You are here: pes > evaluation > rehabilitation services and special institutions
  |
|
In FY 1998, the Department modified its contract with Research Triangle Institute (RTI) for the Longitudinal Study of the VR Services Program in order to extend follow-up on Longitudinal Study participants. The follow-up period was extended from three to five years in order to improve estimates of the VR program participants' long-term employment retention and the VR program's impact. Study findings with respect to expanded follow-up and long-term retention will be issued as a separate report in 2002. An abstract of the study is on the web at rti.org/units/ssid/cre/5440abs.cfm. Contact: Dr. Harold Kay, Director of Evaluation, Rehabilitation Services Administration at (202) 205-9883. Several interim reports have been completed; The "Second Interim Report: Characteristics and Perspectives of VR Consumers" (Dec. 1996), "Third Interim Report: Characteristics and Outcomes of Former VR Consumers with an Employment Outcome"(August 1998), "Fourth Interim Report: Characteristics and Outcomes of Transitional Youth in VR"(July 2000), "Vocational Rehabilitation Experiences Among Individuals Who Received a Supported Employment Outcome" (April 2000), and "Basic Skills and Labor Market Success: Findings from the VR Longitudinal Study" which appeared in AMERICAN REHABILITATION, Winter 1999/2000, Vol. 25 Nol 3, pp 11-18. The Three interim reports are on the web as an abstract and the full version in PDF at rti.org/publications/pubs.cfm?pub_cat_id=19. Contact: Dr. Harold Kay, Director of Evaluation, Rehabilitation Services Administration at (202) 205-9883.
In August of 1998, the Rehabilitation Act was reauthorized by title IV of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). The purpose of WIA is to provide workforce investment activities that increase the employment, retention, and earnings of program participants. Title I (section 121) of WIA requires the establishment of local one-stop delivery systems. The one-stop delivery system must, at a minimum, make available the core employment and training services identified in section 134(d)(2) of WIA. The Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants program and the Client Assistance program under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act are required partners in the operation of this system. The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, Title IV of WIA, which extends and modifies the Rehabilitation Act, specify VR program requirements for cooperative agreements with other components of the statewide workforce investment system (section 101(a)(11)). These cooperative agreements may provide for intercomponent staff training and technical assistance, the use of linked information and financial management systems, use of common customer service features, establishment of cooperative efforts with employers, identification of staff roles, responsibilities, and resources, and specification of procedures for resolving disputes. The Department of Labor (DOL) has awarded a contract to gather information on implementation and compliance with Title I of WIA. The DOL study is designed to provide a broad overview of WIA implementation. This study, as currently designed, will not address issues specific to consumers with disabilities or requirements under title IV of WIA. This study supplements the information obtained from the assessment of WIA implementation being conducted by the DOL, by providing a more in-depth picture of WIA implementation its as it relates to the State Vocational Rehabilitation program and consumers with disabilities. The study will report on promising practices regarding cooperation and coordination between VR and: a) WIA Title I programs and b) WIA partners. The study will also seek to identify problems emerging from WIA implementation that might interfere with provision of optimum services to individuals with disabilities. This study will garner input from State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) directors, appropriate VR staff, including those located in the local workforce investment areas in which a one-stop system operates; and organizations representing individuals with disabilities. Interviews will also be conducted with appropriate Workforce officials overseeing WIA Title I programs at various levels to obtain their perspectives on disability issues, particularly the accessibility for individuals with disabilities of Workforce sites and programs. Workforce officials will also be queried regarding cooperation and coordination with VR. Finally, this study will develop the design for a summative evaluation to be conducted in FY 2001. The later study would particularly focus on the impact of WIA on the VR system and VR consumers (including consumer outcomes), particularly at early-adopter states and one-stop sites. Contact: Dr. Harold Kay, Director of Evaluation, Rehabilitation Services Administration at (202) 205-9883.
