed to cooperate with the VR counselor (46 
percent of the time) or could not be located or contacted (24 percent). 
The VR program purchased more than $1.3 billion in services for all 
individuals who exited the program in fiscal year 2003, two-thirds of 
which was used to provide services to individuals exiting with 
employment. Employment, earnings, and the amount of purchased services 
received while in the VR program varied significantly by individuals' 
type of disability and other characteristics. In addition, state VR 
agencies varied substantially in the employment rates they achieved, 
the characteristics of individuals they served, their frequency of 
providing certain services, and their service expenditures. For 
example, state VR agency employment rates ranged from 20 to 74 percent 
in fiscal year 2003. 

Education's performance measures are not comprehensive, and its 
monitoring of state VR agencies has not resulted in timely feedback. 
Education does not comprehensively measure the performance of certain 
key populations, such as students transitioning from school to work, 
and tracks only the individuals who exit the program, not those still 
receiving services. In addition, the performance targets Education sets 
for state VR agencies do not take into consideration all the 
demographic or economic variations among states. Further, Education's 
performance measures do not allow for comparison of the VR program with 
other workforce programs. Education's monitoring reports, which are its 
primary means of providing feedback to state VR agencies, are issued 
over 2 years after performance data have been collected. Consequently, 
state VR agencies do not receive the timely feedback needed to improve 
the efficiency and effectiveness of their programs. In managing the 
performance of the VR program, Education also does not censure poor 
performers, reward strong performers, or take full advantage of 
opportunities to disseminate best practices to the state VR agencies. 
As part of its larger reorganization, Education recently decided to 
eliminate its regional offices, which conducted most of the monitoring 
of state VR agencies, making the details of the future monitoring 
process unclear. 

We are making several recommendations to Education so that it can 
improve its oversight of state VR agencies and help them most 
effectively target their resources to achieve better employment rates. 
In this regard, we recommend that Education reevaluate its performance 
measures to ensure better alignment with program goals and develop a 
better monitoring process that includes timelier and more effective 
feedback to state VR agencies. In commenting on the report, Education 
indicated that it is in full agreement that better measures and 
monitoring could improve the performance of the VR program. In 
addition, Education highlighted initiatives either planned or under way 
to improve the management of the VR program. 

Background: 

Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 authorizes a federal-state VR 
program to provide services to persons with disabilities so that they 
may prepare for and engage in gainful employment.[Footnote 2] Education 
provided an estimated $2.6 billion in fiscal year 2005 in grants to the 
states and territories based on a formula that considers the state's 
population and per capita income. Grants to individual states ranged 
from about $9 million to nearly $250 million. Four of the five 
territories received less than $3 million each. The act generally 
requires states to match federal funds at a ratio of 78.7 percent 
federal to 21.3 percent state dollars. 

Each state and territory designates a single VR agency to administer 
the VR program, except where state law authorizes a separate agency to 
administer VR services for individuals who are blind. Education 
provides a single Title I grant to each state. States authorizing a 
separate blind VR agency decide how the grant will be apportioned 
between the general VR agency and the blind VR agency. Education tracks 
the performance of 80 state VR agencies--24 states have separate blind 
and general agencies; and 26 states, the District of Columbia, and five 
territories each have a single combined agency. The 80 state VR 
agencies are housed in various departments of state government, such as 
state departments of labor or education, or they may be free-standing 
agencies or commissions.[Footnote 3] State VR agencies also vary in 
their operations and locations. For example, some agencies provide 
services through several offices located throughout the state, while 
others provide services through one central location. 

Education collects information about all individuals who exit each 
state VR agency's program during a particular fiscal year, as reported 
by the 80 state VR agencies. The record for each individual exiting the 
program includes information such as whether or not each individual 
became employed, the weekly earnings and hours worked for individuals 
if they exited the VR program with employment, the types and costs of 
services they received, and demographic factors, such as impairment 
type, gender, age, race and ethnicity, public benefits, and income from 
work at the time of application. Education also collects summary 
information on agency expenditures in a number of categories from each 
state VR agency. 

Education tracks individuals in terms of seven types of case closures, 
which can be collapsed into four categories, for individuals who: 

* exited without employment, during the application phase (including 
individuals who were found ineligible; individuals who could not be 
determined to be eligible or ineligible for various reasons such as 
they could not be located or contacted, they failed to cooperate or 
they refused services; and individuals who were found eligible, but 
were placed on a waiting list);

* exited without employment, with limited services (including 
individuals who were found eligible, but who left the program before an 
employment plan could be developed, or agreed to an employment plan, 
but left before receiving services under that plan);[Footnote 4]

* exited without employment, after receiving services under an 
employment plan; and: 

* exited with at least 90 days of employment, after receiving services 
under an employment plan. 

Education considers several types of work activities to meet its 
definition of employment. First, Education counts as employment the 
paid work activity of an individual, who may or may not require ongoing 
support services, in an integrated work setting, that is, a setting 
typically found in the community where individuals both with and 
without disabilities interact.[Footnote 5] Second, Education counts 
self-employment as employment, whether the business is managed by the 
eligible individual or the state VR agency. Finally, Education 
considers certain types of unpaid work activity to be employment, such 
as homemakers whose work activity is keeping house for themselves or 
others in their households and unpaid workers in a family business or 
family farm. 

While the total number of individuals exiting the VR program has 
increased slightly over the past several years, the number of 
individuals exiting with employment has remained relatively stable. 
(See fig. 1.)

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

State VR agencies that determine they will not be able to serve all 
eligible individuals who apply for services are required to state the 
order in which they will select individuals for services. Agencies 
using an order of selection process must develop criteria for ensuring 
that individuals with the most significant disabilities will be 
selected first for services. Thirty-nine of the 80 state VR agencies 
were using an order of selection process in fiscal year 2003. Beginning 
fiscal year 2004, 42 of the agencies are using an order process. 

The Rehabilitation Act requires state VR agencies to enter into 
cooperative agreements with other entities that are part of the state's 
workforce investment system. This workforce investment system includes 
a One-Stop system, which is required to provide a number of employment- 
related services to job seekers and employers at a single location. The 
act also requires state VR agencies to coordinate with public education 
officials to facilitate the transition of students with disabilities 
from school to work. Students with disabilities receive special 
education and related services from their school under an 
individualized education program (IEP). Beyond these required 
interactions, state VR agencies may also enter into third-party 
cooperative agreements with other state or local agencies to coordinate 
the services provided to their common program participants. 

Education must abide by several statutes and executive branch 
directives to measure and monitor the performance of the VR program. 
The 1998 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act required that Education 
establish and publish evaluation standards and performance indicators 
for the VR program. The standards and indicators were supposed to 
include outcome and related measures of program performance that 
facilitate the accomplishment of the purpose and policy of the act. The 
act also gave Education the authority to reduce or suspend payments to 
state VR agencies that have performance falling below a certain level 
and fail to enter into a program improvement plan or substantially 
comply with the terms and conditions of such a plan. The act also 
directed Education to conduct annual review and periodic on-site 
monitoring of state VR agencies to determine, in part, whether they 
were complying with the standards and indicators. Education performs 
this monitoring function through the 10 regional offices of its 
Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA). 

In response to the 1998 amendments, Education established new 
performance measures in June 2000 that consisted of two standards for 
evaluating the performance of the state VR agencies, one relating to 
the agencies' performance in assisting individuals in obtaining, 
maintaining, or regaining high-quality employment and the other 
relating to the agencies' performance in ensuring that individuals from 
minority backgrounds have equal access to services. In addition, 
Education published performance indicators that establish what 
constitutes minimum compliance with these evaluation standards and 
required performance targets for each indicator. Six performance 
indicators were published for the employment standard, and one was 
published for the minority service standard. State VR agencies must 
meet or exceed performance targets in four of the six categories for 
the first standard and meet or exceed the performance target for the 
second standard in order to have passing performance. Table 1 provides 
details on these standards and indicators. 

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

1. Employment standard: 

1.1; 
Performance Indicator: Change in employment--the number of individuals 
exiting the VR program with employment in the current performance year 
compared with the number exiting with employment in the prior 
performance year; 
Performance target: General or combined state VR agencies: Equal or 
exceed previous performance year; 
Performance target: Blind state VR agencies[A]: Equal or exceed 
previous performance year. 

1.2; 
Performance Indicator: Employment rate-- percentage of individuals 
receiving services under an employment plan who exit the VR program 
with employment; 
Performance target: General or combined state VR agencies: 55.8%; 
Performance target: Blind state VR agencies[A]: 68.9%. 

1.3; 
Performance Indicator: Competitive employment rate--percentage of 
individuals exiting the VR program with employment who were 
competitively employed[B]; 
Performance target: General or combined state VR agencies: 72.6%; 
Performance target: Blind state VR agencies[A]: 35.4%. 

1.4; 
Performance Indicator: Significant disability rate--percentage of 
individuals exiting the VR program with competitive employment who have 
significant disabilities[C]; 
Performance target: General or combined state VR agencies: 62.4%; 
Performance target: Blind state VR agencies[A]: 89.0%. 

1.5; 
Performance Indicator: Wage Ratio--ratio of the average hourly earnings 
of individuals exiting the VR program with competitive employment to 
the average hourly earnings for all employed individuals in the state; 
Performance target: General or combined state VR agencies: 0.52; 
Performance target: Blind state VR agencies[A]: 0.59. 

1.6; 
Performance Indicator: Increase in self-support--the difference between 
the percentage of individuals exiting the VR program with competitive 
employment who report their own income as the largest single source of 
economic support at the time they exit the VR program and the 
percentage who report their own income as the largest single source of 
economic support at the time they apply for VR services; 
Performance target: General or combined state VR agencies: 53.0; 
Performance target: Blind state VR agencies[A]: 30.4. 

2. Equal access to services standard: 

2.1; 
Performance Indicator: The service rate for all individuals with 
disabilities from minority backgrounds as a ratio to the service rate 
for all non-minority individuals with disabilities[D]; 
Performance target: General or combined state VR agencies: 0.80; 
Performance target: Blind state VR agencies[A]: 0.80. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

[A] Blind state VR agencies must report each year the aggregated data 
for the 2 previous years for performance indicators 1.1 through 1.6. 

[B] Education defines competitive employment as work that is performed 
on a full-time or part-time basis in an integrated setting for which 
the individual is compensated at or above the minimum wage but not less 
than the customary wage and level of benefits paid by the employer for 
the same or similar work performed by individuals without disabilities. 
Education also counts in this category individuals whose earnings from 
self-employment are equivalent to at least the minimum wage. 

[C] The Rehabilitation Act defines a significant disability as one that 
seriously limits one or more functional capacities and can be expected 
to require multiple VR services over an extended period of time. 

[D] Education defines service rate as the result obtained by dividing 
the number of individuals who exit the VR program after receiving one 
or more services under an employment plan by the total number of 
individuals who exit the VR program. 

[End of table]

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) also requires 
federal executive branch agencies such as the Department of Education 
to set goals, measure their performance, and report on their 
accomplishments. Agencies are required to develop annual performance 
plans that use performance measurement to reinforce the connection 
between the long-term strategic goals outlined in their strategic plans 
and the day-to-day activities of their managers and staff. Among its 
performance goals for fiscal year 2005, Education is assessing its 
performance in assisting state VR agencies to achieve required 
performance targets on one performance target--1.2. 

In 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed that the 
performance of a range of federal job training and employment programs 
be measured consistently to allow for the comparison of results across 
these programs. These common measures would be consistent with the 
common goals of these programs, that is, to improve participants' 
employment and earnings and focus on measures of outcomes and 
efficiency. OMB identified the VR program as one of the federal 
programs that would be targeted for using the common measures. 

Using its Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), OMB assessed the 
effectiveness of the VR program in 2003 as part of its effort to hold 
federal agencies accountable for accomplishing results. The PART 
evaluation looks at four areas of assessment--program purpose and 
design, strategic planning, management, and results and accountability. 
Programs are rated in one of five categories: effective, moderately 
effective, adequate, ineffective or results not demonstrated. OMB will 
use the rating and relating findings to make decisions about budget and 
policy. OMB rated the effectiveness of the VR program as adequate and 
made recommendations to Education for improving program management and 
performance measures. As part of its assessment, OMB reviewed 
Education's performance indicators 1.2, 1.3, and 1.5. 

One-Third of Individuals Exited the VR Program Nationwide with 
Employment, although Employment Rates Varied Significantly among State 
VR Agencies: 

More than 217,000 individuals with disabilities exited the state VR 
programs with employment in fiscal year 2003 after receiving customized 
services. This group represents one-third of the 650,543 individuals 
who left the program nationwide in fiscal year 2003 after submitting an 
application for services. The most common reasons that the remaining 
two-thirds of the individuals left the program without a job were that 
the individual refused services, failed to cooperate, or could not be 
located or contacted. State VR agencies collectively purchased more 
than $1.3 billion in services for all individuals who exited the 
program in fiscal year 2003, two-thirds of which was used to provide 
services to individuals exiting with employment. Employment, earnings, 
and the amount of purchased services received while in the VR program 
varied significantly by individuals' type of disability and other 
characteristics. In addition, the state VR agencies varied 
substantially in the employment rates they achieved, the 
characteristics of individuals they served, their frequency of 
providing certain services, and their service expenditures. 

One-Third of Individuals Exited the VR Program Nationwide with 
Employment in Fiscal Year 2003: 

Of the more than 650,000 individuals exiting the VR program in fiscal 
year 2003, one-third (217,557) obtained a new job or maintained their 
existing job for at least 90 days after receiving customized 
services.[Footnote 6] (See fig. 2.) Most of these individuals (94 
percent) exited the program with jobs that paid at least their state's 
minimum wage, but about half of them worked less than 40 hours per 
week. Overall, individuals who exited the VR program with employment 
earned a median income of $271 per week, or the equivalent of $14,092 
per year. In addition, 30 percent of these individuals (65,832) were 
already working when they applied to the program, and they increased 
their median earnings from $225 to $300 per week between program entry 
and exit.[Footnote 7] One state VR agency official noted that this 
figure may, however, underestimate the actual value of VR services 
extended to individuals working at both program entry and exit. For 
example, the VR program will pay for services such as vehicle 
modifications and repairs necessary to help some individuals maintain 
transportation to and from existing jobs, but these individuals 
typically do not experience any earnings increase between program entry 
and exit. 

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

[See PDF for image]

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

[End of figure]

Overall, two-thirds (433,086) of individuals exited the VR program 
without employment at some point following their initial application to 
the program.[Footnote 8] Of those who exited without employment in 
fiscal year 2003, most did so because they refused services or failed 
to cooperate with their VR counselor (46 percent of the time) or could 
not be located or contacted (24 percent). (See fig. 3.) One state VR 
agency official told us that the VR program has historically closed a 
large number of cases because individuals cannot be located or 
contacted. However, she also noted that individuals with disabilities 
coming to the VR program are often a transient population with high 
rates of poverty and other multiple barriers--issues that can require 
more time and priority than notifying VR counselors that they have 
moved. 

Figure 3: Reasons for Individuals Exiting the VR Program without 
Employment, Fiscal Year 2003 (n=433,086): 

[See PDF for image]

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

[A] Because these individuals could not be located or contacted, their 
employment status was actually unknown at the time of their VR case 
closure. It is possible that some of these individuals may have found 
work between their last contact with the VR program and when the 
program actually closed their case. 

[B] The category of "Other" includes individuals who exited because of 
institutionalization, transfer to other state VR agencies, death, 
transportation problems, unavailability of extended services, extended 
employment, or "all other" reasons (in 17 percent of all cases). There 
is no separate category for individuals who were unable to find a job 
or keep a job. 

[End of figure]

Of those who exited during the application phase in fiscal year 2003, 
the majority (105,955) left before an eligibility determination could 
be made, and relatively few (26,563) left because the VR program found 
them ineligible. Specifically, Education's data show that 20 percent of 
individuals who exited during the application phase were found 
ineligible: 2 percent had disabilities deemed too significant to 
benefit from services, and 18 percent had no disabling condition, 
impediment to employment, or need for VR services. 

Overall, the VR program invested nearly two-thirds ($872 million) of 
its $1.3 billion in purchased services on individuals who achieved or 
retained employment upon exiting the program in fiscal year 2003. State 
VR agencies also spent nearly $200 million on individuals who 
subsequently exited the program without employment because they failed 
to cooperate or refused services, and $112 million was spent on those 
whom state VR agencies were unable to locate or contact. As shown in 
table 2, individuals' average length of time in the program, number of 
services, and cost of purchased services received varied by each of the 
four exit categories. However, the amounts of purchased services 
reported by state VR agencies do not reflect the total cost of services 
provided to individuals in the VR program.[Footnote 9] For example, 
state VR agencies do not report the cost of counselor time spent with 
each individual or the cost of services arranged for by the state VR 
agency but paid for by other sources.[Footnote 10] In addition, the 
amounts of purchased services do not reflect the amounts that 
individuals are required to pay for certain services at the majority of 
state VR agencies if they demonstrate the financial ability to do 
so.[Footnote 11]

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

Time in program; Median; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase (n = 132,518): 
77 days; 
Exited without employment, after limited services (n = 145,868): 252 
days; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan (n = 
154,700): 667 days; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan (n = 
217,557): 465 days. 

