    Vocational Rehabilitation: Better Measures and Monitoring Could
    Improve the Performance of the VR Program (23-SEP-05,
    GAO-05-865).

    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.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-865
        ACCNO:   A37939
      TITLE:     Vocational Rehabilitation: Better Measures and Monitoring
    Could Improve the Performance of the VR Program
         DATE:   09/23/2005
      SUBJECT:   Aid for the disabled
    	     Employment assistance programs
    	     Employment of the disabled
    	     Federal aid to states
    	     Federal/state relations
    	     Monitoring
    	     Performance appraisal
    	     Performance measures
    	     Program evaluation
    	     Program management
    	     State-administered programs
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Vocational rehabilitation
    	     Vocational Rehabilitation Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-05-865

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

                           Report to Congressional Committees

    September 2005

    VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

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

    GAO-05-865

    [IMG]

    September 2005

    VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

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

                                     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

    .

    Without employment

    With employment

                                   0 1020304050607080

    Percent

    During the application phase After limited services	After services under
    an employment plan

                        Source: GAO analysis of Education data.

    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. United States Government Accountability Office

    Contents

      Letter

    Results in BriefBackgroundOne-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

    ConclusionsRecommendations for Executive ActionAgency Comments and Our
    Evaluation

                                           1

                                          3 4

    11

    30 37 39 40

    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 54

      Appendix VI	State VR Agency Total Administrative Costs as a Percentage of
      Total Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2003 60

    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

                                           9

                                           15

                                           16

                                         23 29

                                           30

      Figures

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

    2003 6 Figure 2: Individuals Exiting the VR Program, Fiscal Year 2003 12
    Figure 3: Reasons for Individuals Exiting the VR Program without

    Employment, Fiscal Year 2003 13 Figure 4: Primary Impairments of
    Individuals Exiting the VR Program, Fiscal Year 2003 18

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

    Impairment Group, Fiscal Year 2003 19 Figure 6: Median Hourly Wage by
    Impairment Group among

    Individuals Exiting the VR Program with Employment

    who did Not Require Ongoing Support Services, Fiscal

    Year 2003 20 Figure 7: Employment Status of Individuals Exiting the VR

    Program in Fiscal Year 2003 Who Previously Participated

    in the VR Program 21

    Abbreviations

    GPRA Government Performance and Results ActIEP individualized education
    programOMB Office of Management and BudgetPART Program Assessment Rating
    ToolRSA Rehabilitation Services Administration VR vocational
    rehabilitationWIA Workforce Investment Act

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

    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 MemberCommittee 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,
    consistentwith the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In fiscal year 2003, these
    state programs provided services to more than 1 million individuals
    withdisabilities. Although Education provides more than three-quarters of
    the program's funding, states have significant latitude in how they
    administertheir 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, whenVR
    became 1 of 17 mandated partners in state workforce investmentsystems. In
    addition, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999
    expanded the types of rehabilitation servicesavailable 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.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.

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

      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

    Background

    ensure better alignment with program goals and develop a better monitoring
    process that includes timelier and more effective feedback to state VR
    agencies. In commenting on the report, Education indicated that it is in
    full agreement that better measures and monitoring could improve the
    performance of the VR program. In addition, Education highlighted
    initiatives either planned or under way to improve the management of the
    VR program.

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

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

    Education collects information about all individuals who exit each state
    VR agency's program during a particular fiscal year, as reported by the

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

    3In 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.

    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

    o  	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);

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

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

    o  	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

    4State 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.

    interact.5 Second, Education counts self-employment as employment, whether
    the business is managed by the eligible individual or the state VR agency.
    Finally, Education considers certain types of unpaid work activity to be
    employment, such as homemakers whose work activity is keeping house for
    themselves or others in their households and unpaid workers in a family
    business or family farm.

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

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

    700,000

    600,000

    500,000

    400,000

    300,000

    200,000

    100,000

    0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

    Fiscal year

    Total exits

    Exits with employment Source: GAO analysis of Education data.

    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

    5In 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."

    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
                                   Performance target

    General or combined state VR agencies

    Blind state VR agenciesa

    Performance Indicator

    1. Employment standard

    Change in employment-the number of individuals exiting the Equal or exceed
    previous Equal or exceed VR program with employment in the current
    performance year performance year previous compared with the number
    exiting with employment in the prior performance year performance year

    Employment rate-percentage of individuals receiving services 55.8% 68.9%
    under an employment plan who exit the VR program with
    employment

    Competitive employment rate-percentage of individuals exiting 72.6% 35.4%
    the VR program with employment who were competitively
    employedb

    Significant disability rate-percentage of individuals exiting the 62.4%
    89.0% VR program with competitive employment who have significant

    c

    disabilities

    Wage Ratio-ratio of the average hourly earnings of individuals 0.52 0.59
    exiting the VR program with competitive employment to the average hourly
    earnings for all employed individuals in the state

    Increase in self-support-the difference between the percentage 53.0 30.4
    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

    2. Equal access to services standard

    The service rate for all individuals with disabilities from minority 0.80
    0.80 backgrounds as a ratio to the service rate for all non-minority

    d

    individuals with disabilities

    Source: GAO analysis of Education data.

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

    bEducation 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.

    cThe 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.

    dEducation 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.

    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