There have been major developments in the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 that affect our work on the Evaluation Standards and Performance Indicators for the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) State Grants program. In view of these developments, it is necessary to test the feasibility of using Unemployment Insurance (UI) Wage Records to measure VR consumers' retention of employment and earnings. Section 106(a)(1)(C) of the Rehabilitation Act requires that to the maximum extent practicable, the VR Evaluation Standards and Performance Indicators be consistent with the core indicators of performance established under section 136(b) of WIA. Core indicators in section 136(b)(2)(A)(i)(II) and (III) measure "retention in unsubsidized employment 6 months after entry into the employment," and "earnings received in unsubsidized employment 6 months after entry into the employment," respectively. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published October 14, 1998, draft proposed VR performance indicators 4.1 and 4.2 would measure employment retention 6 months and 12 months after exit from the VR program for individuals with disabilities and individuals with significant disabilities. Section 136(f)(2) of WIA requires that "in measuring the progress of the State on State and local performance measures, a State shall utilize quarterly wage records, consistent with State law." As a consequence of the WIA legislation, the Department of Labor is planning to utilize the UI wage records in support of core indicators (II) and (III). It is, therefore, important that we field-test the use of UI records in preparation for implementing draft proposed Indicators 4.1 and 4.2 which would generally support WIA core indicators (II) and (III). It should be noted that this project will also support Section 101(a)(10) of the Rehabilitation Act that requires State VR agencies to report on the number (of VR consumers) who ended their participation in the program and who were employed 6 months and 12 months after securing, maintaining, advancing in, or regaining employment. The contractor will first pretest the use of UI wage records in a few cooperating VR agencies. Using this experience, RSA, with contractor support, would encourage all State VR agencies to match all their closures for a selected year with their State's UI database. The contractor will then review the results of this effort and provide RSA with a report that provides State-by-State information on: (1) the percentage of all the individuals closed by each State VR agency into paid employment who appear in the wage records; (2) limitations in individual State UI coverage that reduces the percentage of successful VR-UI matches; (3) barriers at the State level to obtaining UI wage record data; and (4) limitations in data processing capabilities that prevent VR agencies from matching and analyzing UI and VR records. The contractor will also test the Indicators in Proposed Standard 4 using the UI wage data. Contact: Dr. Harold Kay, Director of Evaluation, Rehabilitation Services Administration at (202) 205-9883 |
|
|
The Training program authorized under title III of the Rehabilitation Act supports training and related activities designed to increase the numbers of qualified personnel trained in providing rehabilitation services. This is accomplished primarily through two types of grants: long term training (preservice), and post employment training grants (inservice, continuing education and short term training). The long term training program supports academic training through grants to academic institutions that must direct 75 percent of the funds to trainee scholarships. Students who receive these scholarships must either work for a period of time in public or private nonprofit rehabilitation agencies or related agencies, including professional corporations or professional practice groups that have service arrangements with a State VR agency, or monetarily pay back the assistance they received. The public Vocational Rehabilitation program's greatest personnel need is for qualified rehabilitation counselors. Accordingly, most long term training grants are in areas that produce qualified counselors. A provision of the Rehabilitation Act referred to as the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) requires States to establish standards for counselors that are consistent with the highest standard in the State for that profession. In the past, many State VR agencies have hired counselors below the Masters level. Thus, the CSPD requirement is expected to generate a large demand by State VR agencies for more Masters level graduates. Although little data exist to project the total need, we do know that of the 10,000 counselors employed by State VR agencies, approximately 40% do not have a Masters degree and that most States have established a master's degree as their State standard. We know that many counselors are expected to retire soon and that they will need to be replaced with Masters level counselors. The purpose of the evaluation is to identify the responsiveness of the long term training program to the need for qualified rehabilitation personnel, with a focus on the profession of rehabilitation counseling. The evaluation will examine the current situation with respect to placement of RSA Scholars in appropriate settings, including State VR agencies, the factors that contribute to such placements, and current demand for such graduates. This evaluation seeks to identify the expected demand for Masters level rehabilitation counselors and other related staff, the expected supply, and the factors involved in meeting the projected demand. It will also identify existing and potential barriers in meeting demand, and provide recommendations for resolving barriers. In addition, the study will provide the Department with information on the current status of each State's standard, how many current employees meet the State standard, and the projected future demand for qualified rehabilitation personnel in each State. Contact: Dr. James Maxwell Planning and Evaluation Service, Department of Education at (202) 401-3571. |