Time in program; Mean; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase (n = 132,518): 
142 days; 
Exited without employment, after limited services (n = 145,868): 349 
days; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan (n = 
154,700): 880 days; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan (n = 
217,557): 699 days. 

Number of services (purchased and not purchased); Median; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase (n = 132,518): 
0; 
Exited without employment, after limited services (n = 145,868): 1; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan (n = 
154,700): 3; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan (n = 
217,557): 4. 

Mean; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase (n = 132,518): 
0.6; 
Exited without employment, after limited services (n = 145,868): 1.4; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan (n = 
154,700): 3.5; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan (n = 
217,557): 4.2. 

Cost of all purchased services; Median; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase (n = 132,518): 
0; 
Exited without employment, after limited services (n = 145,868): $16; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan (n = 
154,700): $900; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan (n = 
217,557): $2,010. 

Mean; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase (n = 132,518): 
$109; 
Exited without employment, after limited services (n = 145,868): $280; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan (n = 
154,700): $2,659; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan (n = 
217,557): $4,008. 

Total cost of all purchased services; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase (n = 132,518): 
$14 million; 
Exited without employment, after limited services (n = 145,868): $41 
million; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan (n = 
154,700): $411 million; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan (n = 
217,557): $872 million. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

[End of table]

Services received by individuals in the VR program varied both by 
whether they exited the program with employment after receiving 
services under an employment plan and whether they were employed at 
entry to the program. Regardless of whether they were working at 
application, individuals who received services under an employment plan 
but exited the VR program without employment received fewer job-related 
services, such as job search, job placement, or on-the-job supports 
than individuals who exited with employment. (See table 3.) In general, 
individuals not working when they applied to the VR program received 
more services than those who were already working when they applied to 
the program. However, individuals already working were more likely to 
receive diagnosis and medical treatment of their impairment as well as 
rehabilitation technology. 

Table 3: Percentage of Individuals in the VR Program Receiving Services 
by Each of the 22 Service Categories Tracked by Education, Fiscal Year 
2003: 

Assessment; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 69%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 68%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 66%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 66%. 

Vocational counseling and guidance; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 65; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 65%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 60%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 60%. 

Job placement assistance; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 41%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 20%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 21%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 16%. 

Diagnosis and medical treatment of impairment; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 38%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 56%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 35%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 40%. 

Job search assistance; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 37%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 19%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 22%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 16%. 

Transportation services; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 31%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 16%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 29%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 20%. 

Other services; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 27%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 20%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 20%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 17%. 

On-the-job supports; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 21%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 12%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 12%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 9%. 

Maintenance; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 17%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 11%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 12%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 11%. 

Occupational or vocational training; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 17%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 14%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 12%. 

College or university training; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 15%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 10%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 14%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 17%. 

Job readiness training; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 15%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 11%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 5%. 

Information and referral; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 14%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 15%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 11%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 12%. 

Miscellaneous training; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 14%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 10%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 11%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 10%. 

On-the-job training; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 6%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 2%. 

Rehabilitation technology; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 6%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 19%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 4%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 7%. 

Disability-related augmentative skills training; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 3%. 

Technical assistance services; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 4%. 

Basic academic remedial or literacy training; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 2%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 1%. 

Interpreter services; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): 1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): 1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): 1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): 1%. 

Personal attendant services; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): < 1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): < 1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): < 1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): < 1%. 

Reader services; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 151,711): < 1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 65,832): < 1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: Not 
working at application (n = 136,006): < 1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
Working at application (n = 18,652): < 1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

[End of table]

Individuals may also benefit from the VR program in important 
nonmonetary ways, aside from employment and earnings. For example, 
regardless of whether individuals leave the VR program with employment, 
they may increase their educational level, psychological or physical 
functioning, productivity in the work setting, independence for self or 
family members, or integration into the community as a result of 
receiving VR services. However, Education does not collect data on any 
nonmonetary benefits that individuals achieve through the VR program 
aside from educational gains and identification of homemakers and 
unpaid family workers. Moreover, it is difficult to measure the actual 
influence of the VR program in assisting individuals to obtain these 
benefits, employment in general, or any wage increases.[Footnote 12]

Rate of Employment, Earnings, and Purchased Services Varied by 
Individuals' Impairments and Other Characteristics: 

Individuals exiting the VR program in fiscal year 2003 had a variety of 
primary impairments, and individuals with mental or psychosocial 
impairments (including depression, schizophrenia, and drug and alcohol 
abuse, among others) constituted the largest group. (See fig. 4.) About 
40 percent of all individuals exiting the VR program in fiscal year 
2003 also had secondary impairments.[Footnote 13]

Figure 4: Primary Impairments of Individuals Exiting the VR Program, 
Fiscal Year 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

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

Note: Figure reflects all records containing impairment information (n 
= 617,770). Five percent of the records were missing impairment 
information. Numbers do not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

[End of figure]

Individuals with mental or psychosocial impairments collectively 
realized the lowest rate of employment (30 percent). In contrast, deaf 
and blind individuals, each collectively comprising 5 percent of the 
total VR population, achieved the highest rates of employment 
nationwide, at 63 percent and 52 percent respectively. (See fig. 5.) 
Officials at three state VR agencies we visited told us that the 
availability of state-funded supports and follow-along services were 
influential in placing and keeping individuals in jobs, especially for 
individuals with mental impairments. 

Figure 5: Rates of Exit from the VR Program by Primary Impairment 
Group, Fiscal Year 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

Note: N = 604,051. Five percent of the records were missing impairment 
information. In addition, 2 percent showed that there was no 
impairment. All numbers do not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

[End of figure]

Individuals with cognitive impairments (including mental retardation 
and specific learning disabilities) collectively achieved the lowest 
median rate of earnings, compared with those for all other impairment 
groups exiting the VR program with employment, as shown in figure 
6.[Footnote 14]

Figure 6: Median Hourly Wage by Impairment Group among Individuals 
Exiting the VR Program with Employment who did Not Require Ongoing 
Support Services, Fiscal Year 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Individuals exiting the VR program in fiscal year 2003 after having 
previously participated in the VR program did not necessarily gain 
employment after their repeat involvement. More than 96,000 individuals 
(15 percent) exited the VR program in fiscal year 2003 with a prior VR 
case closure during the previous 3 years. As figure 7 shows, nearly 
three-quarters of those who previously exited the program without 
employment failed to achieve employment after their repeat involvement 
with the VR program. 

Figure 7: Employment Status of Individuals Exiting the VR Program in 
Fiscal Year 2003 Who Previously Participated in the VR Program 
(n=96,165): 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Individuals also received varying amounts of purchased services from 
state VR agencies, depending on their type of disability. For example, 
among those who exited in fiscal year 2003 with employment and did not 
require ongoing support services, blind or other visually impaired 
individuals received more in purchased service dollars ($2,889 at the 
median) than any other impairment group, while individuals with 
cognitive ($1,385) and mental impairments ($1,566) received the least. 
Officials at several state VR agencies for the blind told us that blind 
and visually impaired individuals generally require more expensive 
services, such as assistive technology, than individuals with other 
types of disabilities. 

Individuals receiving Social Security disability benefits at 
application to the VR program comprised one-quarter (159,739) of the 
total VR population and collectively achieved a lower rate of 
employment nationwide than nonbeneficiaries in fiscal year 
2003.[Footnote 15] Specifically, 29 percent of beneficiaries exited the 
VR program with employment in fiscal year 2003 as opposed to 36 percent 
of nonbeneficiaries. In addition, more Social Security disability 
beneficiaries required ongoing support services at their jobs, for 
earnings that were less than half that of nonbeneficiaries ($140 versus 
$300 per week at the median).[Footnote 16] Beneficiaries exiting with 
employment (47,142) also received a median $2,765 in purchased services 
during their time in the VR program, or nearly $1,000 more than 
nonbeneficiaries at the median. Separately, beneficiaries' receipt of 
VR services did not necessarily reduce their dependence on Social 
Security disability benefits. For example, among individuals receiving 
SSDI benefits at their time of exit from the VR program with employment 
in fiscal year 2003, more than 82 percent of blind and visually 
impaired beneficiaries and 65 percent of nonblind beneficiaries did not 
have jobs that were paying enough to disqualify them from receiving 
continued SSDI benefits, if the work was sustained at that 
level.[Footnote 17]

Individuals who transitioned from special education services at their 
schools into the workplace (transitioning students) achieved about the 
same rate of employment as other individuals with impairments who were 
under age 22 when they applied to the VR program.[Footnote 18] (See 
table 4.) However, the latter group was in the VR program almost twice 
as long and received more than double the amount of purchased services 
than transitioning students, and enrolled in or completed a greater 
degree of postsecondary education than transitioning students. This 
might be related to the fact that more than 70 percent of the 
transitioning students had cognitive impairments (as opposed to 36 
percent among their same-age counterparts),[Footnote 19] of which more 
than half were specific learning disabilities. 

Table 4: Transitioning Students Exiting the VR Program with Employment 
after Services under an Employment Plan, Fiscal Year 2003: 

Employment rate[A]; 
Transitioning students: individuals under age 22 with IEPs at program 
entry who exited with employment (n = 27,223): 35%; 
Nontransitional students: individuals under age 22 without IEPs at 
program entry who exited with employment (n = 24,956): 34%. 

Median time in VR program; 
Transitioning students: individuals under age 22 with IEPs at program 
entry who exited with employment (n = 27,223): 652 days; 
Nontransitional students: individuals under age 22 without IEPs at 
program entry who exited with employment (n = 24,956): 1,047 days. 

Median cost of purchased services; 
Transitioning students: individuals under age 22 with IEPs at program 
entry who exited with employment (n = 27,223): $1,192; 
Nontransitional students: individuals under age 22 without IEPs at 
program entry who exited with employment (n = 24,956): $2,970. 

Percent who gained postsecondary education between program entry and 
exit; 
Transitioning students: individuals under age 22 with IEPs at program 
entry who exited with employment (n = 27,223): 14%; 
Nontransitional students: individuals under age 22 without IEPs at 
program entry who exited with employment (n = 24,956): 37%. 

Median wage at time of exit; 
Transitioning students: individuals under age 22 with IEPs at program 
entry who exited with employment (n = 27,223): $6.75/hour; 
Nontransitional students: individuals under age 22 without IEPs at 
program entry who exited with employment (n = 24,956): $8.00/hour. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

[A] This employment rate is derived from the universe of individuals 
under age 22 at program entry, with or without IEPs, who exited the VR 
program in fiscal year 2003. 

[End of table]

State VR Agencies Varied Significantly in the Rates of Employment They 
Achieved, the Populations They Served, and Their Service Expenditures: 

The 80 state VR agencies' employment rates ranged from 20 to 74 percent 
in fiscal year 2003. (App. II lists all agencies' employment and other 
exit rates.) Collectively, the separate state VR agencies for the 
blind, which exclusively serve blind or other visually impaired 
individuals, achieved an employment rate of 49 percent.[Footnote 20] 
This compared with a collective employment rate of 32 percent among the 
general agencies and 35 percent among the combined agencies. A study 
commissioned by Education found that a wide range of agency and 
external factors may help explain state VR agencies' varied employment 
rates.[Footnote 21] Specifically, variables found to help facilitate 
higher employment rates included an agency's emphasis on employment, 
access to ongoing support service programs, and an agency's proportion 
of individuals with mental retardation, visual impairments, or existing 
employment at the time of application to the VR program. Conversely, 
poor labor market conditions, particularly high unemployment rates, 
were reported as being among the most influential hindrances to an 
agency's performance. 

The 39 state VR agencies using an order of selection process 
collectively achieved a slightly lower rate of employment in fiscal 
year 2003 than the group of 41 agencies not using an order of selection 
process. Specifically, the collective employment rate was 32 percent 
among agencies with orders and 35 percent among agencies without 
orders. In addition, both groups had a wide range of employment rates 
among individual agencies. Specifically, state VR agencies' rates of 
employment ranged from 20 to 62 percent among agencies with orders and 
from 21 to 74 percent among agencies without orders. State VR agencies 
with orders are required to give priority acceptance to the category of 
applicants with "most significant" disabilities, and accept categories 
of applicants with "significant" and "nonsignificant" disabilities with 
decreasing priority. As a result, while we expected the group of 
agencies with orders to experience more individuals exiting during the 
application phase, the rate of individuals exiting during the 
application phase was 21 percent among agencies with orders as opposed 
to 19 percent among agencies without orders. Moreover, agencies with 
orders varied in how they administered their order of selection 
policies. For example, agencies with orders opened and closed their 
priority service categories at varying points during the year, 
depending on their available resources and population projections, thus 
affecting the proportion of individuals being accepted into their 
programs with most significant or significant disabilities. Further, 
agencies with orders varied in how they defined a most significant 
disability and how many service categories they expected to serve 
during a particular fiscal year.[Footnote 22] Specifically, according 
to the state plans submitted to Education by state VR agencies for 
fiscal year 2003, 2 of the 39 agencies with orders expected to serve 
only individuals with most significant disabilities. In contrast, 11 
agencies had orders of selection in place for fiscal year 2003, which 
indicated they could not serve all eligible individuals, yet they 
expected to serve all eligible individuals who applied to their program 
during fiscal year 2003. 

State VR agencies' proportion of individuals in each impairment 
category varied significantly. (App. III shows the proportion of 
individuals in each impairment category by agency.) For example, the 
incidence of individuals with mental or psychosocial impairments at 
combined or general state VR agencies ranged from 1 percent to more 
than 50 percent. Education officials told us that one of the reasons 
for such variation may be state VR agencies maintaining third-party 
cooperative agreements with certain outside entities, such as state 
mental health institutions, which result in higher proportions of 
individuals in their VR population with corresponding impairments. 

State VR agencies also varied in the proportion of Social Security 
disability beneficiaries they served, from 7 to 66 percent, and 
Education and state VR agency officials told us that this proportion 
can influence an agency's overall employment rate and average hourly 
earnings among those exiting with employment. In addition, although 
beneficiaries' employment rate nationwide was 29 percent, their 
collective employment rates at individual state VR agencies ranged from 
9 to 68 percent. (See app. IV for a list of each agency's employment 
rate.) Moreover, agency officials in two states told us that because 
their state legislatures passed Medicaid buy-in programs, they expected 
increasing numbers of Social Security disability beneficiaries to begin 
working or earning higher wages because they no longer feared the loss 
of important health care benefits, which many automatically received as 
disability beneficiaries.[Footnote 23]

State VR agencies also varied in the extent to which they worked 
closely with the One-Stop system in their states, although Education's 
data did not completely capture this variation. Education's data showed 
limited interaction overall between state VR agencies and One-Stop 
centers. For example, it showed One-Stop centers providing services to 
less than 1 percent of all individuals who exited the VR program 
nationwide in fiscal year 2003. In addition, Education's data indicated 
that 3 percent of all individuals who exited the program in fiscal year 
2003 were initially referred to the program by a One-Stop center. 
However, these data understate the extent of integration by state VR 
agencies in some states with One-Stop centers or WIA program 
partners.[Footnote 24] For example, all of Minnesota's VR offices are 
co-located at One-Stop centers,[Footnote 25] and officials at each of 
the other state VR agencies that we visited told us they had at least 
some staff colocated at One-Stop centers on an itinerant basis. State 
VR agency officials in Minnesota cited a number of benefits to office 
colocation, such as additional services being more readily available, 
and credited the leadership both within their state parent agency at 
the Department of Employment and Economic Development and within local 
regions for the successful colocation of their VR offices. In contrast, 
officials at most of the other state VR agencies that we visited told 
us that their interaction with the One-Stop centers in their state was 
limited and that individuals in their VR programs did not receive very 
many, if any, services at the One-Stop centers, for a variety of 
reasons. They told us that these reasons included delayed or late 
implementation of One-Stop centers in their state, leasing and other 
legal problems relating to office colocation, lack of physical 
accessibility at some One-Stop centers, and the lack of specialized 
training or services available at One-Stop centers necessary to help 
individuals with disabilities to obtain or advance in employment. 