|
|
The primary role of the Projects with Industry (PWI) program, as first authorized in the 1968 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act, was to provide a Federal vehicle for promoting greater participation of business and industry in the rehabilitation process. The purposes of the PWI program as stated in current law under section 611 of the Rehabilitation Act are to: (1) create and expand job and career opportunities for individuals with disabilities in the competitive labor market by engaging the talent and leadership of private industry as partners in the rehabilitation process; (2) identify competitive job and career opportunities and the skills needed to perform such jobs; (3) create practical job and career readiness and training programs; and (4) provide job placements and career advancement. To assist in carrying out these goals, PWI projects are required to establish Business Advisory Councils (BAC) that identify jobs and careers available in the community and provide advice on the appropriate skills and training needed for those jobs. Policy Study Associates conducted the last major evaluation of this program in 1985. This evaluation, as well as the requirement to develop program evaluation standards and performance indicators, was mandated by the 1984 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act. Since that time, statutory and regulatory actions and changes in program practices have shaped the current operation of the program. Most recently, the 1998 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act changed the composition and functions of the Business Advisory Council (BAC), the specific services required to be provided by PWI projects, the eligibility determination process, and data and information collection requirements. In particular, the 1998 Amendments require that the project's BAC include a representative of the appropriate designated State VR unit and that the BAC's analysis of job and career availability be consistent with the current and projected local employment opportunities identified by the local workforce investment board for the community under section 118(b)(1)(B) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. The Department's goal in conducting this study is to: (1) identify the unique role that PWI program currently plays in increasing the employment of individuals with disabilities, including an examination of its relationship to the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services program and (2) evaluate the extent to which the PWI program has been successful in meeting its statutory purposes, in particular, engaging the talent and leadership of private industry as partners in the rehabilitation process. Contact: Dr. Harold Kay, Director of Evaluation, Rehabilitation Services Administration at (202) 205-9883. |
|
|
The Independent Living (IL) evaluation encompasses a study of two Title VII independent living programs: Independent Living State grants and Centers for Independent Living (CIL). These programs promote a philosophy of independent living including consumer control, peer support, self-help, self-determination, equal access, and individual and system advocacy, in order to maximize the leadership, empowerment, independence, and productivity of individuals with significant disabilities, and the integration and full inclusion of such individuals into the mainstream of American society. The program has not been subjected to a comprehensive evaluation since 1986, but it has grown rapidly since then. The Department conducted a limited descriptive study of the program that, in a preliminary fashion: 1) examined the structure of the Independent Living (IL) programs and relationships among the programs (and relationships with the State IL councils, the VR service system and other IL service providers) to identify possible service gaps or duplications, 2) described how IL programs obtain information needed to measure outcomes, and 3) identified impediments to effective service delivery. Building on that study, this study is a more comprehensive examination of the above issues and also identifies program impacts including: a) consumer satisfaction, b) gains in consumer function, independence and empowerment, c) deinstitutionalization, d) reduction of barriers, and e) other program impacts (e.g., effects of systems advocacy). Contact: Dr. Harold Kay, Director of Evaluation, Rehabilitation Services Administration at (202) 205-9883. |
|
|
The study examines the consumer characteristics, services provided, outcomes, and management of the American Indian VR Services program and also compares its performance to the Title I VR services program. The evaluation will be completed in 2001. The American Indian VR Services program has been funded through a set-aside under the VR State Grants program since 1987. However, there is very limited information on the operation and performance of these projects. The most recent RSA evaluation of this program was conducted in 1985 and was limited to the project conducted by the Navajo Nation (NVRP). NVRP was the first project funded under the section 130 authority and is currently by far the largest project, with annual funding of more than three times the average annual grant for other projects funded under this program. In addition, a 1987 study funded by RSA broadly examined the special problems and needs of American Indians with disabilities on and off the reservations. Funding for this program has tripled since FY 1992, primarily as a result of increases in the statutorily mandated minimum set-aside (FY 1992 funds - $4.5 million, 16 projects; FY 1998 funds - $15.4 million, 47 projects). The recently enacted Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 further raise the minimum set-aside for Grants for Indians. The amendments require that between 0.75 and 1.5 percent of the funds appropriated for the VR State grants program in fiscal year 1999 be set aside for Grants for Indians, and in fiscal year 2000 not less than 1.0 percent or more than 1.5 percent of the funds appropriated must be set aside. The minimum set-aside prior to the 1998 Amendments was 0.5 percent. The Amendments also change the grant period from 36 months to up to 60 months. Contact: Dr. Harold Kay, Director of Evaluation, Rehabilitation Services Administration at (202) 205-9883. |