While state VR agencies varied in the proportions they spent on 
different service categories, there were general trends across all 
agencies with respect to expenditures on certain services.[Footnote 26] 
Overall, agencies largely focused on assessment, guidance, counseling, 
and job placement, but did not focus as much on certain other services, 
such as postemployment services, transportation, or personal assistance 
services. (See app. V for a list of the percentages spent by each state 
VR agency on each service category.) Specifically, state VR agencies 
spent half of their collective total caseload "service budgets" in 
fiscal year 2003 on assessment, guidance, counseling, and 
placement.[Footnote 27] In contrast, they spent less than 1 percent on 
postemployment services for individuals who previously exited the VR 
program with employment but required additional services to maintain or 
advance in their existing jobs. State VR agency officials told us that 
VR counselors are generally not recognized, in terms of achieving an 
employment exit, for providing postemployment services. However, 
Education and several state VR agency officials told us that 
postemployment services are important for some individuals to maintain 
their employment. For example, services such as updated computer- 
assistive technology or software help to coordinate with an employer's 
new computer system or ongoing mental health services help individuals 
with mental impairments to cope with new psychosocial issues that arise 
while on the job. 

State VR agencies varied in the proportion of their total fiscal year 
2003 budgets that they spent on providing services, from 43 to 95 
percent. Their remaining expenditures were for administrative costs, 
which varied from 5 to 57 percent of their total budgets.[Footnote 28] 
(See app. VI for a list of each state VR agency's administrative costs 
as a percentage of total expenditures.) The 24 blind state VR agencies 
collectively spent more of their total budgets on administrative costs 
than did the collective group of general agencies or combined 
agencies.[Footnote 29] This may be because of the cost of maintaining 
separate blind VR agencies that on average serve fewer individuals than 
the general or combined agencies. In addition, the group of blind 
agencies had the highest per capita cost overall for assisting 
individuals to achieve employment. Specifically, blind agencies spent 
an average of $42,392 for every person that exited one of their VR 
programs with employment in fiscal year 2003, compared with an average 
of $13,640 at the general agencies and $21,501 at the combined 
agencies.[Footnote 30] (See table 5.) For each state VR agency's 
average total expenditure per person exiting its program with 
employment in fiscal year 2003, see appendix VII. 

Table 5: Per Capita Service Costs by Each Type of State VR Agency, 
Fiscal Year 2003: 

Average expended per person served in fiscal year 2003; 
Blind state VR agencies (n = 24): $8,601; 
General state VR agencies (n = 24): $2,908; 
Combined state VR agencies (n = 32): $3,998. 

Average expended per person exiting with employment in fiscal year 
2003; 
Blind state VR agencies (n = 24): $42,392; 
General state VR agencies (n = 24): $13,640; 
Combined state VR agencies (n = 32): $21,501. 

Average percentage of persons exiting with employment of all persons 
served in fiscal year 2003; 
Blind state VR agencies (n = 24): 23%; 
General state VR agencies (n = 24): 22%; 
Combined state VR agencies (n = 32): 20%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

[End of table]

Officials at one separate state VR agency for the blind that we visited 
said their agency's specialization allows them to understand and 
rehabilitate blind and visually impaired individuals better than 
combined VR agencies that do not have as specialized a focus on 
individuals with these impairments. However, blind and visually 
impaired individuals collectively achieved a 50 percent employment rate 
when served at blind state VR agencies, compared with a 56 percent 
employment rate when served at combined state VR agencies.[Footnote 31] 
Moreover, blind and visually impaired individuals exiting the VR 
program with employment in fiscal year 2003 received less in purchased 
services while in the program and slightly lower weekly earnings when 
they exited from blind state VR agencies as compared with combined 
agencies. (See table 6.)

Table 6: Blind or Visually Impaired Individuals Exiting with Employment 
from Blind State VR Agencies versus Combined State VR Agencies, Fiscal 
Year 2003: 

Median earnings at closure; 
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting blind state VR agencies 
with employment (n = 8,210): $180/week; 
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting combined state VR 
agencies with employment (n = 8,527): $195/week. 

Median hours worked at closure; 
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting blind state VR agencies 
with employment (n = 8,210): 21 hours/week; 
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting combined state VR 
agencies with employment (n = 8,527): 25 hours/week. 

Median cost of purchased services; 
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting blind state VR agencies 
with employment (n = 8,210): $1,800; 
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting combined state VR 
agencies with employment (n = 8,527): $2,645. 

Median number of services; 
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting blind state VR agencies 
with employment (n = 8,210): 4; 
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting combined state VR 
agencies with employment (n = 8,527): 4. 

Median time in program; 
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting blind state VR agencies 
with employment (n = 8,210): 401 days; 
Blind or visually impaired individuals exiting combined state VR 
agencies with employment (n = 8,527): 486 days. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

[End of table]

Education's VR Performance Measures Are Not Comprehensive, and Its 
Monitoring of State VR Agencies' Performance Has Not Resulted in Timely 
Feedback: 

Education's VR performance measures are not comprehensive in that they 
count only individuals exiting VR programs and fail to measure key 
populations. Moreover, the targets Education sets for performance do 
not take into consideration regional differences in VR populations or 
allow for comparisons across workforce programs. Education's monitoring 
reports--state VR agencies' primary source of feedback--are frequently 
late and based on data that are more than 2 years old. As a result, 
state VR agencies are not getting the kind of timely feedback they need 
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their programs. 
Education's recent decision as part of its restructuring efforts to 
eliminate its regional VR offices, which had conducted most of the 
monitoring of state VR agencies, has made the details of the future 
monitoring process unclear. 

VR Performance Measures Are Not Comprehensive, Do Not Take into Account 
State Variations, and Do Not Allow for Comparison with Other Workforce 
Programs: 

Education's performance measures have a number of weaknesses, as they 
are not comprehensive, do not take into account demographic and 
economic variations among states, and do not incorporate common 
measures to allow for comparison of workforce programs across executive 
branch agencies. For example, Education cannot use the current 
performance measures to comprehensively evaluate the state VR agencies' 
performance because the measures do not include data on the individuals 
still receiving services in the VR system, who made up nearly 40 
percent of the state VR agencies' service population in fiscal year 
2003. Instead, Education's performance measures reflect only the 
individuals who exit the program.[Footnote 32] Education does not track 
specific information on the services provided, costs, and related data 
until after individuals exit the program, although this information is 
generally collected by each state VR agency. As a result, Education 
cannot determine how well the program is accomplishing its purpose of 
assisting individuals with disabilities to maximize their employment, 
economic self-sufficiency, independence, and inclusion and integration 
into society. Additional measures could also add to the balance of 
performance measurement to ensure that the organization's various 
priorities are covered and to prevent skewed incentives.[Footnote 33] 
In fact, a study commissioned by Education reported that because the VR 
employment rate includes only those who exited the VR program, some 
agencies avoid closing out certain cases in order to meet the 
performance target for that year.[Footnote 34]

The performance measures also do not isolate data on certain key 
populations of VR participants. For example, there are no separate 
performance targets for transitioning students or individuals receiving 
postemployment services. As a result, Education does not know the 
extent of these populations, the services provided to them, or the 
results they achieve. While Education focused on transitioning students 
in its fiscal year 2003 monitoring guide and held a national conference 
on transitioning students in June 2005, it does not use the data 
captured on this population in performance measures or evaluate the 
results and resources necessary to assist them. In contrast, according 
to Education officials, Education wants to move away from counting 
homemakers as a category of employment but continues to measure 
performance in this area, including homemakers in its employment 
outcome. In addition, Education does not capture individual-level data 
related to postemployment services, which some state VR agencies told 
us are important in helping former participants maintain their 
employment, despite the need for these measures to help assess the 
impact of these services. 

Education has set uniform performance targets for state VR agencies to 
meet that do not take into account demographic and economic variations 
within states. For example, one performance measure intended to measure 
the quality of job placement compares the average wage of individuals 
exiting the VR program with employment to the average wage of the 
general population within a state overall, rather than to the 
population in similar types of jobs or industries. Recognizing that the 
VR population is different from the general population, Education set 
the performance target for general and combined state VR agencies as a 
0.52:1 ratio to the average state wage. However Education's performance 
target still does not capture variations in wages within states, which 
are outside the agencies' control and can affect agencies' ability to 
achieve performance levels. For example, some states, such as 
California, have wide variations in wages across the state because of 
high wages in certain areas that might skew the wage and make it more 
difficult to perform well on this indicator. In addition, a study 
commissioned by Education found that equaling or exceeding achievement 
on another performance measure intended to compare the number of 
individuals exiting VR services in the current year with that in the 
prior is "very difficult to achieve in times of declining resources and 
a poor labor market," both of which may vary by region or 
state.[Footnote 35] Unlike the Department of Labor (Labor), which 
negotiates performance levels for its job training and employment 
programs under WIA, Education does not currently negotiate performance 
targets for performance measures with each state VR agency. The same 
study recommended that Education evaluate the degree to which adoption 
of alternatives to average state wage, such as entry-level wages, 
median wage or national mean wage, might improve this performance 
measure. Education has considered negotiating performance targets by 
state but has not implemented negotiations. 

In contrast to other federal workforce programs, Education's VR program 
has not yet adopted the OMB-required common measures that allow for 
comparison of these programs across agencies, but agency officials told 
us that they are working toward meeting this requirement. OMB's PART 
review recommended that Education collect the necessary data to support 
new common measures among workforce programs.[Footnote 36] Labor 
created a set of common measures for job training and employment 
programs, which affect programs in Labor, Education, and several other 
agencies,[Footnote 37] and apply to programs serving adults and to 
those serving youth.[Footnote 38] Labor required most of its programs 
to implement the common measures by July 1, 2005, and is working with 
Education to come to an agreement on the measures and the data it will 
use.[Footnote 39] While Labor's state programs generally have access to 
the data necessary to compute the common measures as they are collected 
by state labor departments,[Footnote 40] some state VR agencies have 
more difficulty obtaining the data because access sometimes requires 
establishment of data-sharing agreements. In addition, some states have 
privacy laws protecting the confidentiality of these data, which may 
further limit the ability of state VR agencies to collect them. 
Finally, some state VR agency officials expressed concerns that common 
measures will invite unfair comparisons between VR and other WIA 
partner programs. For example, they told us that these comparisons 
would not be fair or valid for state VR agencies because the 
populations they serve are unique and require a different mix of 
services or more resources than the populations served by general 
workforce programs. 

Education has not reviewed or revised its performance measures as 
required under the Rehabilitation Act, although Education plans to 
evaluate them within the next year. Specifically, the act requires 
Education to review and, if necessary, revise the evaluation standards 
and performance measures every 3 years. However, Education has not done 
so since the measures were first regulated in fiscal year 2000. 
Although Education's existing performance measures are generally 
consistent with the program's purpose to promote the employment of 
individuals with disabilities, OMB's PART review, Education's own 
study,[Footnote 41] and many of the state VR agency officials that we 
contacted, have recommended that Education modify some VR performance 
measures, eliminate some measures, or add to its existing measures. 

Education Does Not Effectively Monitor and Manage the Performance of 
State VR Agencies: 

In monitoring and managing the performance of state VR agencies, 
Education does not provide timely feedback, censure poorly performing 
agencies, or take full advantage of opportunities to promote the 
sharing of best practices among state VR agencies. Education provides 
feedback to state VR agencies through on-site monitoring visits and 
reports of annual reviews of performance, many of which are not issued 
on a timely basis. According to Education officials, as of July 2005 
its regional offices had not issued 10 of the 80 monitoring reports 
expected for fiscal year 2003 and an additional 4 reports are still in 
process. Further, at least 32 of the 66 monitoring reports issued as of 
July 2005 were issued 6 months or more after the monitoring 
reviews.[Footnote 42] In an effort to address the timeliness and 
quality of its monitoring reports, Education discontinued its practice 
of having regional commissioners approve reports and now requires all 
reports to be approved and issued by Education headquarters staff. 
However, as of July 2005 Education had issued 7 out of the 80 state VR 
agency monitoring reports for its revised fiscal year 2004-2005 time 
frame.[Footnote 43]

Education's process for monitoring state VR agencies has been impeded 
by the use of old data.[Footnote 44] As part of its performance 
assessment of state VR agencies, Education requires them to submit 
performance data by December 1, or 60 days after the end of the fiscal 
year. Until recently, Education took more than a year to identify and 
correct errors in the data and produce reliable data for its regional 
offices to use in monitoring. As a result, regional offices end up 
using 2-year-old data when conducting monitoring reviews and issuing 
reports. In addition, Education consistently processes its VR data too 
late to meet the deadline of November 15 that OMB established in 
implementing GPRA for executive branch agencies to issue annual reports 
on program performance for the previous fiscal year. OMB's 2006 PART 
review recommended that Education improve program management using 
existing performance data and make these data available to the public 
in a timelier manner. Education has shown improvement by issuing fiscal 
year 2004 performance data 5 months after it collected the data, 
although it still has not met OMB's deadline. 

Education does not consistently censure poorly performing or reward 
high-performing state VR agencies. The Rehabilitation Act requires 
state VR agencies that fail to meet the performance targets for 1 year 
to develop a program improvement plan and allows Education to withhold 
funds from a poorly performing state VR agency--the most severe 
sanction prescribed by the Rehabilitation Act--in cases where agencies 
fail to meet the performance targets for 2 or more consecutive years. 
However, failing agencies do not always develop program improvement 
plans nor does Education follow up to ensure their completion. In 
addition, Education has never withheld funds from a poorly performing 
state VR agency despite the fact that some agencies failed the 
performance targets for 2 or more consecutive years, including two 
agencies in fiscal year 2003. Education could not tell us the extent to 
which agencies have or have not developed improvement plans because of 
failing targets. Further, while Education does not have authority to 
provide financial rewards for high-performing state VR agencies, it has 
not developed other means for rewarding high performance, even though 
other federal workforce and education programs have developed 
performance incentives.[Footnote 45] For example, Labor awards 
incentives and imposes sanctions on workforce programs based on 
negotiated performance goals as allowed under WIA. 

Beyond the monitoring process, Education relies on the regional offices 
to promote the sharing of best practices among state VR 
agencies.[Footnote 46] Meetings organized by the regional office 
provide opportunities for state VR agencies in the region to share 
information on best practices. Education also uses its Web site to 
disseminate information on best practices. However, as of July 2005 
Education's Web site related to featured practices contained two 
practices submitted by state VR agencies, and the site is not 
frequently updated. Further, Education collects a large repository of 
data and the results of performance measures, but it does not review 
them to identify best practices among the state VR agencies.[Footnote 
47] Education also hosts several national conferences, which provide a 
venue for state VR agency staff to share information with one 
another.[Footnote 48] In addition, Education hosts e-mail list services 
relating to issues such as the Social Security Administration's Ticket 
to Work program, deafness, mental illness, and informational issuances. 

Decision to Eliminate Regional Offices Has Made Details of the Future 
Monitoring Process Unclear: 

In early 2005, Education decided to restructure its VR program. As part 
of the restructuring, Education decided to eliminate its regional 
offices, which had conducted most of the monitoring of state VR 
agencies to date. According to Education officials, the restructuring 
was necessary to align the program in a manner to help meet the 
priorities of the administration and the Secretary. As part of its 
restructuring plan, Education included an interim monitoring plan that 
did not contain many details. Education has created a steering 
committee to look at how monitoring might be accomplished under the new 
structure and held a conference in August 2005 in order to create a 
blueprint for monitoring, but it has not completed a final monitoring 
plan and does not expect to have one in place until about one year 
after the conference. 

In the absence of a final monitoring plan, VR agency officials in 
several states expressed concern that the elimination of the regional 
offices may make the monitoring process more difficult for a number of 
reasons. Specifically, they expressed concern that: 

* Education's proposed reduction of its RSA staff will leave an 
insufficient number of staff to provide any significant feedback and to 
carry out the monitoring functions,[Footnote 49]

* the reduction in staff would result in a loss of institutional 
knowledge on the details of their particular program, and: 

* the elimination of the regional offices will make it difficult to 
have a knowledgeable single point of contact within Education. 

When announcing its decision to restructure, Education stated that it 
plans to devote as many staff as necessary to monitor state VR agency 
performance. In addition, an Education official said that the plans are 
to continue its annual reviews of the agencies, but it will conduct on- 
site monitoring review visits less frequently than the annual reviews 
done in the past. Education also announced that it will assign a single 
point of contact to each state VR agency under its new structure. 

Conclusions: 

Many people with disabilities face a number of barriers to entering or 
returning to the workforce, and ultimately achieving independence. The 
VR program was conceived to provide the comprehensive and intensive 
services needed to overcome these barriers, and indeed more than 
200,000 individuals with disabilities were working in fiscal year 2003 
after receiving VR services. However, twice as many individuals left 
the VR program in fiscal year 2003 without getting a job, and 
individual state VR agencies varied widely in the proportion of 
individuals who exited their programs with jobs as compared with those 
who did not. 

Education designed its system of performance measures to focus on the 
group of individuals who exit the VR program with employment. In doing 
so, it has made evaluating state VR agencies' performance with respect 
to the rest of the service population difficult. Little is known about 
the hundreds of thousands of individuals who received services but had 
not left the program by the end of fiscal year 2003 because Education 
does not require the state VR agencies to report detailed information 
about them. As a result, it is difficult for Education to assess 
performance in areas such as the timeliness, cost, and quality of the 
services provided to this population. In addition, this system fails to 
account for performance relating to special populations, such as 
transitioning students, that Education has encouraged the state VR 
agencies to serve. Further, its performance measures do not take into 
account demographic and economic variations among states. As a result, 
it is difficult for Education to assess whether or not state VR 
agencies are effectively and efficiently serving these individuals. 

Whatever system of performance measures Education chooses to use, it 
will have little impact on changing the performance of state VR 
agencies unless Education provides timely and effective feedback to the 
agencies regarding their performance. Without timely information, state 
VR agencies may delay in undertaking necessary corrective action to 
improve performance. Further, in the absence of incentives for good 
performance or consequences for poor performance, state VR agencies may 
not find sufficient reasons for performing at the level that Education 
sets out for them. Yet Education's provision of constructive feedback 
has been hindered because of untimely or incomplete monitoring reports. 
Until recently, the time Education needed to analyze performance data 
also contributed to delays in providing feedback. Although Education 
significantly reduced the time it needed to analyze fiscal year 2004 
data, it has yet the meet OMB's reporting requirements related to GPRA. 
Further, Education has missed opportunities for providing feedback by 
failing to require that some poorly performing agencies develop 
performance improvement plans. 

While Education has begun planning for alterations to its monitoring 
process to provide better and timelier feedback to state VR agencies, 
there are too few details at this point to be able to assess whether 
the new process will achieve this intent. As it deliberates on these 
changes, it will be important for Education to consider the input of 
all stakeholders in the current monitoring process. In addition, it 
will be important to consider such issues as how frequently monitoring 
visits should be made and how much data the monitoring staff will need 
to conduct such reviews. 

Finally, with the elimination of the regional offices, officials in 
each of the 80 separate VR agencies may find it more difficult to learn 
about best practices used by other agencies. Education will need to 
explore alternative means to share information about best practices in 
an efficient manner. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To improve Education's performance measures and its monitoring of state 
VR agencies, we recommend that the Secretary of Education: 

* Reevaluate Education's performance measures to determine whether they 
reflect the agency's goals and values and ensure that sufficient data 
are collected to measure the performance of this program. As part of 
this evaluation, Education should consider: 

* developing additional measures to evaluate performance relating to 
individuals who remain in the VR program as well as to certain special 
needs populations, such as transitioning students;

* revising performance measures to account for additional factors such 
as the economy and demographics of the states' populations or adjusting 
performance targets for individual state VR agencies to address these 
issues, while also considering the costs and benefits associated with 
collecting additional data; and: 

* continuing its work to develop performance measures in line with 
OMB's common measures. 

* Take steps to continue improving the timeliness of the performance 
data Education collects and analyzes to ensure that data are available 
for timely feedback to state VR agencies as well as to comply with the 
GPRA reporting requirements established by OMB. 

* Ensure that Education's new plan for the monitoring of state VR 
agency performance addresses issues such as the timeliness of 
monitoring reports and the frequency of on-site visits that will be 
necessary to adequately gauge performance. 

* Ensure that it consistently applies its existing consequences for 
failure to meet required performance targets or consider developing new 
consequences that it will be willing to apply in such situations. 
Further, Education should consider whether developing incentives such 
as recognition for successful performance would provide a more useful 
tool for encouraging good performance. 

* Develop alternative means of disseminating best practices among state 
VR agencies in light of the elimination of the regional offices, such 
as a central repository of best practices information. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to Education for comment. In 
commenting on the report, Education indicated that it is in full 
agreement that better measures and monitoring could improve the 
performance of the VR program. However, Education did not specifically 
comment on each recommendation. 

In addition, Education highlighted initiatives either planned or under 
way to improve the management of the VR program. Several of these 
initiatives addressed issues raised in our report for which we 
recommended changes. In particular, Education agreed with our findings 
on performance measures and indicated that the department is currently 
working to address these issues. Education also described the steps it 
is taking to implement a new system for monitoring state VR agencies. 
Further, the agency indicated that it will broaden the dissemination of 
the information it produces and will publicize the availability of its 
monitoring and analytic work products. Moreover, Education acknowledged 
that it will do more to highlight performance related to certain key 
populations such as transitioning students. 

While acknowledging the importance of monitoring and feedback, 
Education pointed out that state VR agency performance is influenced by 
a number of factors that are beyond Education's control. It also 
pointed out that the state VR agencies are aware of their own patterns 
of expenditures and outcomes and that the most fundamental 
opportunities for improvement are at the state level. We recognize the 
challenge Education faces in managing a program that is carried out 
through agencies that are not under its direct control. However, we 
believe that, by establishing better performance measures and 
implementing a better monitoring system that includes dissemination of 
comparative information about the performance of state VR agencies, 
Education will be in a better position to manage this decentralized 
program. 

Education also expressed concern that the manner in which we calculated 
the employment rate for individuals exiting the VR program might be 
confusing because it differs from the way in which Education calculates 
this rate. We believe that it is important to report the outcomes of 
all the individuals who exited the VR program in fiscal year 2003 
because more than 40 percent of those who applied for services left the 
program before receiving services and because a low percentage of the 
individuals who left before receiving services were found ineligible. 

Education also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated 
as appropriate. Education's comments are provided in appendix VIII. 

Copies of this report are being sent to the Department of Education, 
appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. The 
report will also be made available at no charge on GAO's Web site at 
http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions, please 
contact me at (202) 512-7215. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 
report are listed in appendix IX. 

Signed by: 

Robert E. Robertson: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To determine the extent to which state vocational rehabilitation (VR) 
agencies assist individuals in achieving employment, we primarily used 
the Department of Education's (Education) Rehabilitation Services 
Administration (RSA) RSA-911 case service dataset from fiscal year 
2003, which was the most recently available in time for us to use in 
production of this report. We used Education's RSA-2 expenditure 
dataset from fiscal year 2003 to compute service expenditures and to 
compute the information in appendix V, appendix VI, and appendix VII. 

The RSA-911 is an individual-level dataset collected annually by 
Education from each of the 80 state VR agencies regarding every 
individual who exits the VR program during a particular fiscal year. 
The record for each individual includes information such as whether or 
not the individual exited the VR program with employment, the weekly 
earnings and hours worked if the individual exited with 
employment,[Footnote 50] the types of services received, and numerous 
demographic factors, such as disability type, gender, age, race and 
ethnicity, public benefits at program entry and exit, and any income 
from work at program entry. Counselors or other staff at each state VR 
agency typically input this information from each individual's case 
file into their agency's data system, which ultimately produces the RSA-
911 file sent annually by that agency to Education. Education uses 
standardized, electronic testing to check each agency's submitted data 
for errors and anomalies before publishing them and requires agencies 
to correct or verify data elements that are missing, "impossible," or 
outside "reasonable" ranges. 

We assessed the fiscal year 2003 RSA-911 dataset and determined that it 
was sufficiently reliable for our use. Specifically, we performed 
electronic testing on all 650,643 case records contained in this 
dataset to identify any missing data, errors, or anomalies. In 
addition, we interviewed key Education officials responsible for 
collecting, verifying, and publishing RSA-911 data to better understand 
their data reliability assessment process, as described above, in part. 
We also performed structured interviews with key officials who work 
with RSA-911 data at multiple state VR agencies to better understand 
the processes by which agencies collect, safeguard, and report these 
data to Education. 

In order to more easily report some of our data findings, we recombined 
the categories for certain RSA-911 data elements, such as type of 
disability[Footnote 51] and type of exit or case closure.[Footnote 52] 
We then computed descriptive statistics, including frequencies and 
cross-tabulations, to produce the majority of data findings described 
in this report. Using these data, we calculated the employment rate in 
a different manner than Education. Education calculates the employment 
rate as the percentage of individuals who exited with employment after 
at least 90 days out of the group of individuals who received services 
under an employment plan, but does not include those individuals who 
exited without employment during the application phase or after limited 
services. 

We also assessed the fiscal year 2003 RSA-2 dataset and determined that 
it was sufficiently reliable for our use. The RSA-2 contains aggregated 
agency expenditures from each of the 80 state VR agencies as reported 
in various categories, such as administration and different types of 
services. We interviewed key Education officials and learned that each 
state VR agency may use a different system for aggregating and 
reporting its RSA-2 data to Education. Therefore, we performed 
structured interviews with key officials at 15 state VR agencies in 
order to assess the processes, safeguards, and overall reliability in 
agency production and reporting of these data. We selected these 15 
state VR agencies to interview because they collectively constituted 
more than 50 percent of all total expenditures by the VR program in 
fiscal year 2003 and included blind, general, and combined state VR 
agencies. Among these 15 agencies, we generally found that their 
processes and policies were sufficient to ensure data reliability for 
the purposes of this report. 

To further determine the extent to which state VR agencies assist 
individuals in achieving employment as well as the extent to which 
Education monitors and measures performance to manage this 
decentralized VR program, we interviewed key program officials at 
Education's headquarters and each regional office responsible for 
monitoring the state VR agencies. In addition, we reviewed relevant 
laws and regulations, Education policy documents relating to the VR 
program, and the 80 state VR agency's fiscal year 2003 state plans. We 
also conducted site visits to the 9 state VR agencies in California, 
Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Virginia. We selected 
these sites to achieve a mix of state VR agency structures (including 
general, blind, and combined agencies), operations, performance, and 
geographic diversity. We conducted our review from August 2004 through 
September 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. 

[End of section]

Appendix II: State VR Agency Exit and Employment Rates, Fiscal Year 
2003: 

Alabama combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 9.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
22.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 54.1%. 

Alaska combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.0%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
22.6%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.0%. 

American Samoa combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 28.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 18.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
1.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 52.0%. 

Arizona combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.3%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.4%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
35.9%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 21.5%. 

Arkansas blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 21.2%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 6.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
10.2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 62.3%. 

Arkansas general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 37.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 7.8%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
26.2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 28.3%. 

California combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
27.5%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.1%. 

Colorado combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 25.3%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
18.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 25.0%. 

Connecticut blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 0.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 12.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
12.7%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 74.2%. 

Connecticut general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
27.2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 34.7%. 

Delaware blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.3%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
20.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 40.7%. 

Delaware general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 23.1%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
20.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 38.9%. 

District of Columbia combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.6%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 33.1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
17.7%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.6%. 

Florida blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 31.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 5.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
23.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 39.3%. 

Florida general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 25.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 21.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
24.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 28.0%. 

Georgia combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 22.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 15.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
30.6%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.3%. 

Guam combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 32.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 28.0%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
16.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 24.0%. 

Hawaii combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
25.6%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 34.9%. 

Idaho blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 18.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 14.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
18.2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 48.1%. 

Idaho general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.2%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 28.8%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
22.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 32.0%. 

Illinois combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
20.9%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 46.1%. 

Indiana combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.9%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.8%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
26.2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.1%. 

Iowa blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 8.2%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 12.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
9.7%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 69.7%. 

Iowa general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 20.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 26.1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
29.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 24.2%. 

Kansas combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 22.5%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
28.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.6%. 

Kentucky blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 13.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
14.7%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 55.4%. 

Kentucky general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.1%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
16.9%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 36.5%. 

Louisiana combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 24.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 26.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
22.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 26.1%. 

Maine blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 10.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
12.7%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 61.5%. 

Maine general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.6%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 29.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
28.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.5%. 

Maryland combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 34.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 21.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
10.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.6%. 

Massachusetts blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 3.1%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 7.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
15.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 73.4%. 

Massachusetts general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.9%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 41.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
21.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 23.7%. 

Michigan blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 11.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
27.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 43.1%. 

Michigan general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.0%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
29.2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 34.0%. 

Minnesota blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.0%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
37.7%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 25.5%. 

Minnesota general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 20.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 28.8%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
22.9%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 27.5%. 

Mississippi combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 21.5%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 13.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
19.9%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 45.0%. 

Missouri blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.6%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 8.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
37.2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 41.9%. 

Missouri general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.5%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 43.0%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
8.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.1%. 

Montana combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.1%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 40.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
16.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 27.3%. 

Nebraska blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 58.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 7.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
13.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 20.7%. 

Nebraska general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 29.0%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
25.2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 34.1%. 

Nevada combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 18.6%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
26.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 27.8%. 

New Hampshire combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 6.5%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 32.4%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
13.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 47.3%. 

New Jersey blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.3%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 21.1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
18.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 47.5%. 

New Jersey general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.2%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
21.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 32.9%. 

New Mexico blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.3%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 11.1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
36.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 36.3%. 

New Mexico general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 29.6%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 21.2%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
19.7%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.5%. 

New York blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 8.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 12.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
17.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 62.4%. 

New York general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.3%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.2%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
23.9%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 32.6%. 

North Carolina blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.2%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 8.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
22.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 50.3%. 

North Carolina general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 26.5%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.4%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
25.7%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 30.4%. 

North Dakota combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.5%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 28.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
18.6%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 38.4%. 

Northern Marianas combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 30.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 16.8%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
20.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.7%. 

Ohio combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 21.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 26.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
21.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 30.8%. 

Oklahoma combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 18.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 22.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
33.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 25.7%. 

Oregon blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.2%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 14.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
28.9%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 43.1%. 

Oregon general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.3%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 34.2%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
19.5%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.0%. 

Pennsylvania combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.9%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 11.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
27.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 45.0%. 

Puerto Rico combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 32.1%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 14.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
14.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 38.9%. 

Rhode Island combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
22.9%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.4%. 

South Carolina blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 10.6%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 5.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
26.9%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 56.6%. 

South Carolina general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.9%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 10.4%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
23.2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 48.5%. 

South Dakota blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 26.9%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 9.2%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
13.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 50.0%. 

South Dakota general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 28.6%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 21.0%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
18.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.6%. 

Tennessee combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 44.2%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 11.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
18.9%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 25.2%. 

Texas blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 34.9%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 6.2%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
15.6%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 43.4%. 

Texas general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 21.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 18.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
27.6%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 32.2%. 

Utah combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 22.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
23.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 34.9%. 

Vermont blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 2.3%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 5.4%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
23.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 69.2%. 

Vermont general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 4.9%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 26.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
27.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 41.4%. 

Virgin Islands combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 18.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 13.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
27.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 40.6%. 

Virginia blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 8.9%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 16.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
16.6%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 57.8%. 

Virginia general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.6%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 22.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
31.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 32.4%. 

Washington blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
27.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 37.3%. 

Washington general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 21.6%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 36.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
21.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 20.2%. 

West Virginia combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 36.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
15.2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 36.4%. 

Wisconsin combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 34.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 15.4%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
26.5%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 23.7%. 

Wyoming combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 20.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 24.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
16.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 38.3%. 

National average; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 20.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 22.4%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
23.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.4%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: State VR Agency Population Proportions by Primary 
Impairment, Fiscal Year 2003: 

Alabama combined; 
No impairment: 6.3%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 6.2%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.6%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.3%; 
Other physical impairment: 10.2%; 
Cognitive impairment: 30.1%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 23.3%. 

Alaska combined; 
No impairment: 4.6%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.5%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.6%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 31.8%; 
Other physical impairment: 10.4%; 
Cognitive impairment: 16.1%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 28.0%. 

American Samoa combined; 
No impairment: 2.8%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 2.8%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 2.8%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 56.9%; 
Other physical impairment: 27.8%; 
Cognitive impairment: 5.6%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 1.4%. 

Arizona combined; 
No impairment: 0.3%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 4.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.7%; 
Other physical impairment: 8.5%; 
Cognitive impairment: 28.9%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 35.6%. 

Arkansas blind; 
No impairment: 17.7%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 82.3%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

Arkansas general; 
No impairment: 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.2%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.1%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 31.6%; 
Other physical impairment: 23.2%; 
Cognitive impairment: 24.8%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 16.2%. 

California combined; 
No impairment: 0.3%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 7.1%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.7%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 18.8%; 
Other physical impairment: 9.1%; 
Cognitive impairment: 35.5%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 24.6%. 

Colorado combined; 
No impairment: 5.3%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 5.5%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.7%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 25.4%; 
Other physical impairment: 10.1%; 
Cognitive impairment: 20.9%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 27.3%. 

Connecticut blind; 
No impairment; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

Connecticut general; 
No impairment: 5.1%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.6%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 12.8%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.9%; 
Other physical impairment: 7.3%; 
Cognitive impairment: 22.3%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 34.1%. 

Delaware blind; 
No impairment: 5.1%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 91.5%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 1.7%; 
Other physical impairment: 1.7%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

Delaware general; 
No impairment: 0.1%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.6%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.3%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 22.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 9.2%; 
Cognitive impairment: 31.1%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 33.8%. 