|
|
Seven demonstration projects were awarded to: Arkansas Rehabilitation Services (AR); Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (VT); Washington Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (WA); Berkeley Center for Independent Living (BCIL); Southwest Business, Industry and Rehabilitation Association (SWBIRA); The Development Team, Incorporated (TDTI); and United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc. (UCPA). Authorized by PL 102-569, Section 802(g)(7)), the evaluation addresses "the services provided, clients served, client outcomes obtained, implementation issues addressed, the cost effectiveness of the project, and the effects of increased choice on clients and service providers" in the demonstration projects. Three documents are available from the evaluation: the Final Report, the Executive Summary (which is bound with the Final Report, and an Operations Manual. Infouse conducted multiple visits to each project site, interviewed project managers and staff, reviewed project records, extracted data from consumer records, and surveyed consumers from each project. The Final Report describes the Choice model implemented by each project. It details the promising practices that represent major components of the choice models regarding: project entry (Expedited Eligibility, VT, Group Orientation, BCIL), empowerment training (Go for the Gold, AR; Empowerment Seminars, BCIL; Empowerment Workshops, WA; Employability Assessment Workshop, SWBIRA), helpers (Consumer Connectors, AR; Rehabilitation Team, WA; Employment Advisors, UCPA), plan process and development (Facilitated Peer Group, TDTI; Self-Employment and Peer Lending, VT), payment systems (Imprest Cash, VT; Open Provider Payment System, BCIL; Personal Accounts, UCPA), and a Consumer's Counselor Performance Review, VT. The study examined patterns of the types of services and providers used by participants and the impact of choice on providers of purchased services. Project designs had a significant impact on the types of services and service providers used by participants. Some projects did not develop vendor lists while other projects sought out new providers. Generally, many providers who dealt with Choice participants were not aware that these individuals were involved in the projects at all. Also, Choice consumers, in some cases, purchased goods on the open market at significantly less cost than if they had purchased the same items using State-negotiated price lists. The Choice project consumers expressed high levels of satisfaction with their degree of involvement in decision making during the rehabilitation process. Generally, Choice project consumers' levels of satisfaction were similar to the levels of satisfaction expressed by State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agency consumers. Average annual cost per participant in the projects was significantly higher than the average participant cost for VR agencies. However, added costs frequently were incurred in providing the additional services and supports useful in expanding consumer choice (e.g., helpers, empowerment training, extensive consumer planning processes). Creating prototypes of new services tends to increase costs. Comparisons of employment outcomes between the VR agencies in choice projects were inconclusive due to differences in the way outcome measures were taken. The Final Report recommends the adoption of expedited eligibility, implementation of imprest cash, training consumers in new service models that enhance consumer choice, exploring the impact of alternative methods of purchasing services, experimenting with setting limits on service budgets, conducting research on the relationship between consumer choice and employment outcomes, and utilizing State Innovation and Expansion funds to implement the various promising practices for enhancing consumer choice. RSA is planning to conduct a national dissemination conference to review the study's findings and recommendations and encourage State VR agencies to adopt those recommendations that are particularly useful. The Operations Manual is a companion to the Final Report. Each Choice demonstration project pioneered specific practices that can teach a great deal about implementing Choice. The Manual presents sixteen representative promising practices that emerged from the projects as candidates for replication in various contexts. The descriptions of promising practices include original forms, policies, and other implementation materials intended to help VR agencies and other organizations develop similar practices. All three documents are available and are now posted on InfoUse's web site (http://www.infouse.com/choice). Both the Executive Summary and Operations Manual are also available as ASCII text files. These files may be viewed over the Internet and saved as a text file using different word processing software. Users of "Screen Reader" software may use these files to access the documents. Contact: Dr. Harold Kay, Director of Evaluation, Rehabilitation Services Administration at (202) 205-9883. |
|
|