District of Columbia combined; 
No impairment: 11.4%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 4.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 1.9%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 7.6%; 
Other physical impairment: 14.7%; 
Cognitive impairment: 13.9%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 46.5%. 

Florida blind; 
No impairment: 1.1%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 98.8%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.1%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0% . 

Florida general; 
No impairment: 
Blind or other visual impairment: 1.4%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 9.2%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 22.3%; 
Other physical impairment: 20.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 11.1%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 35.9%. 

Georgia combined; 
No impairment: 7.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 4.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.4%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 16.6%; 
Other physical impairment: 12.3%; 
Cognitive impairment: 28.5%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 25.2%. 

Guam combined; 
No impairment: 1.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 6.1%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 10.1%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 28.3%; 
Other physical impairment: 12.1%; 
Cognitive impairment: 20.2%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 22.2%. 

Hawaii combined; 
No impairment: 1.6%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 6.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.3%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 14.1%; 
Other physical impairment: 8.3%; 
Cognitive impairment: 23.9%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 41.8%. 

Idaho blind; 
No impairment: 0.6%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 96.8%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 2.6%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

Idaho general; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.7%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.8%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 25.3%; 
Other physical impairment: 11.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 22.5%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 36.6%. 

Illinois combined; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 7.2%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.2%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 16.7%; 
Other physical impairment: 11.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 32.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 26.9%. 

Indiana combined; 
No impairment: 4.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 5.5%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 14.2%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 22.5%; 
Other physical impairment: 9.2%; 
Cognitive impairment: 22.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 22.6%. 

Iowa blind; 
No impairment: 4.1%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 94.8%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.5%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.5%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0% . 

Iowa general; 
No impairment: 6.9%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.4%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.9%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.9%; 
Other physical impairment: 10.8%; 
Cognitive impairment: 27.5%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 32.6%. 

Kansas combined; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 6.3%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.7%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 21.2%; 
Other physical impairment: 10.2%; 
Cognitive impairment: 24.8%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 31.8%. 

Kentucky blind; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 99.8%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.2%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

Kentucky general; 
No impairment: 0.3%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.1%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.1%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 21.2%; 
Other physical impairment: 11.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 19.6%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 41.9%. 

Louisiana combined; 
No impairment: 19.8%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.7%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.2%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 15.6%; 
Other physical impairment: 10.6%; 
Cognitive impairment: 21.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 24.1%. 

Maine blind; 
No impairment: 0.3%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 98.4%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.7%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.3%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.3%. 

Maine general; 
No impairment: 0.2%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.2%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.9%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 21.8%; 
Other physical impairment: 9.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 24.6%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 37.2%. 

Maryland combined; 
No impairment: 0.1%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.5%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.3%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 14.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 9.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 24.3%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 42.8%. 

Massachusetts blind; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

Massachusetts general; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.8%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.2%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 18.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 10.9%; 
Cognitive impairment: 18.5%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 46.6%. 

Michigan blind; 
No impairment: 1.7%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 97.7%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.5%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.2%. 

Michigan general; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.8%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 7.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 13.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 13.1%; 
Cognitive impairment: 29.3%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 36.8%. 

Minnesota blind; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

Minnesota general; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.2%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.7%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 16.8%; 
Other physical impairment: 10.7%; 
Cognitive impairment: 27.7%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 40.9%. 

Mississippi combined; 
No impairment: 0.1%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 10.1%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 11.4%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.3%; 
Other physical impairment: 22.1%; 
Cognitive impairment: 19.9%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 19.2%. 

Missouri blind; 
No impairment: 6.4%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 92.4%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.7%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.4%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.1%. 

Missouri general; 
No impairment: 4.2%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 1.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.5%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 21.3%; 
Other physical impairment: 13.8%; 
Cognitive impairment: 24.1%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 30.2%. 

Montana combined; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 4.5%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 2.5%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 34.6%; 
Other physical impairment: 11.4%; 
Cognitive impairment: 21.8%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 25.2%. 

Nebraska blind; 
No impairment: 1.3%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 98.4%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.3%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

Nebraska general; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.3%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 21.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 18.7%; 
Cognitive impairment: 47.6%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 9.3%. 

Nevada combined; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 9.7%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.3%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 24.3%; 
Other physical impairment: 12.8%; 
Cognitive impairment: 17.2%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 30.7%. 

New Hampshire combined; 
No impairment: 0.1%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 5.6%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 10.2%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 22.9%; 
Other physical impairment: 11.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 25.1%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 25.1%. 

New Jersey blind; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

New Jersey general; 
No impairment: 14.2%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.5%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 16.1%; 
Other physical impairment: 8.8%; 
Cognitive impairment: 21.9%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 32.6%. 

New Mexico blind; 
No impairment: 0.8%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 97.5%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.8%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.8%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

New Mexico general; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 1.1%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 26.8%; 
Other physical impairment: 12.1%; 
Cognitive impairment: 20.6%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 33.4%. 

New York blind; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

New York general; 
No impairment: 0.1%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.5%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 19.9%; 
Other physical impairment: 9.3%; 
Cognitive impairment: 26.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 41.1%. 

North Carolina blind; 
No impairment: 3.7%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 96.3%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

North Carolina general; 
No impairment: 1.1%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.4%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.4%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 22.3%; 
Other physical impairment: 13.9%; 
Cognitive impairment: 23.3%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 35.6%. 

North Dakota combined; 
No impairment: 0.9%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.2%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.6%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 20.9%; 
Other physical impairment: 10.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 24.6%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 34.8%. 

Northern Marianas combined; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 23.8%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 15.8%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 14.9%; 
Other physical impairment: 31.7%; 
Cognitive impairment: 10.9%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 3.0%. 

Ohio combined; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 8.5%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 7.4%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 20.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 14.6%; 
Cognitive impairment: 21.1%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 28.3%. 

Oklahoma combined; 
No impairment: 4.5%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 7.4%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.3%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 23.7%; 
Other physical impairment: 15.9%; 
Cognitive impairment: 21.3%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 22.9%. 

Oregon blind; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 95.4%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 1.5%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.5%; 
Cognitive impairment: 1.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 1.5%. 

Oregon general; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 1.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.6%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 25.7%; 
Other physical impairment: 18.5%; 
Cognitive impairment: 20.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 30.2%. 

Pennsylvania combined; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.5%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.6%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 21.1%; 
Other physical impairment: 11.8%; 
Cognitive impairment: 22.8%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 34.2%. 

Puerto Rico combined; 
No impairment: 7.3%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 8.5%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.3%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 24.5%; 
Other physical impairment: 15.9%; 
Cognitive impairment: 14.8%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 23.7%. 

Rhode Island combined; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 6.2%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.2%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 8.6%; 
Cognitive impairment: 22.8%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 42.2%. 

South Carolina blind; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

South Carolina general; 
No impairment: 1.1%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.6%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.8%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 14.1%; 
Other physical impairment: 17.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 9.5%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 52.9%. 

South Dakota blind; 
No impairment: 1.7%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 95.7%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.9%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.9%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.9%. 

South Dakota general; 
No impairment: 1.2%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.1%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.5%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 25.2%; 
Other physical impairment: 10.2%; 
Cognitive impairment: 27.8%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 32.0%. 

Tennessee combined; 
No impairment: 0.4%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.9%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 2.6%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.5%; 
Other physical impairment: 12.6%; 
Cognitive impairment: 33.3%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 29.7%. 

Texas blind; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

Texas general; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.1%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.2%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 27.1%; 
Other physical impairment: 15.9%; 
Cognitive impairment: 15.6%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 36.2%. 

Utah combined; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 24.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 8.7%; 
Cognitive impairment: 15.1%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 45.1%. 

Vermont blind; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

Vermont general; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.4%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.3%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 23.5%; 
Other physical impairment: 13.2%; 
Cognitive impairment: 21.5%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 37.2%. 

Virgin Islands combined; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 9.4%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 6.3%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 14.6%; 
Other physical impairment: 11.5%; 
Cognitive impairment: 46.9%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 11.5%. 

Virginia blind; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 100.0%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.0%. 

Virginia general; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 0.6%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.4%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 17.3%; 
Other physical impairment: 11.9%; 
Cognitive impairment: 32.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 33.7%. 

Washington blind; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 97.9%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 0.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 0.6%; 
Other physical impairment: 0.6%; 
Cognitive impairment: 0.6%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 0.3%. 

Washington general; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 2.1%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.9%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 27.0%; 
Other physical impairment: 8.4%; 
Cognitive impairment: 30.1%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 27.6%. 

West Virginia combined; 
No impairment: 1.4%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 3.4%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 8.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 22.7%; 
Other physical impairment: 14.9%; 
Cognitive impairment: 26.0%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 23.5%. 

Wisconsin combined; 
No impairment: 26.2%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 2.2%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 3.0%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 22.5%; 
Other physical impairment: 10.0%; 
Cognitive impairment: 15.2%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 20.9%. 

Wyoming combined; 
No impairment: 0.0%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 2.8%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 4.3%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 34.5%; 
Other physical impairment: 10.7%; 
Cognitive impairment: 12.3%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 35.4%. 

National average; 
No impairment: 2.2%; 
Blind or other visual impairment: 5.4%; 
Deaf or other hearing impairment: 5.4%; 
Orthopedic or neurological impairment: 20.2%; 
Other physical impairment: 12.4%; 
Cognitive impairment: 22.6%; 
Mental or psychosocial impairment: 31.7%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Social Security Beneficiaries' Employment Rates by State 
VR Agency, Fiscal Year 2003: 

Alabama combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.1%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 12.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
33.5%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 42.9%. 

Alaska combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
26.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.9%. 

American Samoa combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 31.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 10.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
0.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 58.6%. 

Arizona combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.1%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.2%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
39.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 19.3%. 

Arkansas blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.2%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 7.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
14.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 64.9%. 

Arkansas general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 24.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 13.2%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
44.5%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 17.4%. 

California combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 9.5%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.2%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
35.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.4%. 

Colorado combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 36.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
23.6%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 22.9%. 

Connecticut blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 1.1%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 24.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
17.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 57.4%. 

Connecticut general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 6.9%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 33.2%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
33.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 26.6%. 

Delaware blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 25.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
25.6%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 35.9%. 

Delaware general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 26.3%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 14.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
27.7%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.5%. 

District of Columbia combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 9.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 45.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
24.2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 20.2%. 

Florida blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 23.3%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 7.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
29.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 39.1%. 

Florida general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 3.1%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 32.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
40.7%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 23.7%. 

Georgia combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 19.2%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
37.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 30.1%. 

Guam combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 45.5%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 36.4%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
9.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 9.1%. 

Hawaii combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 7.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.8%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
27.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.4%. 

Idaho blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 8.9%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 19.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
25.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 46.4%. 

Idaho general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 7.3%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
29.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 32.0%. 

Illinois combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
30.5%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 36.4%. 

Indiana combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 9.1%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
35.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 28.2%. 

Iowa blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 2.5%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 16.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
16.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 65.0%. 

Iowa general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 29.0%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
35.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 21.0%. 

Kansas combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.9%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 16.4%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
34.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.6%. 

Kentucky blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 7.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.0%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
19.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 49.8%. 

Kentucky general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.9%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 33.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
25.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 25.7%. 

Louisiana combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 23.2%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
27.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 17.4%. 

Maine blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.2%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 14.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
14.6%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 59.6%. 

Maine general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 7.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
31.5%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.7%. 

Maryland combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 35.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 19.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
12.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.0%. 

Massachusetts blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 4.1%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 6.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
21.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 68.3%. 

Massachusetts general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 9.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 44.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
25.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 20.5%. 

Michigan blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.6%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 11.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
31.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 41.4%. 

Michigan general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.5%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 24.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
34.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.1%. 

Minnesota blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 16.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
40.9%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 24.6%. 

Minnesota general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.8%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
27.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 26.0%. 

Mississippi combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.2%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
27.2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 30.0%. 

Missouri blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 7.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 13.8%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
47.5%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.3%. 

Missouri general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 5.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 54.1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
13.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 27.2%. 

Montana combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 2.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 44.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
22.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 30.2%. 

Nebraska blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 26.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 12.5%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
33.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 27.8%. 

Nebraska general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 3.9%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 32.0%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
36.6%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 27.5%. 

Nevada combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
32.6%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 21.1%. 

New Hampshire combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 5.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 32.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
16.7%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 44.9%. 

New Jersey blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.6%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.2%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
21.5%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 37.7%. 

New Jersey general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.6%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 32.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
30.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 24.5%. 

New Mexico blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 10.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 14.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
37.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 36.5%. 

New Mexico general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 28.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 18.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
24.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 28.0%. 

New York blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 9.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
23.7%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 44.1%. 

New York general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 8.2%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 29.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
29.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 32.8%. 

North Carolina blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 8.5%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
35.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 39.0%. 

North Carolina general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.3%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 25.1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
33.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 25.8%. 

North Dakota combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 2.1%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
28.2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 41.8%. 

Northern Marianas combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 5.6%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.8%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
50.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 16.7%. 

Ohio combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 30.8%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
29.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 25.4%. 

Oklahoma combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 10.1%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 29.1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
41.7%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 19.1%. 

Oregon blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 10.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 17.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
38.7%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 33.0%. 

Oregon general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 13.6%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 37.8%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
24.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 24.6%. 

Pennsylvania combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 7.2%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 13.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
42.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 36.8%. 

Puerto Rico combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 20.3%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 19.4%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
18.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 41.9%. 

Rhode Island combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 8.1%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 31.4%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
29.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.2%. 

South Carolina blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 5.5%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 6.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
33.9%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 53.9%. 

South Carolina general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 16.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
34.5%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 31.2%. 

South Dakota blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.9%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 19.4%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
32.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 35.5%. 

South Dakota general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 19.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 21.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
25.7%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 34.1%. 

Tennessee combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 29.7%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 20.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
25.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 24.7%. 

Texas blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.2%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 8.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
24.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 49.7%. 

Texas general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 17.5%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
37.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 22.2%. 

Utah combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 1.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 25.0%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
40.0%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 34.1%. 

Vermont blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 3.8%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 5.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
35.8%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 54.7%. 

Vermont general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 2.5%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 23.2%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
30.4%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 43.9%. 

Virgin Islands combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 21.1%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 21.1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
10.5%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 47.4%. 

Virginia blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 7.9%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 22.3%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
19.5%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 50.2%. 

Virginia general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 14.0%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 22.1%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
34.2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.7%. 

Washington blind; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 26.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
34.2%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 27.8%. 

Washington general; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 11.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 41.8%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
26.6%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 20.2%. 

West Virginia combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 5.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 47.9%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
20.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 26.4%. 

Wisconsin combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 15.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.6%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
32.5%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 24.5%. 

Wyoming combined; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 9.4%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 22.7%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
23.1%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 44.9%. 

National average; 
Exited without employment, during the application phase: 12.6%; 
Exited without employment, after limited services: 27.0%; 
Exited without employment, after services under an employment plan: 
31.3%; 
Exited with employment, after services under an employment plan: 29.1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix V: State VR Agency Percentages of Total Agency Service Budget 
Spent on Each Service Category, Fiscal Year 2003: 

Alabama combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 48%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 10%; 
Postsecondary education training: 10%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 21%; 
Maintenance: 4.5%; 
Transportation: 1.3%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.6%; 
All other services: 5%; 
Post-employment services: 0.1%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 5.7%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Alaska combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 57%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 5%; 
Postsecondary education training: 5%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 11%; 
Maintenance: 2.5%; 
Transportation: 3.4%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.7%; 
All other services: 15%; 
Post-employment services: 1.8%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.3%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.4%. 

American Samoa combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 15%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 9%; 
Postsecondary education training: 1%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 55%; 
Maintenance: 0.0%; 
Transportation: 0.9%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.0%; 
All other services: 20%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.0%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Arizona combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 58%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 8%; 
Postsecondary education training: 7%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 14%; 
Maintenance: 1.7%; 
Transportation: 2.2%; 
Personal assistance services: 2.5%; 
All other services: 7%; 
Post-employment services: 2.2%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 4.6%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.8%. 

Arkansas blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 42%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 21%; 
Postsecondary education training: 7%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 23%; 
Maintenance: 1.0%; 
Transportation: 0.7%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.1%; 
All other services: 5%; 
Post-employment services: 0.5%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.4%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.2%. 

Arkansas general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 66%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 5%; 
Postsecondary education training: 19%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 6%; 
Maintenance: 0.8%; 
Transportation: 0.4%; 
Personal assistance services: 2.0%; 
All other services: 1%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.0%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

California combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 50%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 1%; 
Postsecondary education training: 7%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 17%; 
Maintenance: 0.3%; 
Transportation: 4.3%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.4%; 
All other services: 20%; 
Post-employment services: 0.1%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.9%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Colorado combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 60%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 6%; 
Postsecondary education training: 4%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 19%; 
Maintenance: 0.7%; 
Transportation: 1.5%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.8%; 
All other services: 7%; 
Post-employment services: 0.3%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.8%; 
Small business enterprises: 1.3%. 

Connecticut blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 37%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%; 
Postsecondary education training: 15%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 17%; 
Maintenance: 0.0%; 
Transportation: 1.4%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.0%; 
All other services: 25%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 11.2%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Connecticut general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 65%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 7%; 
Postsecondary education training: 5%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 4%; 
Maintenance: 3.3%; 
Transportation: 0.8%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.3%; 
All other services: 15%; 
Post-employment services: 0.3%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 9.8%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.1%. 

Delaware blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 27%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 1%; 
Postsecondary education training: 15%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 34%; 
Maintenance: 0.0%; 
Transportation: 0.2%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.5%; 
All other services: 23%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.6%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Delaware general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 59%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%; 
Postsecondary education training: 8%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 26%; 
Maintenance: 2.7%; 
Transportation: 0.0%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.4%; 
All other services: 0%; 
Post-employment services: 0.2%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.0%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

District of Columbia combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 47%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 7%; 
Postsecondary education training: 17%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 23%; 
Maintenance: 6.3%; 
Transportation: 1.1%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.2%; 
All other services: 0%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.3%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Florida blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 37%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 11%; 
Postsecondary education training: 4%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 11%; 
Maintenance: 6.7%; 
Transportation: 1.9%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.2%; 
All other services: 28%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 13.3%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.4%. 

Florida general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 42%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 24%; 
Postsecondary education training: 4%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 9%; 
Maintenance: 1.0%; 
Transportation: 1.9%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.0%; 
All other services: 18%; 
Post-employment services: 1.5%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.0%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Georgia combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 65%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 3%; 
Postsecondary education training: 5%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 14%; 
Maintenance: 5.5%; 
Transportation: 2.6%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.6%; 
All other services: 4%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.9%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Guam combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 78%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 2%; 
Postsecondary education training: 6%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 8%; 
Maintenance: 0.0%; 
Transportation: 0.3%; 
Personal assistance services: 2.6%; 
All other services: 3%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.5%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Hawaii combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 58%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 1%; 
Postsecondary education training: 9%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 16%; 
Maintenance: 0.7%; 
Transportation: 1.2%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.2%; 
All other services: 14%; 
Post-employment services: 0.1%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 8.2%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Idaho blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 46%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 7%; 
Postsecondary education training: 4%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 31%; 
Maintenance: 2.7%; 
Transportation: 1.7%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.2%; 
All other services: 8%; 
Post-employment services: 0.8%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 4.8%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Idaho general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 57%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 5%; 
Postsecondary education training: 9%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 18%; 
Maintenance: 1.3%; 
Transportation: 3.2%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.3%; 
All other services: 6%; 
Post-employment services: 0.4%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 4.6%; 
Small business enterprises: 2.2%. 

Illinois combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 55%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 6%; 
Postsecondary education training: 7%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 19%; 
Maintenance: 4.1%; 
Transportation: 2.2%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.2%; 
All other services: 6%; 
Post-employment services: 0.1%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.1%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.8%. 

Indiana combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 31%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 18%; 
Postsecondary education training: 9%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 23%; 
Maintenance: 3.1%; 
Transportation: 2.3%; 
Personal assistance services: 4.0%; 
All other services: 10%; 
Post-employment services: 0.3%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 6.0%; 
Small business enterprises: 1.2%. 

Iowa blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 29%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%; 
Postsecondary education training: 4%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 45%; 
Maintenance: 4.3%; 
Transportation: 0.5%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.9%; 
All other services: 16%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.3%; 
Small business enterprises: 1.4%. 

Iowa general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 64%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 2%; 
Postsecondary education training: 17%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 9%; 
Maintenance: 1.0%; 
Transportation: 0.8%; 
Personal assistance services: 2.0%; 
All other services: 5%; 
Post-employment services: 0.3%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.9%; 
Small business enterprises: 2.6%. 

Kansas combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 53%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 9%; 
Postsecondary education training: 5%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 18%; 
Maintenance: 6.0%; 
Transportation: 5.6%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.4%; 
All other services: 2%; 
Post-employment services: 0.7%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.6%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.1%. 

Kentucky blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 50%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 14%; 
Postsecondary education training: 6%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 2%; 
Maintenance: 4.4%; 
Transportation: 0.0%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.4%; 
All other services: 23%; 
Post-employment services: 1.3%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.2%; 
Small business enterprises: 9.9%. 

Kentucky general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 59%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 3%; 
Postsecondary education training: 15%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 9%; 
Maintenance: 1.3%; 
Transportation: 0.3%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.6%; 
All other services: 11%; 
Post-employment services: 0.1%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 4.8%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.3%. 

Louisiana combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 47%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 13%; 
Postsecondary education training: 15%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 16%; 
Maintenance: 4.0%; 
Transportation: 2.2%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.6%; 
All other services: 1%; 
Post-employment services: 0.8%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 10.9%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.6%. 

Maine blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 48%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%; 
Postsecondary education training: 3%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 1%; 
Maintenance: 0.5%; 
Transportation: 0.3%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.0%; 
All other services: 45%; 
Post-employment services: 0.3%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.1%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Maine general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 50%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%; 
Postsecondary education training: 9%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 8%; 
Maintenance: 2.0%; 
Transportation: 3.5%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.9%; 
All other services: 23%; 
Post-employment services: 5.2%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 4.0%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Maryland combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 69%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 3%; 
Postsecondary education training: 8%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 14%; 
Maintenance: 1.4%; 
Transportation: 1.1%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.4%; 
All other services: 3%; 
Post-employment services: 0.5%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.8%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.6%. 

Massachusetts blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 63%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 2%; 
Postsecondary education training: 5%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 20%; 
Maintenance: 0.0%; 
Transportation: 0.1%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.4%; 
All other services: 10%; 
Post-employment services: 0.8%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 9.8%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Massachusetts general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 63%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 2%; 
Postsecondary education training: 8%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 18%; 
Maintenance: 1.1%; 
Transportation: 2.0%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.6%; 
All other services: 6%; 
Post-employment services: 0.2%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.4%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Michigan blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 54%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 2%; 
Postsecondary education training: 12%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 9%; 
Maintenance: 2.8%; 
Transportation: 0.3%; 
Personal assistance services: 7.5%; 
All other services: 11%; 
Post-employment services: 1.1%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 6.6%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Michigan general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 55%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%; 
Postsecondary education training: 13%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 13%; 
Maintenance: 3.3%; 
Transportation: 4.9%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.4%; 
All other services: 6%; 
Post-employment services: 0.4%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.1%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.8%. 

Minnesota blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 55%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%; 
Postsecondary education training: 6%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 19%; 
Maintenance: 7.9%; 
Transportation: 1.3%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.0%; 
All other services: 11%; 
Post-employment services: 0.8%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 6.6%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Minnesota general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 69%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%; 
Postsecondary education training: 7%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 13%; 
Maintenance: 1.3%; 
Transportation: 2.8%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.1%; 
All other services: 7%; 
Post-employment services: 0.2%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.5%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Mississippi combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 48%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 36%; 
Postsecondary education training: 3%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 3%; 
Maintenance: 1.7%; 
Transportation: 0.4%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.0%; 
All other services: 7%; 
Post-employment services: 0.2%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.5%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.1%. 

Missouri blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 30%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 7%; 
Postsecondary education training: 9%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 23%; 
Maintenance: 4.4%; 
Transportation: 4.1%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.0%; 
All other services: 23%; 
Post-employment services: 0.7%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.9%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Missouri general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 38%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 7%; 
Postsecondary education training: 12%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 29%; 
Maintenance: 5.8%; 
Transportation: 3.5%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.9%; 
All other services: 3%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.4%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Montana combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 41%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 3%; 
Postsecondary education training: 30%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 7%; 
Maintenance: 1.1%; 
Transportation: 2.8%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.4%; 
All other services: 14%; 
Post-employment services: 0.5%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.4%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.1%. 

Nebraska blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 44%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%; 
Postsecondary education training: 6%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 37%; 
Maintenance: 3.4%; 
Transportation: 0.5%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.4%; 
All other services: 6%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 6.0%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.2%. 

Nebraska general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 68%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%; 
Postsecondary education training: 9%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 15%; 
Maintenance: 0.6%; 
Transportation: 1.0%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.2%; 
All other services: 7%; 
Post-employment services: 0.8%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 5.2%; 
Small business enterprises: 1.0%. 

Nevada combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 53%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 10%; 
Postsecondary education training: 6%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 11%; 
Maintenance: 1.1%; 
Transportation: 2.4%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.4%; 
All other services: 16%; 
Post-employment services: 0.2%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.1%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

New Hampshire combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 54%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 8%; 
Postsecondary education training: 10%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 12%; 
Maintenance: 1.0%; 
Transportation: 2.3%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.1%; 
All other services: 12%; 
Post-employment services: 0.1%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 7.3%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

New Jersey blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 47%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 5%; 
Postsecondary education training: 5%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 35%; 
Maintenance: 3.0%; 
Transportation: 3.3%; 
Personal assistance services: 2.0%; 
All other services: 1%; 
Post-employment services: 0.9%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.4%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

New Jersey general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 55%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 3%; 
Postsecondary education training: 10%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 20%; 
Maintenance: 2.5%; 
Transportation: 1.5%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.0%; 
All other services: 7%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 6.1%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

New Mexico blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 69%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%; 
Postsecondary education training: 5%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 3%; 
Maintenance: 7.1%; 
Transportation: 1.2%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.5%; 
All other services: 15%; 
Post-employment services: 0.7%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 10.7%; 
Small business enterprises: 1.5%. 

New Mexico general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 60%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 6%; 
Postsecondary education training: 12%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 5%; 
Maintenance: 2.6%; 
Transportation: 3.4%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.3%; 
All other services: 10%; 
Post-employment services: 1.1%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.7%; 
Small business enterprises: 2.8%. 

New York blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 25%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%; 
Postsecondary education training: 6%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 64%; 
Maintenance: 2.3%; 
Transportation: 1.0%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.0%; 
All other services: 1%; 
Post-employment services: 0.2%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 8.6%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.1%. 

New York general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 59%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%; 
Postsecondary education training: 6%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 23%; 
Maintenance: 1.6%; 
Transportation: 3.8%; 
Personal assistance services: 2.2%; 
All other services: 4%; 
Post-employment services: 0.3%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.9%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

North Carolina blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 62%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 22%; 
Postsecondary education training: 5%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 0%; 
Maintenance: 2.4%; 
Transportation: 1.3%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.2%; 
All other services: 5%; 
Post-employment services: 0.4%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.0%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.1%. 

North Carolina general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 41%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 29%; 
Postsecondary education training: 10%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 15%; 
Maintenance: 2.6%; 
Transportation: 2.3%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.2%; 
All other services: 0%; 
Post-employment services: 0.1%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.9%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

North Dakota combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 45%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 6%; 
Postsecondary education training: 19%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 21%; 
Maintenance: 3.4%; 
Transportation: 2.7%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.5%; 
All other services: 2%; 
Post-employment services: 0.3%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 4.3%; 
Small business enterprises: 1.1%. 

Northern Marianas combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 49%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 20%; 
Postsecondary education training: 0%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 4%; 
Maintenance: 0.4%; 
Transportation: 4.6%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.0%; 
All other services: 22%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 19.6%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Ohio combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 53%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 6%; 
Postsecondary education training: 17%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 9%; 
Maintenance: 1.9%; 
Transportation: 1.2%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.6%; 
All other services: 11%; 
Post-employment services: 0.4%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.5%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.4%. 

Oklahoma combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 47%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 12%; 
Postsecondary education training: 19%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 18%; 
Maintenance: 0.8%; 
Transportation: 2.0%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.1%; 
All other services: 1%; 
Post-employment services: 0.2%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.0%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Oregon blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 42%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 1%; 
Postsecondary education training: 5%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 19%; 
Maintenance: 1.6%; 
Transportation: 0.7%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.0%; 
All other services: 29%; 
Post-employment services: 2.4%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 9.5%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Oregon general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 64%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 3%; 
Postsecondary education training: 3%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 5%; 
Maintenance: 0.3%; 
Transportation: 4.3%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.4%; 
All other services: 18%; 
Post-employment services: 0.8%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.2%; 
Small business enterprises: 1.8%. 

Pennsylvania combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 38%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 15%; 
Postsecondary education training: 12%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 21%; 
Maintenance: 3.3%; 
Transportation: 0.7%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.9%; 
All other services: 9%; 
Post-employment services: 0.4%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 11.7%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Puerto Rico combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 43%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 1%; 
Postsecondary education training: 23%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 3%; 
Maintenance: 16.2%; 
Transportation: 9.4%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.7%; 
All other services: 2%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.3%; 
Small business enterprises: 4.0%. 

Rhode Island combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 70%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%; 
Postsecondary education training: 6%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 13%; 
Maintenance: 0.0%; 
Transportation: 1.0%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.3%; 
All other services: 9%; 
Post-employment services: 0.8%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 5.2%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

South Carolina blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 43%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 10%; 
Postsecondary education training: 11%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 22%; 
Maintenance: 0.6%; 
Transportation: 3.2%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.0%; 
All other services: 11%; 
Post-employment services: 0.1%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 3.0%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

South Carolina general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 50%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 5%; 
Postsecondary education training: 2%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 39%; 
Maintenance: 1.6%; 
Transportation: 1.2%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.7%; 
All other services: 0%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.6%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

South Dakota blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 53%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 12%; 
Postsecondary education training: 4%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 6%; 
Maintenance: 2.1%; 
Transportation: 1.6%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.5%; 
All other services: 22%; 
Post-employment services: 0.8%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 14.5%; 
Small business enterprises: 3.4%. 

South Dakota general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 43%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%; 
Postsecondary education training: 9%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 17%; 
Maintenance: 2.0%; 
Transportation: 1.8%; 
Personal assistance services: 3.7%; 
All other services: 20%; 
Post-employment services: 0.4%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 5.9%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.7%. 

Tennessee combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 33%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 1%; 
Postsecondary education training: 35%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 24%; 
Maintenance: 1.9%; 
Transportation: 1.5%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.7%; 
All other services: 3%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.7%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Texas blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 64%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 10%; 
Postsecondary education training: 1%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 12%; 
Maintenance: 0.7%; 
Transportation: 0.7%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.1%; 
All other services: 11%; 
Post-employment services: 2.1%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.2%; 
Small business enterprises: 1.6%. 

Texas general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 47%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 24%; 
Postsecondary education training: 5%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 16%; 
Maintenance: 0.9%; 
Transportation: 0.6%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.3%; 
All other services: 6%; 
Post-employment services: 1.8%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.3%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.1%. 

Utah combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 41%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 9%; 
Postsecondary education training: 28%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 13%; 
Maintenance: 2.2%; 
Transportation: 2.7%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.1%; 
All other services: 3%; 
Post-employment services: 1.2%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 8.3%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.9%. 

Vermont blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 50%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 12%; 
Postsecondary education training: 3%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 10%; 
Maintenance: 0.5%; 
Transportation: 1.2%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.5%; 
All other services: 21%; 
Post-employment services: 2.1%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 17.5%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Vermont general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 60%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 2%; 
Postsecondary education training: 3%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 16%; 
Maintenance: 0.9%; 
Transportation: 5.4%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.4%; 
All other services: 13%; 
Post-employment services: 1.3%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.4%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.2%. 

Virgin Islands combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 34%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 11%; 
Postsecondary education training: 5%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 23%; 
Maintenance: 6.4%; 
Transportation: 8.4%; 
Personal assistance services: 4.1%; 
All other services: 7%; 
Post-employment services: 2.7%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.9%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Virginia blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 43%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%; 
Postsecondary education training: 4%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 29%; 
Maintenance: 3.0%; 
Transportation: 1.9%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.3%; 
All other services: 14%; 
Post-employment services: 0.1%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 13.6%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Virginia general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 51%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 4%; 
Postsecondary education training: 2%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 5%; 
Maintenance: 1.1%; 
Transportation: 1.0%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.0%; 
All other services: 35%; 
Post-employment services: 0.3%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 0.7%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Washington blind; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 57%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 0%; 
Postsecondary education training: 8%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 17%; 
Maintenance: 1.6%; 
Transportation: 1.1%; 
Personal assistance services: 1.2%; 
All other services: 13%; 
Post-employment services: 0.2%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 15.1%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Washington general; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 60%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 3%; 
Postsecondary education training: 10%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 10%; 
Maintenance: 1.5%; 
Transportation: 4.7%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.3%; 
All other services: 11%; 
Post-employment services: 1.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 2.5%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

West Virginia combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 41%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 11%; 
Postsecondary education training: 17%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 26%; 
Maintenance: 2.5%; 
Transportation: 0.1%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.4%; 
All other services: 2%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 1.3%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.0%. 