PAIR, authorized under section 509 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Act), is mandated "to support a system in each State to protect the legal and human rights of eligible individuals with disabilities." As such, PAIR is required to be part of the protection and advocacy (P&A) system in each State. To be eligible for PAIR services, an individual must be ineligible for the Protection and Advocacy for Developmental Disabilities (PADD) program and the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) program; and the individual must need services that are beyond the scope of services offered by the Client Assistance Program (CAP). This study focused on 11 objectives, among which included: identifying how PAIRs set their annual priorities and objectives; identifying the proportion of individuals who seek PAIR services whose concerns are not within the PAIR's priorities; describing how PAIRs evaluate the effectiveness of their systemic advocacy; determining whether PAIRs serve individuals who are eligible for other P&A programs; and identifying the allocation of staff time and resources to PAIR activities versus other P&A activities. Westat conducted the study in two phases. In phase one, Westat staff reviewed documents submitted by RSA and the PAIR programs. These documents included copies of the PAIR annual report forms, PAIR application packages, which included each of the PAIR's annual priorities, and other information such as brochures and handouts submitted directly by the PAIR programs. The analysis of these data provided the basis for the selection of sites to be visited in phase two of the study. In phase two, Westat visited nine States. The States chosen reflected the wide variability that characterizes the PAIR programs. The two primary criteria used to select the nine sites were the State affiliation of the PAIR program and the size of the State's PAIR allotment. During the three-day site visits, Westat interviewed PAIR and P&A staff, as well as a member of the P&A Board of Directors or PAIR Advisory Council if appropriate. The site visits revealed wide variation in how the PAIRs operate. Although much of the information learned clearly was specific to the actual sites visited, some generalizations can be made. The study found that many P&As are reorganizing into "issue teams" rather than being organized the traditional way along funding streams. The study also found that P&As put forth significant effort to ensure that PAIRs serve only PAIR-eligible individuals. If you have any questions concerning the Final Report, please call. Contact: Dr. Harold Kay, Director of Evaluation, Rehabilitation Services Administration at (202) 205-9883 or Roseann Eshbach at 202-205-9315. |
|
|
The purpose of the study was to determine whether the organizational structures and State affiliation of CAPs affect their style and methods of dispute resolution or their autonomy in carrying out mandated functions. The CAP is mandated under section 112 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Act), to advise and assist individuals with disabilities regarding their rights and benefits under the Act and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Section 112(c)(1)(A) mandates that the CAP be independent of any entity that provides treatment, services, or rehabilitation under the Act, with only a narrow exception to this mandate. However, the Act is silent as to which public or private agency in the State may be designated the CAP. As a result, there are three broad categories of organizational structures for the CAP: 1) CAPs that are internal to the State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agency; 2) CAPs that are part of the State's protection and advocacy (P&A) agency; and 3) CAPs housed in other agencies or entities (such as in the Governor's office, in a legal aid program, in another State agency, or in a private non-profit). Westat conducted the study in two phases. In phase one, Westat staff reviewed documents submitted by RSA and the CAP programs. These documents included copies of the CAP annual report forms (RSA-227), RSA-722 data, RSA monitoring reports of those CAPs that had been monitored in recent years, and other information such as brochures and handouts submitted directly by the CAPs. The analysis of these data provided the basis for the selection of sites to be visited in phase two of the study. In phase two, Westat visited nine States. Three of each of the three kinds of CAP organizational structures (internal, P&A, and other) were visited; four of the nine CAPs visited were State-operated and five were not. During the three-day site visits, Westat interviewed CAP and VR staff, as well as other appropriate staff from the designated CAP agency. The site visits revealed considerable variation among the nine CAPs chosen for the on-site portion of the study. However, the organizational structure for the CAP and its State affiliation did not have a major impact on how the CAPs resolve conflict or on their autonomy. The differences appeared to result more from personal styles and approaches. The Final Report makes recommendations for future research. First, conduct a more in-depth investigation of the relationship between CAP and VR staff. Second, examine the impact of CAP organizational structures and State affiliations on client outcomes. Third, examine CAP functioning from the perspective of other entities in the State with which the CAP has contacts (e.g., the State Rehabilitation Council, the Statewide Independent Living Council, etc.) Contact: Dr. Harold Kay, Director of Evaluation, Rehabilitation Services Administration at (202) 205-9883. |
  |
|
||
| Tell us what you think of this site and tell us how we can better meet your needs. Send your comments to evaluation@ed.gov |
|||
 |
|||
|
|
||
| this page was last updated on 11/21/2005 (jer) | |||