Wisconsin combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 46%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 2%; 
Postsecondary education training: 6%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 17%; 
Maintenance: 1.7%; 
Transportation: 7.0%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.5%; 
All other services: 19%; 
Post-employment services: 0.0%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 5.8%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.8%. 

Wyoming combined; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 48%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 11%; 
Postsecondary education training: 12%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 21%; 
Maintenance: 2.9%; 
Transportation: 2.7%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.5%; 
All other services: 3%; 
Post-employment services: 1.6%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 5.4%; 
Small business enterprises: 1.9%. 

National average; 
Assessment, counseling, guidance and placement: 50%; 
Diagnosis and treatment of impairments: 7%; 
Postsecondary education training: 9%; 
Job readiness, vocational, occupational and all other training: 17%; 
Maintenance: 2.4%; 
Transportation: 2.1%; 
Personal assistance services: 0.9%; 
All other services: 11%; 
Post-employment services: 0.6%; 
Rehabilitation technology services: 4.7%; 
Small business enterprises: 0.6%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data.

Note: Service budget does not include the three categories of “post-
employment services,” “rehabilitation technology services,” or “small 
business enterprises” because expenditures in these categories have 
already been captured in one of the other eight service categories, 
depending on the actual nature of the service (i.e., a type of 
training, transportation, etc.) As a result, only the first eight 
columns in this appendix add to 100 percent for each state VR agency, 
or about 100 percent because of rounding.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix VI: State VR Agency Total Administrative Costs as a Percentage 
of Total Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003: 

Alabama combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 6%. 

Alaska combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%. 

American Samoa combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 23%. 

Arizona combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%. 

Arkansas blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%. 

Arkansas general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%. 

California combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 8%. 

Colorado combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 15%. 

Connecticut blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 17%. 

Connecticut general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 14%. 

Delaware blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 30%. 

Delaware general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 14%. 

District of Columbia combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 33%. 

Florida blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%. 

Florida general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%. 

Georgia combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 8%. 

Guam combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 32%. 

Hawaii combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 11%. 

Idaho blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 16%. 

Idaho general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%. 

Illinois combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 5%. 

Indiana combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 4%. 

Iowa blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%. 

Iowa general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%. 

Kansas combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 11%. 

Kentucky blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%. 

Kentucky general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%. 

Louisiana combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 11%. 

Maine blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%. 

Maine general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%. 

Maryland combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%. 

Massachusetts blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 32%. 

Massachusetts general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%. 

Michigan blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 31%. 

Michigan general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%. 

Minnesota blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 16%. 

Minnesota general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%. 

Mississippi combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 15%. 

Missouri blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%. 

Missouri general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 5%. 

Montana combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%. 

Nebraska blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 14%. 

Nebraska general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%. 

Nevada combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 23%. 

New Hampshire combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 18%. 

New Jersey blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 18%. 

New Jersey general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%. 

New Mexico blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 20%. 

New Mexico general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 16%. 

New York blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 11%. 

New York general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%. 

North Carolina blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 15%. 

North Carolina general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 7%. 

North Dakota combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 18%. 

Northern Marianas combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 57%. 

Ohio combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%. 

Oklahoma combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%. 

Oregon blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%. 

Oregon general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 6%. 

Pennsylvania combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%. 

Puerto Rico combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 14%. 

Rhode Island combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 24%. 

South Carolina blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 30%. 

South Carolina general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 7%. 

South Dakota blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%. 

South Dakota general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 9%. 

Tennessee combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 14%. 

Texas blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 14%. 

Texas general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 8%. 

Utah combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 7%. 

Vermont blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 14%. 

Vermont general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 16%. 

Virgin Islands combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 12%. 

Virginia blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 13%. 

Virginia general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 8%. 

Washington blind; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 16%. 

Washington general; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%. 

West Virginia combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 17%. 

Wisconsin combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%. 

Wyoming combined; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 17%. 

National average; 
Administrative costs as a percentage of total agency expenditures: 10%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix VII: State VR Agency Average Total Expenditures in Fiscal Year 
2003 Per Person Exiting with Employment in Fiscal Year 2003: 

Alabama combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $9,147.18. 

Alaska combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $24,709.69. 

American Samoa combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $20,162.77. 

Arizona combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $32,761.67. 

Arkansas blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $16,326.45. 

Arkansas general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $16,952.49. 

California combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $24,128.90. 

Colorado combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $21,522.42. 

Connecticut blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $13,081.71. 

Connecticut general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $14,101.03. 

Delaware blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $74,690.00. 

Delaware general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $11,316.19. 

District of Columbia combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $27,751.07. 

Florida blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $37,040.38. 

Florida general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $13,393.87. 

Georgia combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $24,005.87. 

Guam combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $53,709.54. 

Hawaii combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $20,579.51. 

Idaho blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $27,716.22. 

Idaho general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $7,688.59. 

Illinois combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $13,711.01. 

Indiana combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $15,893.24. 

Iowa blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $56,907.73. 

Iowa general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $13,808.72. 

Kansas combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $16,159.61. 

Kentucky blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $27,367.03. 

Kentucky general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $11,465.51. 

Louisiana combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $27,213.90. 

Maine blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $17,585.56. 

Maine general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $17,973.61. 

Maryland combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $17,905.81. 

Massachusetts blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $57,309.36. 

Massachusetts general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $19,491.41. 

Michigan blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $50,281.12. 

Michigan general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $14,790.42. 

Minnesota blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $73,034.65. 

Minnesota general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $13,687.42. 

Mississippi combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $11,373.87. 

Missouri blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $31,100.48. 

Missouri general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $12,337.21. 

Montana combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $13,638.62. 

Nebraska blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $47,396.30. 

Nebraska general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $12,185.01. 

Nevada combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $18,618.61. 

New Hampshire combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $10,227.07. 

New Jersey blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $42,340.65. 

New Jersey general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $12,952.84. 

New Mexico blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $131,027.65. 

New Mexico general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $15,159.09. 

New York blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $19,137.95. 

New York general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $11,860.90. 

North Carolina blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $24,436.74. 

North Carolina general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $12,167.74. 

North Dakota combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $11,679.61. 

Northern Marianas combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $28,500.53. 

Ohio combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $22,382.25. 

Oklahoma combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $16,971.47. 

Oregon blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $56,235.22. 

Oregon general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $13,480.54. 

Pennsylvania combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $13,751.45. 

Puerto Rico combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $34,680.64. 

Rhode Island combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $18,595.19. 

South Carolina blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $23,025.59. 

South Carolina general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $7,408.41. 

South Dakota blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $34,478.06. 

South Dakota general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $14,062.02. 

Tennessee combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $20,476.00. 

Texas blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $26,992.63. 

Texas general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $9,327.45. 

Utah combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $10,947.74. 

Vermont blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $15,060.00. 

Vermont general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $9,208.06. 

Virgin Islands combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $58,988.15. 

Virginia blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $44,716.19. 

Virginia general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $16,076.59. 

Washington blind; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $70,120.85. 

Washington general; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $26,467.08. 

West Virginia combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $17,069.67. 

Wisconsin combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $17,666.19. 

Wyoming combined; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $13,102.07. 

National average; 
Average expended in fiscal year 2003 per person exiting with employment 
in fiscal year 2003: $15,544.08. 

Source: GAO analysis of Education data. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Education: 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES:
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY: 

Cynthia M. Fagnoni: 
Managing Director: 
Education, Workforce and Income Security: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street N.W.
Washington DC 20548: 

AUG 30 2005: 

Dear Ms. Fagnoni: 

Thank you for the opportunity for the Department of Education to review 
and provide comments on draft report GAO-05-865: Vocational 
Rehabilitation, Better Measures and Monitoring Could Improve the 
Performance of the VR Program. This report is projected for September 
2005 release. The vocational rehabilitation program is a complex, multi-
billion dollar program embodying a mix of social, economic and personal 
goals and objectives. It has a history of Federal support extending 
back three-quarters of a century. Yet, it tends to be not well 
understood outside the limited group of individuals and agencies 
directly involved in the operation of the state formula grant programs 
or those extremely knowledgeable about disability programs. The draft 
report contains several recommendations for executive action. 

We would first like to note the painstaking professional efforts made 
by GAO staff, including but not limited to Beverly Crawford, Megan 
Matselboba and Shannon Groff, to base this study on the most complete 
primary source information--of which they reviewed a very large volume-
-and the most current policy interpretations. 

The Department of Education is in frill agreement that "better measures 
and monitoring could improve program performance" of vocational 
rehabilitation agencies. We will first discuss monitoring. 

As an initial matter, we would like to point out that the draft 
report's characterization of all monitoring being conducted by the 
Rehabilitation Services Administration's (RSA) regional offices is not 
accurate. RSA headquarters staff sets monitoring policies and plans 
monitoring activities. RSA headquarters staff members participate on 
monitoring teams. RSA headquarters, as recognized by the draft report, 
reviews, approves and issues all monitoring reports: 

As noted in the draft report, RSA is in the process of implementing a 
revised system for monitoring state vocational rehabilitation agencies. 
We believe the organizational and procedural changes we are making will 
do much to address the history of untimely or incomplete monitoring 
reports produced by the previous system of monitoring, characterized in 
the draft report as ineffective. 

We do regard the heading you have chosen to use on page 35, "Decision 
to Eliminate Regional Offices Has Made Future of Monitoring Uncertain" 
to be logically correct but potentially misleading. Your report will be 
issued during the transition from one monitoring system to another. 
While the future is in all cases marked by uncertainty, this particular 
characterization impresses us as being overly negative. As your draft 
report has noted, the prior system of monitoring state rehabilitation 
agencies had not been working well. The Department is trying to improve 
the situation and we would prefer not to have our efforts cast in 
uncertain light simply as an artifact of the timing of this particular 
report. 

As the draft report indicates, we have not yet put in place a 
completely revised system of monitoring. The revised structure of RSA 
will take effect October 1. Under the new structure, as of that date, 
RSA will carry out fully the Federal monitoring and other 
administrative responsibilities under the Rehabilitation Act. We 
believe we are developing a clear and comprehensive approach to 
monitoring incorporating state teams that will conduct the monitoring 
activities, with a single point of contact on the state teams to 
interact with individual state agencies. We are establishing functional 
units that will work collaboratively to develop the monitoring 
protocols and state information that will be used as the basis for the 
monitoring activities. 

RSA just conducted a two-day monitoring conference. The conference 
brought together grantees and a wider range of stakeholders and other 
parties concerned with the availability and accountability of 
vocational rehabilitation services than has typically been involved in 
such discussions. We intend to use information gained during the 
conference in the further refinement of the improved approach to 
monitoring. 

We would like to provide a few technical clarifications. The 
restructuring of VR monitoring did not result in a "two year cycle" for 
monitoring for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 as mentioned on page 33 of 
the draft report. This idea of stretching out the monitoring cycle 
originated in early 2004 with the RSA program and regional office 
heads. The stretch-out was not a result of any restructuring of 
monitoring. It preceded the restructuring and was in fact a painfully 
clear indication that the old monitoring system would not be producing 
timely reports. We believe our planned allocation of over 80,000 annual 
staff hours for monitoring functions and related activities supporting 
the state formula grants represents a most certain and substantial 
commitment to improved oversight of the 80 grantee agencies comprising 
the core of the Rehabilitation Act's service delivery structure. The 
most current figure (August 2005) for Rehabilitation Services 
Administration staff is 102 permanent full time positions. In April 
2005, 138 staff were on board and the percentage reduction cited on 
page 35 would therefore be less than the cited percentage of "nearly 50 
percent" computed using the figure of 147. 

We would also like to clarify that annual reviews of VR agencies may be 
performed with or without on-site monitoring. In summary, ED is well 
along in the process of developing and implementing what should be a 
better monitoring system, with more consistency and improved management 
controls. 

The conclusions of your draft report focus on the possibility of 
improving VR agency performance by providing feedback to the agencies 
and more timely monitoring reports issued to our grantees are an 
important part of this. Grantees, however, are quite cognizant of their 
own patterns of expenditure and outcomes and typically have strong 
internal justifications and motivations for their own activities and 
service outcomes. A VR agency may wish to maintain its specialized 
staff, facilities and a high degree of organizational autonomy. 
Conversely, the agency may be dependent on third-party matching funds 
and may need to accommodate the needs of the agencies providing 
matching funds. An agency may be responding to political direction or 
crosscutting program priorities or to client choices concerning the 
type or conditions of employment. Some agencies provide many services 
with state staff; others tend to purchase services from private 
providers, community based rehabilitation programs, physicians or other 
healthcare providers, educational institutions and vocational training 
programs. The Rehabilitation Act does not require a state to adopt any 
particular mode of service delivery, but we believe program monitoring 
should consider how various patterns of service delivery might affect 
client outcomes and program productivity. 

In addition to Federal monitoring and directed technical assistance, 
state VR agencies may be influenced to undergo changes to increase 
productivity, effectiveness and accountability when monitoring and 
program information is made readily available to interested and 
affected individuals and organizations within each state. For example, 
state rehabilitation and independent living councils and advisory 
groups might benefit from comparative information about programs in 
states other than their own. State and local workforce boards, 
education agencies, community-based rehabilitation programs and 
advocacy groups might be interested in the results of Federal 
monitoring of the rehabilitation program within their state. We intend 
to broaden the dissemination of the information we produce and 
publicize the availability of our monitoring and analytic work 
products. We expect to be able to do this efficiently and economically 
through better website postings. While VR agencies do operate within a 
highly specific Federal framework, these agencies are first and 
foremost organs of state government, staffed with state employees 
through state personnel systems, and the most fundamental opportunities 
for change and improvement are at the state level. 

In regard to measuring program performance, we are in strong agreement 
that better measures are needed. The present VR "standards and 
indicators" (See 34 CFR 361.80-89) were a first-generation attempt to 
measure program performance, were late in inception, and, as the draft 
report notes, have not been updated. These first-generation measures 
allow individual grantee agencies to select elements by which they wish 
to be measured from a menu unique to the VR program. This approach 
discourages comparisons both among VR agencies (because all agencies 
are not subject to a uniform set of metrics) and between the VR system 
and other publicly-funded programs (because no other program uses the 
same measures). Your draft report noted the latter problem 
particularly. Performance levels for grantee agencies in these first- 
generation indicators were set (e.g.: 55.8%; 72.6%; 62.4%) so that a 
substantial majority of agencies could pass a given indicator. There is 
nothing in the standards and indicators to inform readers directly, for 
example, that there is considerable variation among grantee agencies 
operating under the same highly specific statute and regulations on a 
number of metrics relating to program efficiency. Administrative costs 
as a percentage of total expenditures vary by several hundred percent 
and average costs per person exiting in employment range among agencies 
from below $10,000 per individual to over ten times that figure, as 
your draft report notes. The Department is currently working to address 
these issues. 

We also agree with the draft report's observations that the first- 
generation indicators might be improved regarding the within-state wage 
and labor market variations you have cited but there are technical 
challenges to a labor economics approach to VR outcome measurement. An 
individual in a successful VR employment outcome is not required to 
work any particular number of hours or earn a threshold amount of 
money, or in the case of the few thousand homemaker closures, any 
money. Many individuals in the VR client population engage in earnings 
management (limitation) in order to maintain cash benefits and 
associated medical services (which may be of vital importance) while 
workers in the mainstream labor market typically try to make as much 
money as possible. Direct comparisons are difficult. 

The VR program is participating in the Administration's common measures 
initiative. But, as noted in your draft report, the program has faced a 
number of challenges in implementing the measures. We do intend, 
however, to implement and make readily available to the public 
information on the job training and employment common measures for the 
VR program. 

The report correctly notes that the current performance measures do not 
isolate data on certain key populations of VR participants. However, 
the Department does collect and can analyze data on the size of these 
populations, the services received, and the outcomes achieved. We 
intend to do more to highlight performance of key populations such as 
students who have exited special education programs. 

The IDEA transition population has been of continuing interest to the 
Congress. We note the draft report's observations about transitioning 
students receiving minimal purchased services, despite an expectation 
that substantial education and training would be needed to prepare them 
for employment. We intend to strengthen administration of the 
interlocking transition provisions between IDEA and the Rehabilitation 
Act. We intend to ensure that the comprehensive statewide assessment 
describing the rehabilitation needs of individuals within each state, 
required of VR agencies (Sec. 101(a)(15) of the Act), will include 
quantitative information on the numbers and characteristics of students 
projected by the state education agency to exit special education each 
year. For example, the numbers of students who are blind or who have 
orthopedic disabilities exiting special education in a given year can 
be predicted with high accuracy and it would be desirable for state 
education and rehabilitation agencies to exchange this information. The 
education system would also benefit from information from 
rehabilitation agencies on the eventual vocational outcomes of former 
IDEA students. 

We are, of course, aware that individuals with mental, cognitive or 
psychosocial impairments comprise over one half of individuals served 
by the program and that these individuals realize both low rates of 
employment and low rates of pay if employment is achieved. We note the 
relatively high percentage of recent repeat participants in VR programs 
and the confounding finding of more negative employment outcomes for 
these previous participants as indicated in figure 7, page 20. More 
needs to be learned about these outcomes. 

The draft report presents ED-collected data in a manner difficult for 
ED to crosscheck in detail in the brief time available. Certain 
information has been merged, doubtless in an effort to hold the draft 
report to a reasonable size. The factual information appears 
fundamentally correct but we note that some likely readers may take 
issue with how the information is presented. RSA's historical public 
reporting has been centered on successful outcomes. RSA has not 
emphasized a systems approach of reporting on all individuals who have 
left the program both with and without employment, nor has it 
emphasized direct comparisons or rankings of grantee performance. 

The analytic base for the draft report includes all individuals who 
have come into contact with the program, including those found to be 
ineligible and those leaving at an early stage. Consequently the 
measure of employment used by GAO is different from the measure 
specified in RSA's regulations. 

We suggest that the report would be strengthened technically and made 
more understandable within the grantee community by footnotes or 
annotations to indicate exactly which data sets and RSA reporting 
categories from the case services report and other reports were used to 
compute the statistical information. A discussion of the assumptions 
behind the analytic approach would be helpful also. Our staff would be 
available to meet with you to help conduct these technical reviews if 
you believe they would be useful and there is time to do this before 
release. 

We are fully aware of the need to gain a better understanding of the 
circumstances of the two thirds of individuals who come in contact with 
the VR system but do not exit with successful employment outcomes. We 
are concerned about the large number of exits, particularly as it 
relates to the program's efficiency. Some of these individuals who 
exited may have obtained jobs on their own, some may have become 
discouraged with what can be a lengthy process, and some may have been 
unable to obtain the services they desired in type, amount or timing. 
Some may have moved or changed or lost telephone service. Others may 
have been referred by third party agencies such as welfare or 
corrections without actually having a clear commitment to employment. 
Some individuals with mental or cognitive disabilities simply find it 
very difficult to act in their own long-term best interests to 
increase.the possibility of economic self-support. The two largest 
categories of nonsuccessful program exit cited in your draft report- 
"failed to cooperate or refused services" and "unable to locate or 
contact"--comprise seventy percent of unsuccessful exits, and the 
circumstances underlying these two broad categories definitely deserve 
closer examination. 

While we are concerned about the large number of individuals who exit 
the VR system before eligibility has been determined or after having 
been determined eligible, but before receiving services, we believe it 
is confusing and somewhat misleading to include these individuals in 
the calculation of the employment rate. In many cases, the VR agency or 
counselor has limited ability to influence the decision of a consumer 
to leave the VR system. If GAO is going to use a definition of the 
employment rate that is different from the one that RSA has 
historically used and that is reflected in the common measures, the 
report should be very explicit about the methodology used by GAO. The 
only time the term appears to be defined in the report is in the 
discussion of the VR program's performance indicators on page 8 and 
this definition is based on the VR regulations. 

We appreciate the opportunity to review this very interesting report 
and we believe that your findings will make an important contribution 
to improving the efficiency and productivity of the largest Federally- 
funded program to assist individuals with disabilities in obtaining and 
retaining employment. 

[End of section]

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Robert E. Robertson 202-512-7215 or robertsonr@gao.gov: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Michele Grgich, Assistant 
Director; Beverly Crawford; Shannon K. Groff; and Megan Matselboba made 
key contributions to this report. Also, Elizabeth H. Curda, Wilfred B. 
Holloway, Jonathan McMurray, Luann Moy, Peter Rumble, Daniel A. 
Schwimer, and Susan B. Wallace provided technical assistance. 

FOOTNOTES

[1] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119 (Washington, DC: 
January 2003). 

[2] This legislation was most recently reauthorized as part of the 
Workforce Investment Act of 1998. 

[3] In this report, the term state VR agencies refers to agencies in 
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories of 
American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico, and the 
Virgin Islands. 

[4] State VR agencies are required to develop a written individualized 
plan for employment for each eligible individual that includes the 
specific employment goal, the rehabilitation services needed to achieve 
that goal, the entities that will provide the services, and the methods 
available for procuring the services. The plan must be agreed to and 
signed by the eligible individual or by the individual's representative 
and approved by the VR counselor. 

[5] In contrast, Education does not count as employment the work 
activity of individuals who perform their work for a public or 
nonprofit organization in a segregated or sheltered setting, that is, a 
setting in which the eligible individuals primarily interact with other 
individuals with disabilities. Education's term for this is "extended 
employment."

[6] In this report we calculate the employment rate as the percentage 
of individuals who exited with employment after at least 90 days out of 
all the individuals who exited the VR program in fiscal year 2003. 
Education calculates the employment rate in a different manner, 
reporting it as the percentage of individuals who exited with 
employment after at least 90 days out of the group of individuals who 
received services under an employment plan. Education's rate is 
different from the employment rate we are using because Education does 
not include those individuals who exited without employment during the 
application phase or after limited services. Education's rate was 58 
percent nationwide in fiscal year 2003. 

[7] We are not able to adjust for inflation because individuals entered 
the VR program at different times. However, most individuals (75 
percent) who exited the program in fiscal year 2003 entered the program 
less than 2 years previously. 

[8] Almost one-quarter of these individuals had their cases closed 
without employment because state VR agencies could not locate or 
contact them. As a result, the employment status of these individuals 
was actually unknown at the time of their case closure. It is possible 
that some of these individuals may have found work between their last 
contact with the VR program and when the program actually closed their 
case. 

[9] A study in the late 1980s found that the total dollar cost for all 
types of services provided to VR individuals was actually two to three 
times greater than the cost of purchased services alone. (See M. 
Berkowitz et al., Enhanced Understanding of the Economics of 
Disability, final report submitted to the National Institute of 
Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Richmond, Virginia: Virginia 
Department of Rehabilitative Services, 1988, chapter 5). 

[10] VR agencies are required to utilize certain "comparable" services 
or benefits, if available, in part or in whole through any other 
program, before providing or paying for those services through the VR 
program. Services provided and/or paid for by other entities are 
included in Education's data as services furnished to an individual 
while in the VR program. 

[11] According to the fiscal year 2003 state plans submitted by each 
agency to Education, a majority of state VR agencies maintain a 
financial needs test to determine individuals' level of financial 
participation for certain VR services. 

[12] Without an experimental or rigorous quasi-experimental design with 
a valid comparison group, studying actual impact of the VR program is 
limited. 

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

[14] For figure 6, we compared hourly wages only among the 85 percent 
of individuals exiting the VR program in the discrete employment 
category for individuals not requiring any ongoing support services in 
an integrated setting. We did not compare the hourly wages among all 
individuals exiting with employment because some impairment groups had 
more individuals in certain employment categories not expected to have 
any earnings, such as homemakers and unpaid family workers, which would 
reduce their overall median hourly wages. Although we consider this a 
less useful measure, when all individuals exiting with employment in 
fiscal year 2003 are included, impairment groups achieved the following 
median hourly wages: $7 for cognitive, $8 for mental/psychosocial, $8 
for other physical, $6.67 for blind, $8.76 for orthopedic/neurological, 
and $9.29 for deaf. 

[15] These beneficiary figures include individuals receiving either 
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits or Supplemental 
Security Income (SSI) benefits, as well as individuals concurrently 
receiving both SSDI and SSI. Social Security beneficiaries must meet a 
strict definition of disability to qualify for benefits. They are 
presumed eligible for VR services and are considered to have a 
significant disability. A small number of beneficiaries (6 percent) 
were initially found ineligible for the VR program during the 
application phase because their disability was considered too 
significant to benefit from services (2 percent of all nonbeneficiary 
applicants were found ineligible for this reason). Four percent of all 
cases were missing values for whether an individual was receiving SSI 
or SSDI benefits at VR program entry. 

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

[17] These figures are based on beneficiaries' earnings at the time 
they exit the VR program, which is after 90 days on the job. SSDI 
benefits can be ceased after a beneficiary works for a 9-month trial 
work period and then earns a wage greater than the "substantial gainful 
activity" level set by the Social Security Administration, which was 
$800 per month for nonblind individuals and $1,330 per month for blind 
individuals in fiscal year 2003. We did not include individuals 
receiving SSI benefits in our computation because these benefits can be 
suspended based on an individual's total income and assets, and not 
just on earnings alone. 

[18] Education's data do not explicitly contain an indicator for 
transitioning students; therefore we classified individuals as 
transitioning students if they were younger than age 22 at VR program 
entry and had previously received special education services under an 
individualized education program (IEP). Overall, transitioning students 
comprised 12 percent (77,741) of all VR exits in fiscal year 2003. 

[19] Two percent of the cases for transitioning students were missing 
values for impairment type, and 3 percent of the cases for individuals 
under age 22 without IEPs at program entry were missing values for 
impairment type. 

[20] This employment rate for the 24 blind agencies includes 32 percent 
of individuals exiting as "homemakers." If those exiting as homemakers 
were reclassified from the employment category to an unemployment 
category, the blind agencies' collective employment rate would be 33 
percent for fiscal year 2003. 

[21] See RTI International, Study of Variables Related to State 
Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Performance (Revised Draft Final 
Report), (October 2004). 

[22] Under the Rehabilitation Act, state VR agencies invoking orders of 
selection define what constitutes a most significant disability. Many 
of these agencies define a most significant disability as one that 
seriously limits two or more functional capacities, among other varied 
criteria. Numerous other agencies, however, define it as one that 
seriously limits three or four functional capacities. All agencies must 
define a significant disability, in accordance with the Rehabilitation 
Act, as one that seriously limits at least one functional capacity and 
can be expected to require multiple VR services over an extended period 
of time. All Social Security disability beneficiaries automatically 
qualify as having at least a significant disability. 

[23] The Medicaid Buy-in program was part of the1999 Ticket to Work and 
Work Incentives Improvement Act that allows states to adjust their 
statutes to enable more persons with disabilities to maintain health 
benefits even after attaining employment. 

[24] State VR agency officials in Minnesota told us there may be 
inconsistency in how colocated VR offices credit who provides a certain 
service to an individual in the VR program (i.e., the VR office or the 
One-Stop center) because Education collects information on only one 
possible provider for each service. Education does not collect data 
about services provided at or referrals from colocated VR/One-Stop 
offices. 

[25] An exception is the main blind state VR agency office, which is 
affiliated with the main One-Stop center in the area. 

[26] Agencies' expenditures generally include both actual expenditures 
and unliquidated obligations incurred during the fiscal year. However, 
during our reliability assessment of Education's RSA-2 dataset 
containing agencies' reported expenditures, we found that 2 of the 15 
agencies we interviewed do not report both their expenditures and 
unliquidated obligations for a particular fiscal year, as instructed by 
Education's policy directive. Although we did not determine how many 
agencies only report actual expenditures, we were still able to 
conclude that the RSA-2 dataset was sufficiently reliable for our use. 

[27] An agency's service budget includes the total amount of services, 
including those purchased and provided in-house by an agency or agency- 
operated community rehabilitation program, for assessment, counseling, 
guidance, placement, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental 
impairments, training (including postsecondary education), maintenance, 
transportation, personal assistance services, and all other services. 

[28] While Education's written guidance informs state VR agencies to 
include expenditures such as administrative staff salaries, rent, 
utilities and supplies in their reporting of administrative costs, 
Education officials told us there is not uniformity in how agencies 
categorize and report all such expenditures. For example, some state VR 
agencies report actual administrative expenditures at their field 
offices in the expenditure category for counseling and guidance 
services provided by VR personnel. 

[29] The average percentage of total agency budgets spent on 
administrative costs was 17 percent among the blind agencies, 15 
percent among the combined agencies, and 11 percent among the general 
agencies. 

[30] These averages are based on an agency's total expenditures in 
fiscal year 2003 as well as the total number of individuals who exited 
their program in fiscal year 2003 with employment. 

[31] We excluded the 6 percent of individuals with blindness or other 
visual impairments who exited the 24 general state VR agencies in 
fiscal year 2003 because it is possible that those with less severe 
visual impairments would be serviced by these general agencies that 
also have a separate VR agency devoted solely to the blind in their 
state. However, blind and visually impaired individuals exiting general 
agencies in fiscal year 2003 collectively achieved a 39 percent 
employment rate. If individuals exiting as homemakers were reclassified 
from the employment category to an unemployment category, the blind 
agencies' employment rate among the blind and visually impaired would 
be 34 percent, and the combined agencies' rate would be 37 percent. 

[32] According to past GAO work, one key attribute of a successful 
performance measure is its coverage of all activities that an entity is 
expected to perform to support the intent of the program. GAO, Tax 
Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season 
Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002). 

[33] GAO-03-143. 

[34] See RTI International. 

[35] See RTI International. 

[36] It also recommended that Education consider whether additional 
measures were appropriate for the program. 

[37] Additional agencies affected by the common measures are the 
Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans 
Affairs, Department of the Interior, and Department of Housing and 
Urban Development. 

[38] The measures for adults include the percentage of individuals who 
entered employment, the percentage of individuals who retained 
employment for at least 6 months, and the increase in earnings of these 
individuals. The measures for youth include the percentage of 
individuals who entered employment or education, the percentage of 
individuals who attained a degree or certificate, and the increase in 
the literacy and numeracy skills of program participants. 

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

[40] Several of the common measures require access to state 
Unemployment Insurance wage data. 

[41] See RTI International. 

[42] While Education provided data on the status of fiscal year 2003 
monitoring reports (issued, not issued, or in process) for all 80 state 
VR agencies, it only provided data on the time period between 
monitoring reviews and the issuance of fiscal year 2003 monitoring 
reports for 44 of 65 reports issued to date. 

[43] In early 2004, Education instituted a 2-year monitoring cycle for 
fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005. 

[44] Education collects a large volume of data from state VR agencies 
and then compiles these data into tables. Education provides these 
tables containing numerous data elements, such as state VR agency 
expenditures by service and function, participants' average time 
between various stages of the VR program, and employment rates by 
impairment category, to its regional offices to use to monitor state VR 
agencies' performance and give them feedback. 

[45] However, WIA reauthorization legislation pending as of July 2005 
contains incentives for successful state VR agencies, including 
incentive grants for state VR agencies that demonstrate a high level of 
performance or significantly improve their level of performance in a 
reporting period. 

[46] Best practices refer to the processes, practices, and systems 
identified in public and private organizations that performed 
exceptionally well and are widely recognized as improving an 
organization's performance and efficiency in specific areas. 
Successfully identifying and applying best practices can reduce 
expenses and improve organizational efficiency. 

[47] Although Education requires the collection of certain data during 
monitoring visits to state VR agencies, such as data on transitioning 
students in fiscal year 2003 and on homemakers in fiscal year 2004, as 
of June 2005 it had yet to analyze these data. 

[48] These conferences included the National Transition Conference and 
National Forum of the Thirty-First Institute on Rehabilitation Issues 
(IRI). 

[49] As of April 2005, RSA had 138 staff members. Once its 
restructuring is completed, RSA projects that it will have 81 staff 
members. 

[50] For individuals exiting in the homemaker or unpaid family worker 
categories of employment, who are not expected to achieve any earnings, 
we converted to zeros all of the missing values that existed in the 
dataset for these individuals' earnings at exit. 

[51] Education collects 19 different data codes for type of primary 
impairment and 37 codes for an impairment's cause or source. We 
collapsed these 19 primary impairment codes into the 6 categories, used 
in this report, as follows: codes for Blindness, Other Visual 
Impairments, and Deaf-Blindness became our "Blind" category; the 5 
codes relating to deafness or hearing loss became our "Deaf" category; 
the 4 codes relating to orthopedic or neurological impairments became 
our "Orthopedic/neurological" category; the codes for Communicative 
impairments, Respiratory impairments, General physical debilitation, 
and Other physical impairments became our "Other physical" category; 
the code for Cognitive impairments remained our "Cognitive" category; 
the codes for Psychosocial and Other mental impairments became our 
"Mental/psychosocial" category. 

[52] The background section of this report describes how we collapsed 
Education's seven case closure categories into the four exit categories 
used in this report. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: