Vocational Rehabilitation: Improved Information and Practices May
Enhance State Agency Earnings Outcomes for SSA Beneficiaries	 
(23-MAY-07, GAO-07-521).					 
                                                                 
State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies, under the	 
Department of Education (Education), play a crucial role in	 
helping individuals with disabilities prepare for and obtain	 
employment, including individuals receiving disability benefits  
from the Social Security Administration (SSA). In a prior report 
(GAO-05-865), GAO found that state VR agencies varied in the	 
rates of employment achieved for SSA beneficiaries. To help	 
understand this variation, this report analyzed SSA and Education
data and surveyed state agencies to determine the extent to which
(1) agencies varied in earnings outcomes over time; (2) 	 
differences in state economic conditions, client demographic	 
traits, and agency strategies could account for agency		 
performance; and (3) Education's data could be used to identify  
factors that account for differences in individual earnings	 
outcomes.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-521 					        
    ACCNO:   A69847						        
  TITLE:     Vocational Rehabilitation: Improved Information and      
Practices May Enhance State Agency Earnings Outcomes for SSA	 
Beneficiaries							 
     DATE:   05/23/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Aid for the disabled				 
	     Beneficiaries					 
	     Data collection					 
	     Data integrity					 
	     Economic analysis					 
	     Employment assistance programs			 
	     Employment of the disabled 			 
	     Federal social security programs			 
	     Persons with disabilities				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     State-administered programs			 
	     Vocational rehabilitation				 
	     Disability Insurance Program			 
	     Supplemental Security Income Program		 
	     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-07-521

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background

          * [3]Challenges Facing the Social Security Disability Program
          * [4]Description of Education's Vocational Rehabilitation Program

     * [5]State VR Agencies Consistently Showed Very Different Rates o

          * [6]Proportion with Earnings, Earnings Levels, and Departures fr
          * [7]Trends Were Similar over Time and by Agency Type

     * [8]State Economic Conditions and SSA Beneficiary Characteristic

          * [9]Differences in Agency Outcomes Were Largely Due to a State's
          * [10]Demographic Characteristics and the Types of Disabilities of

               * [11]Demographic Differences
               * [12]Differences in Types of Disabilities
               * [13]Proportion of SSA Beneficiaries Served

     * [14]A Few Agency Practices Appeared to Yield Better Earnings Out

          * [15]Agencies with State-Certified Counselors or Strong Relations
          * [16]Agency Expenditures on Training Yield Positive Outcomes
          * [17]Effect of Using In-house Benefits Counselors is Unclear
          * [18]VR Officials in Some Agencies Credited Other Practices with

     * [19]Limitations in Education's Data May Have Hampered Analyses o
     * [20]Conclusions
     * [21]Recommendations for Executive Action
     * [22]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * [23]Section 1: Data Used, Information Sources, and Data Reliabil

          * [24]Education and SSA Beneficiary Data
          * [25]VR Agency Administrative Data
          * [26]State Economic and Demographic Data
          * [27]VR Agency Survey Data

     * [28]Section 2: Study Population and Descriptive Analyses

          * [29]Study Population
          * [30]Computation of Dependent Variables
          * [31]Departures from the Disability Rolls
          * [32]Descriptive Analyses

     * [33]Section 3: Econometric Analyses
     * [34]Section 4: Limitations of our Analyses
     * [35]GAO Comments
     * [36]GAO Comments
     * [37]GAO Contact
     * [38]Acknowledgments
     * [39]GAO's Mission
     * [40]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [41]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [42]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [43]Congressional Relations
     * [44]Public Affairs

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

May 2007

Report to Congressional Requesters

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Improved Information and Practices May Enhance State Agency Earnings
Outcomes for SSA Beneficiaries

GAO-07-521

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3
Background 6
State VR Agencies Consistently Showed Very Different Rates of Success for
SSA Beneficiaries Who Completed VR Programs 11
State Economic Conditions and SSA Beneficiary Characteristics Account for
Much of the Difference in State VR Agency Success Rates 19
A Few Agency Practices Appeared to Yield Better Earnings Outcomes, while
the Results of Other Practices Were Inconclusive 24
Limitations in Education's Data May Have Hampered Analyses of Individual
Earnings Outcomes 27
Conclusions 29
Recommendations for Executive Action 30
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 30
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 33
Section 1: Data Used, Information Sources, and Data Reliability 33
Section 2: Study Population and Descriptive Analyses 44
Section 3: Econometric Analyses 46
Section 4: Limitations of our Analyses 52
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Education 55
Appendix III Comments from the Social Security Administration 64
Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 73
Related GAO Products 74

Tables

Table 1: Explanatory Variables from the TRF Subfile 35
Table 2: Explanatory Variables from Education's RSA-2 Data 36
Table 3: State Economic and Demographic Explanatory Variables and Their
Sources 38
Table 4: Explanatory Variables from the VR Agency Survey Data 40
Table 5: Dependent Variables Used in the Analyses 45
Table 6: Coefficients for Multivariate Models Estimating the Effects of
State and Agency Characteristics on Three VR Outcomes, and the Proportion
of Variance Explained (R-Squared) by Each Model 50

Figures

Figure 1: Distribution of State VR Agencies by Percentage of SSA
Beneficiaries with Earnings during the Year after VR 12
Figure 2: Distribution of State VR Agency Average Annual Earnings for SSA
Beneficiaries with Earnings during the Year after VR 13
Figure 3: Distribution of State VR Agencies by Percentage of SSA
Beneficiaries Leaving the Rolls 14
Figure 4: Range across State VR Agencies of the Percentage of SSA
Beneficiaries with Earnings during the Year after VR by Year 15
Figure 5: Range of State VR Agency Average Earnings for SSA Beneficiaries
by Year 16
Figure 6: Range across State VR Agencies of the Percentage of SSA
Beneficiaries with Earnings during the Year after VR by Agency Type 17
Figure 7: Range of State VR Agency Average Earnings for SSA Beneficiaries
by Agency Type 18
Figure 8: Range of State VR Agency Average Rates of SSA Beneficiaries
Leaving the Rolls by Agency Type 19

Abbreviations

CPI-U Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
CSPD Comprehensive System of Personnel Development
DI Disability Insurance
GSP gross state product
IPE individual plan of employment
MEF Master Earnings File
OLS ordinary least squares
SSA Social Security Administration
SSI Supplemental Security Income
TRF Ticket Research File
VR vocational rehabilitation
WIA 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

May 23, 2007 May 23, 2007

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel
Chairman
The Honorable Jim McCrery
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives

The Honorable Michael R. McNulty
Chairman
The Honorable Sam Johnson
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Social Security
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives

The Honorable Sander M. Levin
House of Representatives

State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies, under the auspices of the
Department of Education (Education), play a crucial role in helping
individuals with disabilities prepare for and obtain employment. In fiscal
year 2005, state VR agencies received $2.6 billion to provide people with
disabilities a variety of supports such as job counseling and placement,
diagnosis and treatment of impairments, vocational training, and
postsecondary education. The VR program serves about 1.2 million people
each year, and over a quarter of those who complete VR are beneficiaries
of the Disability Insurance (DI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
programs administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA). This
proportion has increased steadily since 2002. As our society ages, the
number of SSA disability beneficiaries is expected to grow, along with the
cost of providing SSA disability benefits, and it will be increasingly
important to manage this growth by optimizing the ability of VR programs
to help and encourage SSA beneficiaries to participate in the workforce.
State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies, under the auspices of the
Department of Education (Education), play a crucial role in helping
individuals with disabilities prepare for and obtain employment. In fiscal
year 2005, state VR agencies received $2.6 billion to provide people with
disabilities a variety of supports such as job counseling and placement,
diagnosis and treatment of impairments, vocational training, and
postsecondary education. The VR program serves about 1.2 million people
each year, and over a quarter of those who complete VR are beneficiaries
of the Disability Insurance (DI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
programs administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA). This
proportion has increased steadily since 2002. As our society ages, the
number of SSA disability beneficiaries is expected to grow, along with the
cost of providing SSA disability benefits, and it will be increasingly
important to manage this growth by optimizing the ability of VR programs
to help and encourage SSA beneficiaries to participate in the workforce.

In 2005, GAO reported that state VR agencies varied substantially in terms
of the employment rates they achieved for their clients,^1 particularly
for SSA beneficiaries who, according to research, attain lower employment
and earnings outcomes than other VR clients.^2 Depending on the state
agency, as many as 68 percent and as few as 9 percent of SSA beneficiaries
exited VR with employment. In addition, GAO found that Education's
management of the VR program was lacking in several respects and
recommended that Education revise its performance measures to account for
economic differences between states, make better use of incentives for
state VR agencies to meet performance goals, and create a means for
disseminating best practices among state VR agencies. Education agreed
with these recommendations but has yet to implement them.

As a follow-up to our 2005 report, you asked us to determine what may
account for the wide variations in state VR agency outcomes with respect
to SSA beneficiaries. Therefore, we examined the extent to which (1)
differences in VR agency outcomes for SSA beneficiaries continued over
several years and across different outcome measures, (2) differences in VR
agency outcomes were explained by state economies and demographic traits
of the clientele served, (3) differences in VR agency outcomes were
explained by specific policies and strategies of the VR agencies, and (4)
Education's data allowed for an analysis of factors that account for
differences in individual-level (as opposed to agency-level) outcomes.

To perform our work, we used several data sources: (1) a newly available
longitudinal dataset that includes administrative data from Education and
SSA on SSA beneficiaries who completed the VR program between 2001 and
2003, ^3 (2) original survey data collected by GAO from 78 of the 80 state
VR agencies, (3) data from Education on yearly spending information by
service category for each VR agency, and (4) data from the Census Bureau,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other data sources regarding state
demographic and economic characteristics. We conducted reliability
assessments of these data and found them to be sufficiently reliable for
our analyses.

^1GAO, Vocational Rehabilitation: Better Measures and Monitoring Could
Improve the Performance of the VR Program, [45]GAO-05-865 (Washington,
D.C.: September 2005).

^2David C. Stapleton and William A. Erickson, "Characteristics or
Incentives: Why Do Employment Outcomes for the SSA Beneficiary Clients of
VR Agencies Differ, on Average, from Those of Other Clients?"
(Rehabilitation Research and Training Center for Economic Research on
Employment Policy for Persons with Disabilities, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York, Oct. 2004).

^3The longitudinal dataset from SSA and Education contains information on
beneficiaries for a longer time horizon (i.e., 1998 through 2004).
However, we focused on the cohorts completing VR between 2001 and 2003
because, at the time of our analysis, data were not available on earnings
after 2004. Further, we excluded earlier cohort years due to limitations
associated with collecting survey data from VR agencies prior to 2000. See
appendix I for more information on our data.

We took several steps to analyze these data. To answer our questions, we
analyzed outcomes by state agency using three different earnings outcomes:
(1) the percentage of beneficiaries with earnings during the year after
VR, (2) the average beneficiary's annual earnings level during the year
after VR, and (3) the percentage of beneficiaries that left the disability
rolls by the close of 2005.^4 For objective one, we conducted descriptive
statistical analyses of the data. For objectives two, three, and four, we
conducted econometric analyses that controlled for a variety of
explanatory factors.^5 We also identified and interviewed academic and
agency experts in an effort to determine what variables to include in our
models. As is the case with most statistical analyses, our work was
limited by certain factors, such as the unavailability of certain
information and the inability to control for unobservable characteristics
and those that are not quantifiable. Our results only describe earnings
outcomes of SSA beneficiaries included in our study and cannot be
generalized beyond that population. We conducted our review from December
2005 through April 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. See appendix I for a more detailed description of our
scope and methods.

Results in Brief

When we analyzed state agency outcomes for SSA beneficiaries who completed
VR between 2001 and 2003, we found that differences in agency outcomes
continued over several years and across several outcome measures--i.e.,
rates of beneficiaries with earnings, earnings levels, and departures from
the disability rolls. The proportion of beneficiaries with earnings during
the year after their completion of the VR program ranged from as little as
0 percent in one state agency to as high as 75 percent in another.
Similarly, average annual earnings levels among those SSA beneficiaries
with earnings varied across state agencies from $1,500 to nearly $17,000
in the year following VR. Additionally, the proportion of SSA
beneficiaries who left the disability rolls varied greatly among agencies,
with departure rates ranging anywhere from 0 to 20 percent.

^4For the purposes of our study, leaving the rolls is defined as the
termination of cash disability benefits due to work.

^5We conducted our analyses using multivariate regression analysis.

After controlling for certain economic, demographic, and agency factors,
we found that state economic conditions and the characteristics of
agencies' clientele accounted for much of the differences in average
earnings outcomes across state agencies. Specifically, state unemployment
rates and state per capita income levels accounted for a substantial
portion--as much as one-third--of the differences between state agencies'
VR outcomes for SSA beneficiaries. For example, significantly fewer SSA
beneficiaries had earnings during the year after VR in those states with
higher unemployment rates and lower per capita incomes. Despite the
significant effect that state economies have on state agency outcomes,
Education currently does not consider such factors when analyzing state
agency outcomes and assessing their performance. Variations in the
demographic profile of SSA client populations also accounted for some of
the differences in earnings outcomes among agencies. For example, state VR
agencies serving a higher percentage of women beneficiaries had
significantly fewer SSA clients with earnings during the year after VR.

We also found, after controlling for the same factors, that a few agency
practices helped explain differences in state agency outcomes for SSA
beneficiaries--and some were associated with positive outcomes. For
example, agencies with a higher proportion of state-certified VR
counselors--a certification now mandated by Education--had more SSA
beneficiaries exiting the VR program with earnings. Further, agencies with
closer ties to the business community also achieved higher average annual
earnings for SSA beneficiaries and higher rates of departures from the
disability rolls. Currently, Education promotes ties to the business
community through an employer network. Our findings also show that
agencies that received a greater degree of support and cooperation from
other public programs or that spent a greater proportion of their service
expenditures on training of VR clients had higher average annual earnings
for SSA beneficiaries completing VR.

We were unable to account for differences in individual beneficiary
outcomes, which might further explain differences in state agency
outcomes, in part because of limitations in Education's data. Our
statistical models were able to explain a greater percentage of the
differences in earnings outcomes when we analyzed state agency earnings
outcomes compared to individual earnings outcomes (i.e., as much as 77
percent compared to 8 percent). With so little variation explained by our
analyses of individual-level outcomes, we decided not to report our
individual-level analyses. Education's data lack information that we
believe is critical to assessing earnings outcomes, and this may have
hindered our ability to explain the variation in individual earnings
outcomes. Specifically, although Education collects extensive client-level
data, it does not systematically collect data that research has linked to
work outcomes, such as detailed information on the severity of the
client's disability--data that some state agencies independently collect
for program purposes. Knowing the severity of a disability can indicate
whether a person is physically or mentally limited in his or her ability
to perform work, a fact that may influence the person's earnings outcomes.
Further, other key data are self-reported and may not be verified by state
agencies.

We are recommending that Education consider the implications of the
results of our analyses in its management of the VR program. Specifically,
Education should further promote certain agency practices that we found
show an effect on state agency outcomes and reassess the client-level data
it collects through its state agencies. We also continue to believe that,
as we recommended in our 2005 report, Education should consider economic
factors, such as unemployment rates, when evaluating state agency
performance.

We received written comments on a draft of this report from Education and
SSA. While Education generally agreed with the substance of our
recommendations, it disagreed on when economic conditions and state
demographics should be considered in assessing performance. Instead of
using this information to help set performance measures, the department
said that it takes these factors into account when it monitors agency
performance results and believes that its approach is more effective. We
continue to believe that incorporating this contextual information in
assessing performance measures is essential to provide the state agencies
with a more accurate picture of their relative performance. Although
Education stated that it was open to our recommendation on improving data
quality, it suggested that validating self-reported information would be a
potential burden to state agencies and suggested other approaches, such as
conducting periodic studies. Our recommendation that Education explore
cost-effective ways to validate self-reported data was based on the
experience of some VR agencies that have obtained data successfully from
official sources and not relied solely on self-reported information.

SSA stated that our report has methodological flaws that introduced
aggregation bias and false correlations, and suggested that we should have
focused on individual-level analysis or reported the results of both
individual and aggregate-level analysis. We used aggregated data--a widely
used means of analysis--because our primary objective was to understand
better the wide variation in outcomes for state VR agencies that serve SSA
beneficiaries rather than the outcomes for individuals. We used
appropriate statistical techniques to ensure against bias and false
correlations. Both Education and SSA provided additional comments, which
we have addressed or incorporated, as appropriate. Education's and SSA's
comments are reprinted in appendixes II and III respectively, along with
our detailed responses.

Background

Challenges Facing the Social Security Disability Program

In 2005, the Social Security Administration provided income support to
more than 10 million working age people with disabilities. This income
support is provided in the form of monthly cash benefits under two
programs administered by the Social Security Administration--the
Disability Insurance program and the Supplemental Security Income program.
Some individuals, known as concurrent beneficiaries, qualify for both
programs. The federal government's cost of providing these benefits was
almost $101 billion in 2005.

Over the last decade, the number of disability beneficiaries has
increased, as has the cost of both the SSI and DI programs. This growth,
in part, prompted GAO in 2003 to designate modernizing federal disability
programs as a high-risk area--one that requires attention and
transformation to ensure that programs function in the most economical,
efficient, and effective manner possible. GAO's work found that federal
disability programs were not well positioned to provide meaningful and
timely support for Americans with disabilities. For example, despite
advances in technology and the growing expectations that people with
disabilities can and want to work, SSA's disability programs remain
grounded in an outmoded approach that equates disability with incapacity
to work. In 1999, GAO testified that even relatively small improvements in
return-to-work outcomes offer the potential for significant savings in
program outlays. GAO estimated that if an additional 1 percent of working
age SSA disability beneficiaries were to leave the disability rolls as a
result of returning to work, lifetime cash benefits would be reduced by an
estimated $3 billion.

SSA has had a long-standing relationship with Education's VR program,
whereby SSA may refer beneficiaries to the VR program for assistance in
achieving employment and economic independence.^6 As part of this
relationship, SSA reimburses VR state agencies for the cost of providing
services to beneficiaries who meet SSA's criteria for successful
rehabilitation (i.e., earnings at the substantial gainful activity level
for a continuous 9-month period). To further motivate beneficiaries to
seek VR assistance and expand the network of VR providers, Congress
enacted legislation in 1999 that created SSA's Ticket to Work (Ticket)
Program.^7 Under the Ticket program, beneficiaries receive a document,
known as a ticket, which can be used to obtain VR and employment services
from an approved provider such as a state VR agency. Thus far, only a
small fraction of SSA beneficiaries have used the Ticket program to obtain
VR services. Administered by SSA, this program was intended to (1)
increase the number of beneficiaries participating in VR by removing
disincentives to work, and (2) expand the availability of VR services to
include private VR providers. To date private VR providers have not
participated heavily in the Ticket program, with over 90 percent of SSA
beneficiaries participating in the Ticket program still receiving services
from state VR agencies.

Despite programs such as Ticket, SSA beneficiaries who wish to participate
in the workforce still face multiple challenges. As we have previously
reported, some SSA beneficiaries will not be able to return to work
because of the severity of their disability.^8 But those who do return to
work may face other obstacles that potentially deter or prevent them from
leaving the disability rolls, such as (1) the need for continued health
care, (2) lack of access to assistive technologies that could enhance
their work potential, and (3) transportation difficulties.

^6Individuals may be referred from SSA to state VR agencies by state
disability determination services (DDS), which are funded by SSA to render
the initial decision on whether an individual qualifies for DI or SSI
benefits, and thus are in a good position to consider whether the
individual is an appropriate candidate for VR.

^7Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, Pub. L. No.
106-170 (1999). The Ticket to Work Program was implemented in three
phases, beginning in February 2002. Under the Ticket program, VR agencies
and other providers can opt for one of two different reimbursement
methods, one based on a successful outcome, the other based on
successfully reaching milestones. State VR agencies can also continue to
be reimbursed under the traditional cost reimbursement program if the
beneficiary does not utilize his or her ticket to obtain services.

^8 GAO, Social Security: Disability Programs Lag in Promoting Return to
Work, [46]GAO/HEHS-97-46 (Washington, D.C.: March 1997).

Description of Education's Vocational Rehabilitation Program

The Vocational Rehabilitation Program is the primary federal government
program helping individuals with disabilities to prepare for and obtain
employment. Authorized by Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the
VR program is administered by the Rehabilitation Services Administration,
a division of the Department of Education, in partnership with the states.
The Rehabilitation Act contains the general provisions states should
follow in providing VR services. 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 blind
individuals. Twenty-four states have two separate agencies, one that
exclusively serves blind and visually impaired individuals (known as blind
agencies) and another that serves individuals who are not blind or
visually impaired (known as general agencies). Twenty-six states, the
District of Columbia, and five territories have a single combined agency
that serves both blind and visually impaired individuals and individuals
with other types of impairments (known as combined agencies). In total,
there are 80 state VR agencies. ^9

Although Education provides the majority of the funding for state VR
agencies, state agencies have significant latitude in the administration
of VR programs. Within the framework of legal requirements, state agencies
have adopted different policies and approaches to achieve earnings
outcomes for their clients. For example, although all state VR agencies
are required to have their VR counselors meet Comprehensive System of
Personnel Development (CSPD) standards, states have the ability to define
the CSPD certification standard for their VR counselors. Specifically,
under the CSPD states can establish certification standards for VR
counselors based on the degree standards of the highest licensing,
certification, or registration requirement in the state, or based on the
degree standards of the national certification. For example, if an agency
bases its certification standard on the national standard, VR counselors
are required to have a master's degree in vocational counseling or another
closely related field, hold a certificate indicating they meet the
national requirement, or take certain graduate-level courses. Regardless
of the individual state's definition of the certification standard,
research has shown that VR agencies are concerned about meeting their
needs for state-certified counselors because many experienced VR
counselors may retire in the coming years, and a limited supply of
qualified VR counselors are entering the labor market.^10

9In this report, when we refer to state VR agencies, we are including
agencies in the states and territories.

VR agencies also vary in their locations within state government and their
operations. Some are housed in state departments of labor or education,
while others are free-standing agencies or commissions. Similarly, while
all VR agencies are partners in the state workforce investment system, as
mandated in the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, VRs vary in the
degree to which they coordinate with other programs participating in this
system. ^11 For example, some VRs have staff colocated at WIA one-stop
career centers, while others do not.

By law, each of the 80 VR agencies is required to submit specific
information to Education regarding individuals that apply for, and are
eligible to receive, VR services. Some of the required information
includes (1) the types and costs of services the individuals received; (2)
demographic factors, such as impairment type, gender, age, race, and
ethnicity; and (3) income from work at the time of application to the VR
program. Education also collects additional information such as (1) the
weekly earnings and hours worked by employed individuals, (2) public
support received,^12 (3) whether individuals sustained employment for at
least 90 days after receiving services,^13 and (4) summary information on
agency expenditures in a number of categories from each state VR agency.

Education also monitors the performance of state VR agencies, and since
2000, Education has used two standards for evaluating their performance.
One assesses the agencies' performance in assisting individuals in
obtaining, maintaining, or regaining high-quality employment. The second
assesses the agencies' performance in ensuring that individuals from
minority backgrounds have equal access to VR services. Education also
publishes performance indicators that establish what constitutes minimum
compliance with these performance standards. Six performance indicators
were published for the employment standard, and one was published for the
minority service standard. To have passing performance, 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.

^10Tsze Chan, Recruiting and Retaining Professional Staff in State VR
Agencies: Some Preliminary Findings from the RSA Evaluation Study, a
special report prepared at the request of the Department of Education,
October 2003.

^11WIA requires states and localities to bring together a number of
federally funded employment and training services into a single
system--the one-stop system. Funded through different federal agencies,
these programs are to provide services through a statewide network of
one-stop career centers to adults, dislocated workers, and youth.

^12Public support refers to cash payments made by federal, state, or local
governments for any reason, including an individual's disability, age,
economic, retirement, and survivor status. This excludes any noncash
support payments such as Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, and rental
subsidies.

^13Education tracks individuals in terms of seven types of case closures,
which can be collapsed into four categories for individuals who (1) exited
without employment, during the application phase; (2) exited without
employment, with limited services; (3) exited without employment, after
receiving services under an employment plan; and (4) exited with at least
90 days of employment, after receiving services under an employment plan.

In 2005, GAO reported that Education could improve performance of this
decentralized program through better performance measures and
monitoring.^14 Specifically, we recommended that Education account for
additional factors such as the economies and demographics of the states'
populations in its performance measures, or its performance targets, for
individual state VR agencies to address these issues. We also noted that
whatever system of performance measures Education chooses to use, without
consequences or incentives to meet performance standards, state VR
agencies will have little reason to achieve the targets Education has set
for them. We recommended that Education consider developing new
consequences for failure to meet required performance targets and
incentives for encouraging good performance. While Education agreed with
our recommendations, it is currently considering them as part of the
development of its VR strategic performance plan, and has not adopted them
to date.

Earlier this year, GAO reported on national-level earnings outcomes for
SSA beneficiaries who completed VR from 2000 to 2003.^15 Among other
findings, this report estimated that as a result of work, some DI and
concurrent beneficiaries saw a reduction in their DI benefits--for an
overall annual average benefit reduction of $26.6 million in the year
after completing VR compared to the year before VR. Further, we reported
that 10 percent of SSA beneficiaries who exited VR in 2000 or 2001 were
able to leave the disability rolls at some point. However, almost one
quarter of those who left had returned by 2005 for at least 1 month.

^14 [47]GAO-05-865 , 39.

^15GAO, Vocational Rehabilitation: Earnings Increased for Many SSA
Beneficiaries after Completing VR Services, but Few Earned Enough to Leave
SSA's Disability Rolls, [48]GAO-07-332 (Washington, D.C.: March 2007).

State VR Agencies Consistently Showed Very Different Rates of Success for SSA
Beneficiaries Who Completed VR Programs

Before controlling for factors that might explain differences in outcomes
among state VR agencies, our analysis of state agency outcomes over a
3-year period showed very different rates of success for SSA
beneficiaries. This was the case in terms of the proportion of
beneficiaries with earnings, earnings levels, and departures from the
disability rolls. The wide range in average earnings outcomes among
agencies was generally consistent from 2001 through 2003 and within each
of the three types of agencies--referred to as blind, general, and
combined agencies.

Proportion with Earnings, Earnings Levels, and Departures from the Disability
Rolls for SSA Beneficiaries Differed Substantially among State Agencies

Between 2001 and 2003, VR agencies varied widely in terms of outcomes for
SSA beneficiaries who completed their VR programs. While the agency
average for beneficiary earnings was 50 percent, the proportion of
beneficiaries with earnings during the year following VR varied
substantially among agencies: from 0 to 75 percent. (See fig. 1.)

Figure 1: Distribution of State VR Agencies by Percentage of SSA
Beneficiaries with Earnings during the Year after VR

Note: n = 234, average = 50 percent. The 234 observations result from 78
VR agencies providing data for 3 years (2001 through 2003).

Similarly, while the agency average for annual earnings levels for SSA
beneficiaries who had earnings was $8,140, such earnings ranged by agency
from about $1,500 to nearly $17,000. (See fig. 2.)

Figure 2: Distribution of State VR Agency Average Annual Earnings for SSA
Beneficiaries with Earnings during the Year after VR

Note: n = 232, average = $8,140. The number in figure 2 differs from that
in figure 1 because two agencies did not have any beneficiaries with
reported earnings in fiscal year 2002. All earnings are in 2004 dollars.

Agencies also differed in the proportion of SSA beneficiaries who had left
the disability rolls by 2005, with departure rates ranging anywhere from 0
to 20 percent. The average departure rate was 7 percent. (See fig. 3.)

Figure 3: Distribution of State VR Agencies by Percentage of SSA
Beneficiaries Leaving the Rolls

Note: n = 234, average = 7 percent.

Trends Were Similar over Time and by Agency Type

In general, the range of earnings outcomes across agencies was similar
over the 3 years we examined. While the average percentage of SSA
beneficiaries with earnings during the year after VR declined slightly
over this period from 53 percent in 2001 to 48 percent in 2003, the spread
in the percentage of beneficiaries with earnings remained widely dispersed
across agencies for all 3 years, as shown in figure 4.

Figure 4: Range across State VR Agencies of the Percentage of SSA
Beneficiaries with Earnings during the Year after VR by Year

Likewise, the range of average earnings among agencies was similar for all
3 years, as shown in figure 5.^16

16See appendix I for an explanation of why we did not compare agencies'
rates of SSA beneficiaries leaving the rolls over this period.

Figure 5: Range of State VR Agency Average Earnings for SSA Beneficiaries
by Year

Note: Two agencies did not have any beneficiaries with reported earnings
in fiscal year 2002. All earnings are in 2004 dollars.

There were also wide differences in performance within the three types of
agencies that serve different types of clientele--known as blind, general,
and combined agencies. Specifically, among blind agencies, the percentage
of SSA beneficiaries with earnings during the year after VR ranged from 23
to 67 percent, with an average of 46 percent. Among general agencies, the
percentage of SSA beneficiaries with earnings after VR varied from 37 to
74 percent, with an average of 55 percent, and for combined agencies the
percentage varied from 0 to 75 percent, with an average of 49 percent.
(See fig. 6.)

Figure 6: Range across State VR Agencies of the Percentage of SSA
Beneficiaries with Earnings during the Year after VR by Agency Type

Average annual SSA client earnings among blind agencies varied the
most--from $4,582 to $16,805, with an average of $10,699 per year. SSA
client earnings among the combined agencies varied anywhere from $1,528 to
$10,889, with an average of $7,088 per year. General agencies showed the
least variation in earnings among their SSA clients--from $4,654 to
$9,424--but the lowest average ($6,867). (See fig. 7.)

Figure 7: Range of State VR Agency Average Earnings for SSA Beneficiaries
by Agency Type

Note: Two combined agencies did not have any beneficiaries with reported
earnings in fiscal year 2002. All earnings are in 2004 dollars.

Finally, for rates of departure from the SSA disability rolls by 2005,
blind agencies ranged from 0 to 16 percent, with an average of 6.7
percent; general agencies varied from 4 to 15 percent, with an average of
7.5 percent; and combined agencies varied from 0 to 20 percent, with an
average of 7 percent. (See fig. 8.)

Figure 8: Range of State VR Agency Average Rates of SSA Beneficiaries
Leaving the Rolls by Agency Type

State Economic Conditions and SSA Beneficiary Characteristics Account for Much
of the Difference in State VR Agency Success Rates

After controlling for a range of factors, we found that much of the
differences in state VR agency success rates could be explained by state
economic climates and the characteristics of the SSA beneficiary
populations at the VR agencies. Specifically, among a range of possible
factors we considered, the economic conditions of the state appeared to
explain up to one-third of the differences between state agency outcomes
for SSA beneficiaries.^17 Additionally, differences in the characteristics
of the clientele accounted for some of the variation in performance among
VR agencies.

^17All findings discussed in this section are statistically significant at
the 0.05 level, unless otherwise noted.

Differences in Agency Outcomes Were Largely Due to a State's Economic Conditions

When we controlled for a variety of factors using multivariate analysis,
we found that state economic conditions accounted for a substantial
portion of the differences in VR outcomes across state agencies. Not
surprisingly, we found that fewer SSA beneficiaries had earnings during
the year after completing VR in states with high unemployment rates after
controlling for other factors. Moreover, our analysis showed that for each
1 percent increase in the unemployment rate, the percentage of SSA
beneficiaries who had earnings during the year after completing VR
decreased by over 2 percent.^18 Across agencies, unemployment rates ranged
from 2.3 to 12.3 percent between 2001 and 2003, with an average of 4.7
percent.

We also found that after controlling for other factors, VR agencies in
states with lower per capita incomes saw fewer SSA beneficiaries who had
earnings, lower earnings levels, and fewer departures from the disability
rolls in the year after VR. Across states, per capita incomes ranged from
approximately $4,400 to $46,000 dollars, with an average of approximately
$28,000. Together, state unemployment rates and per capita incomes
explained over one-third of the differences between states agencies in the
proportion of SSA beneficiaries that had earnings during the year after VR
and the proportion that left the rolls. ^19

Agency officials commented that difficult economic environments result in
lower earnings outcomes because a state's economy has a direct impact on
an agency's ability to find employment for individuals. Our findings are
also consistent with past research that has found labor market conditions
to be among the most influential determinants of agency performance.^20
Education, however, does not currently consider state economic conditions
when evaluating agency performance.^21 Although Education agreed with our
prior recommendation to consider economic and demographic characteristics
when evaluating agency performance, Education is currently considering it
as part of the development of its VR strategic performance plan and has
not yet adopted this recommendation.

^18Unless otherwise indicated, the effects being discussed in this and the
next section are marginal effects (i.e., the effect of a 1 unit change in
the explanatory variable on the dependent variable, holding other factors
constant). See appendix I, section 3, for more details on our econometric
analyses.

^19We also found that in states with larger populations, fewer SSA
beneficiaries (1) had earnings during the year after completing VR and (2)
left the disability rolls. A study conducted by RTI International noted
that states with small populations reported having improved access to
other agencies and better collaboration with state leaders due to closer
work and personal relationships.

^20Michael D. Tashjian, et al., Study of Variables Related to State
Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Performance Revised Draft Final Report, a
special report prepared at the request of the Department of Education,
October 2004.

Demographic Characteristics and the Types of Disabilities of Clientele Also
Accounted for Some of the Disparities in State Agency Performance

After controlling for a variety of factors, certain characteristics of the
clientele served by state agencies accounted for some of the state agency
differences in earnings outcomes for SSA beneficiaries. Among the factors
we examined the influence of were: demographic characteristics, types of
disabilities, and the proportion of SSA beneficiaries served by each state
agency.^22

  Demographic Differences

Several clientele characteristics influenced state agency earnings
outcomes.^23 In particular, after controlling for other factors, state
agencies that served a higher proportion of women beneficiaries had fewer
beneficiaries with earnings during the year after completing VR. According
to our analysis, a 10 percent increase in the percentage of women served
by a VR agency resulted in a 5 percent decrease in the percentage of SSA
beneficiaries with earnings. Research shows that for the population of
low-income adults with disabilities, women were found to have lower
employment rates than men.^24

Further, we found that after controlling for other factors, state agencies
serving a larger percentage of SSA beneficiaries between 46 and 55 years
old when they applied for the VR program saw fewer SSA beneficiaries leave
the disability rolls.^25 For every 10 percent increase in the percentage
of beneficiaries in this age group, the percentage of SSA beneficiaries
leaving the rolls decreased by approximately 1 percent.

^21Although state economic and demographic conditions are not factored
into performance measures and targets, Education considers these factors
through its monitoring of state agencies. In addition, the statutory
funding formula for VR agencies allocates relatively more funds to poorer
states based on per capita income to help offset a lack of resources.

^22See appendix I for a detailed list of the factors we controlled for.

^23These clientele characteristics appeared to influence one or more of
the earnings outcomes measured, but not necessarily all three.

^24David Wittenburg and Melissa Favreault, "Safety Net or Tangled Web? An
Overview of Programs and Services for Adults with Disabilities"
(Occasional Paper No. 68, the Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.: 2003).

  Differences in Types of Disabilities

When we considered the influence of various types of medical impairments
on earnings outcomes, we found that some state agency outcomes were
related to the proportion of SSA beneficiaries who had mental or visual
impairments. Average earnings and departures from the disability rolls for
SSA beneficiaries were lower in agencies that served a larger percentage
of individuals with mental impairments, after controlling for other
factors. Specifically, our analysis indicated that a 10 percent increase
in the proportion of the beneficiary population with a mental impairment
resulted in a decrease of almost 1 percent in the proportion of SSA
beneficiaries who left the rolls. Some SSA beneficiaries may not leave the
disability rolls because, as research has shown, they fear a loss of their
public benefits or health coverage.^26 This is particularly true for
individuals with mental impairments.

Agencies with a higher proportion of blind or visually impaired
beneficiaries had fewer departures from the disability rolls after
controlling for other factors. We found that an increase of 10 percent in
the proportion of individuals with a visual impairment resulted in a
decrease of 0.5 percent of beneficiaries leaving the rolls. Some SSA
beneficiaries with visual impairments are classified as legally blind. As
such, they are subject to a higher earnings threshold, in comparison to
those that are not legally blind, before their benefits are reduced or
ceased. Our analysis also showed that holding other factors equal, blind
agencies--those serving only clientele with visual impairments--had fewer
SSA beneficiaries with earnings during the year after completing VR than
agencies that served a lower proportion of beneficiaries with visual
impairments.^27

25While other variables were significant at the 0.05 level, this variable
was significant at the 0.10 level. See appendix I for more information.

^26Timothy Tremblay et al., "Effect of Benefits Counseling Services on
Employment Outcomes for People with Psychiatric Disabilities," Psychiatric
Services, vol. 57, no. 6 (2006).

^27Specifically, holding other factors constant, agencies known as
combined or general agencies had more SSA beneficiaries with earnings
during the year after VR than agencies known as blind agencies.

  Proportion of SSA Beneficiaries Served

Differences in the proportion of SSA beneficiaries served by an agency
also affected earnings outcomes for SSA beneficiaries. Specifically,
agencies with a greater proportion of SSA beneficiaries had more
beneficiaries with earnings during the year after VR, but saw lower
earnings levels for their SSA beneficiaries, holding other factors
constant. VR state agency officials and experts with whom we consulted
were unable to provide an explanation for this result.^28

We also found that after controlling for other factors, agencies with a
higher proportion of SSA beneficiaries who were DI beneficiaries had lower
average annual earnings among SSA beneficiaries and a lower percentage of
beneficiaries leaving the rolls. The earnings result might be explained by
differences in the work incentive rules between the two programs.
Specifically, the work incentive rules are more favorable for SSI
beneficiaries who want to increase their earnings while not incurring a
net income penalty.^29 The lower rates of departures from the rolls among
agencies with a greater proportion of DI beneficiaries might be due to the
limited time frames of our study and the fact that DI beneficiaries are
allowed to work for a longer period of time before their benefits are
ceased.^30

28In its comments on our report, Education suggested that VR agencies with
high proportions of SSA beneficiaries may also have high levels of
collaboration with other agencies because the long-term supports that may
be required to live in the community necessitate cooperation with other
public programs. The department noted that this may account for our
findings because benefit eligibility may be necessary to receive certain
supports from outside agencies.

^29See [49]GAO-07-332 for a more detailed description of the differing DI
and SSI benefit structures.

^30See appendix I, section 4, for a detailed description of why, given the
time frames of our study, the rates of departures from the rolls might be
lower for DI beneficiaries.

A Few Agency Practices Appeared to Yield Better Earnings Outcomes, while the
Results of Other Practices Were Inconclusive

When we analyzed outcomes at the agency level, a few agency practices
appeared to yield some positive results, albeit in different ways.
Specifically, after controlling for other factors, we found that state
agencies with a higher proportion of state-certified VR counselors, or
stronger relationships with businesses or other public agencies appeared
to have better earnings outcomes. Further, agencies that devoted a greater
proportion of their service expenditures to training of VR clients had
higher average annual earnings for SSA beneficiaries completing VR,
holding other factors equal. On the other hand, our multivariate analyses
suggest that agencies using in-house benefits counselors saw fewer
beneficiaries with earnings following VR, but these results may not be
conclusive because the benefits counseling program has changed
considerably since the time period of our study.

Agencies with State-Certified Counselors or Strong Relationships with Businesses
or Other Public Agencies Appeared to Have Better Earnings Outcomes

State VR agencies that reported employing a higher percentage of
counselors meeting the state certification standards had higher rates of
beneficiaries with earnings among those beneficiaries who completed VR
between 2001 and 2003, holding other factors constant. On average, 62
percent of counselors at an agency met the states' certification
requirements, but the range was from 0 to 100 percent. According to our
analysis, for every 10 percent increase in the percentage of counselors
meeting state requirements, the percentage of SSA beneficiaries with
earnings during the year after VR increased by 0.5 percent. This appeared
to be consistent with research indicating that more highly qualified VR
counselors are more likely to achieve successful earnings outcomes.^31
While the certification requirements vary by state, agency officials
reported that counselors with master's degrees in vocational
rehabilitation are more likely to be versed in the history of the VR
program and the disability rights movement and are likely to be more
attuned to the needs of their clients than those without specialized
degrees.

VR agencies that had stronger relationships with the business community
had higher average earnings among SSA beneficiaries during the year after
completing VR and higher rates of departures from the disability rolls,
holding other factors equal. These were agencies that reported interacting
with the business community more frequently by sponsoring job fairs,
hosting breakfasts, attending business network meetings, meeting with
local businesses, meeting with local chambers of commerce, and interacting
with civic clubs. To support these practices, Education has helped
establish the Vocational Rehabilitation Employer Business and Development
Network, which aims to connect the business community to qualified workers
with disabilities through the efforts of staff located at each of the VR
agencies who specialize in business networking.^32 VR agency officials
with whom we spoke said that through interaction with the business
community, they could dispel myths about the employability of people with
disabilities, and they could tailor services for their clients to the
specific needs of different businesses.

^31Edna Mora Szymanski, "Relationship of Level of Rehabilitation Counselor
Education to Rehabilitation Client Outcome in the Wisconsin Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation," Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, vol. 35,
no. 1 (1991).

In addition to business outreach, our multivariate analysis indicated that
agencies that reported receiving a greater degree of support and
cooperation from more than one public program--such as from state social
services, mental health, and education departments--also showed higher
average earnings among SSA beneficiaries. One VR agency official commented
that people with disabilities need multiple supports and services and
therefore are more effectively served through partnerships between
government programs.^33 Another VR official said that coordination with
other programs facilitated the provision of a complete package of
employment-related services. For example, VR might provide employment
training to an individual, while the department of labor might provide
transportation services to get the person to work. Although many agencies
said they were successful in coordinating with other programs, some
reported difficulties. For example, they cited barriers to coordinating
with WIA one-stops such as inability to share credit for successful
earnings outcomes, staff that are not trained to serve people with
disabilities, and inaccessible equipment, particularly for those with
visual or hearing impairments.

^32The Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation is
also developing a national VR-business network whose aim is to coordinate
VR outreach efforts to businesses. In addition to these national-level
efforts, state VR agencies also participate in state-level business
networks. In Utah, for example, the VR agency participates in the Utah
Business Employment Team, which serves as a business-to-business network
for recognizing and promoting best practices in hiring, retaining, and
marketing to people with disabilities .

^33Past GAO reports have highlighted the need for greater coordination
among agencies delivering services to people with disabilities. See, for
example, GAO, Federal Disability Assistance: Wide Array of Programs Needs
to Be Examined in Light of 21st Century Challenges, [50]GAO-05-626
(Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2005).

Agency Expenditures on Training Yield Positive Outcomes

Additionally, agencies with a greater proportion of their service
expenditures spent on training of VR clients--including postsecondary
education, job readiness and augmentative skills, and vocational and
occupational training--had higher average annual earnings for SSA
beneficiaries completing VR, holding other factors equal.^34 The average
percentage of service expenditures devoted to training of VR clients was
47 percent, but this ranged from 3 to 84 percent across agencies. Research
has shown that the receipt of certain types of training services, such as
business and vocational training, leads to positive earnings outcomes.^35

Effect of Using In-house Benefits Counselors is Unclear

Our analysis suggests that after controlling for other factors, agencies
with in-house benefits counselors--counselors who advise VR clients on the
impact of employment on their benefits--had lower rates of SSA
beneficiaries with earnings during the year after completing VR than
agencies without them. Over the years we studied, only 14 percent of state
agencies reported using in-house benefits counselors. However, this was a
period of transition for the benefits counseling program. There was wide
variation in how this service was provided, and clients in states that did
not have on-site benefits counselors may have received benefits counseling
from outside the agency. According to one researcher, the benefits
counseling program has become more standardized since that period. In
fact, other empirical research shows that benefits counselors have had a
positive effect on earnings.^36

34The expenditures considered for this calculation do not include
assessment, counseling, guidance, and placement services provided directly
by VR personnel since these services are generally provided to all VR
clients. The total expenditures in this calculation include those optional
services that are provided to clients based on their specific needs.

^35Becky J. Hayward and Holly Schmidt Davis, Longitudinal Study of the
Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program Final Report 2: VR Services and
Outcomes, a special report prepared at the request of the Department of
Education, 2003.

^36Other research finds a positive effect of benefits counseling on
earnings among beneficiaries with psychiatric disabilities and clients in
the state of Vermont. See Timothy Tremblay, et al., "Effect of Benefits
Counseling Services on Employment Outcomes for People with Psychiatric
Disabilities," Psychiatric Services, vol. 57, no. 6 (2006).

VR Officials in Some Agencies Credited Other Practices with Yielding Results

Some agency officials credited certain other practices with yielding
positive results, but we were not able to corroborate their ideas with our
statistical approach. For example, VR agency officials cited the following
practices as being beneficial: (1) collaborative initiatives between the
state VR agency and other state agencies aimed to help specific client
populations, such as individuals with mental impairments or developmental
disabilities; (2) unique applications of performance measures, such as
measuring performance at the team level rather than the individual
counselor level; and (3) improved use of computer information systems,
such as real-time access to the status of individual employment targets.
Although we were able to examine many state practices with our survey
data, there were not enough agencies employing these practices for us to
determine whether these practices led to improved earnings outcomes for
SSA beneficiaries among state VR agencies.

Limitations in Education's Data May Have Hampered Analyses of Individual
Earnings Outcomes

Although we were able to explain a large amount of the differences in
earnings outcomes among state agencies, we could only explain a small
amount of the differences in earnings outcomes among individual SSA
beneficiaries. Specifically, while our models accounted for between 66 and
77 percent of the variation in agency-level earnings outcomes, our models
using the individual-level data had low explanatory power, accounting for
only 8 percent of variation in earnings levels across individuals and
rarely producing reliable predictions for achieving earnings or leaving
the rolls. With so little variation explained in individual-level
outcomes, we could not be confident that our individual-level analyses
were sufficiently reliable to support conclusions. As a result, we chose
not to report on these analyses. Other researchers told us they have
experienced similar difficulties using Education's client database to
account for individual differences in earnings outcomes among VR clients.

Education's data lack information that we believe is critical to assessing
earnings outcomes, and not having this information may have hindered our
ability to explain differences in individual earnings outcomes.^37
Specifically, Education does not collect certain information on VR clients
that research has linked to work outcomes, such as detailed information on
the severity of the disability and historical earnings data. Research
indicates that both of these factors are, or could be, important to
determining employment success for people with disabilities.^38 With
regard to obtaining information on the severity of the client's
disability, knowing the severity of the disability can indicate the extent
to which a person is physically or mentally limited in the ability to
perform work, a fact that may influence the person's earnings outcomes.
While Education's client data include information indicating whether a
disability is significant--which is defined by the Rehabilitation Act--the
data do not include more detailed information on the severity of the
disability, such as the number and extent of functional limitations.^39
Additionally, Education does not collect information on a client's
historical earnings, which may provide a broader understanding of the
client's work experience and likelihood to return to work. States may be
able to obtain earnings data from other official sources, such as other
state and federal agencies.

^37We cannot say with certainty that our results were detrimentally
affected by these limitations because we do not have data without these
limitations with which to test our hypotheses.

Another limitation with Education's data is the collection of
self-reported information from the client that may not be validated by the
VR agency. For example, one agency official said that clients are asked to
report their earnings at the time of application--information that
Education is legally required to collect--and that these data may not be
accurate. Reliable information on a client's earnings at the time of
application to VR is essential for evaluating the impact of the VR program
on earnings. However, some clients may misreport their earnings. One
researcher reported, for example, that VR clients sometimes report net as
opposed to gross earnings. Instead of relying on self-reported
information, agencies may be able to obtain or validate this information
from official sources. Specifically, some state VR agencies have
agreements with other state and federal agencies to obtain earnings data
on their clients. For example, agency officials from one state told us
that they match their data against earnings data from the Department of
Labor, while another agency relies on data from their state's Employment
Development Department. However, in some cases state agencies are required
to pay for these data.

^38Mitchell P. LaPlante and H. Stephen Kaye, "The Employment and Health
Status of Californians with Disabilities" (Institute of Health and Aging,
University of California, San Francisco, June 2005).

^39In evaluating the significance of a disability, some state VR agencies
already collect such information.

Conclusions

The federal-state vocational rehabilitation program is still the primary
avenue for someone with a disability to prepare for and obtain employment.
Given the growing size of the disability rolls and the potential savings
associated with moving beneficiaries into the workforce, it is important
to make the nation's VR program as effective as possible to help people
with disabilities participate in the workforce.

Our findings indicate that it will be difficult to maximize the
effectiveness of the VR program with assessments of state agency
performance that do not account for important factors, such as the
economic health of the state. Such comparisons will be misleading. Without
credible indicators, VR agencies do not have an accurate picture of their
relative performance, and Education may continue its reluctance to use
sanctions or incentives to encourage compliance. Our findings underscore
the recommendation that we made in 2005 that Education consider economic
factors in assessing the performance of state vocational rehabilitation
agencies.

Moreover, our study points to deficiencies in Education's data that may
hinder more conclusive analyses of individual-level earnings outcomes.
Without data on the severity of a client's disability or information on
historical earnings, VR programs may not be able to conduct valuable
analysis to explain differences in individual outcomes. With the growing
emphasis on the role of VR in helping people with disabilities enter the
workforce, the need for such analyses--and data that can be used to
conduct them--is likely to increase.

Despite the deficiencies in Education's data, our findings show that
certain agency practices may improve VR success across the country and
give weight to current efforts by Education to promote such practices. The
fact that agencies with stronger ties to the business community have
achieved higher earnings among their SSA beneficiaries suggests the
importance of such practices, such as Education's initiative to promote
business networks. Our findings also demonstrate the value of having VR
counselors meet state certification standards and having agencies
collaborate with more than one supportive public agency to help their
clients. Our study also suggests that other practices, such as state
agencies devoting more resources to targeted training services for VR
clients, may have positive benefits.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the effectiveness of Education's program evaluation efforts and
ultimately the management of vocational rehabilitation programs, we
recommend that the Secretary of Education:

           1. Further promote agency practices that show promise for helping
           more SSA disability beneficiaries participate in the workforce.
           Such a strategy should seek to increase:

                        o the percentage of VR staff who meet state standards
                        and certifications established under the CSPD,
                        o partnership or involvement with area business
                        communities, and
                        o collaboration with other agencies that provide
                        complementary services.

           2. Reassess Education's collection of VR client data through
           consultation with outside experts in vocational rehabilitation and
           the state agencies. In particular, it should:

                        o consider the importance of data elements that are
                        self-reported by the client and explore
                        cost-effective approaches for verifying these data,
                        and
                        o consider collecting additional data that may be
                        related to work outcomes, such as more detailed data
                        on the severity of the client's disability and past
                        earnings history, collaborating whenever possible
                        with other state and federal agencies to collect this
                        information.

           3. In a 2005 report, we recommended that Education revise its
           performance measures or adjust performance targets for individual
           state VR agencies to account for additional factors. These include
           the economic conditions of states, as well as the demographics of
           a state's population. We continue to believe that Education should
           adopt this recommendation, especially in light of our findings on
           the impact of state unemployment rates, per capita incomes, and
           demographic factors on earnings outcomes.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We received written comments on a draft of this report from Education,
which oversees the VR program, and SSA, from which we received data that
were used to evaluate its Ticket to Work program. Education commended our
use of multiple data sources and said that it opens up new analytical
possibilities in evaluating how VR programs serve SSA beneficiaries,
including identifying low-performing and high-performing VR programs.
However, Education also questioned whether the statistical relationships
we found can be applied to how it administers a state-operated formula
grant program. We continue to believe our findings have important
implications for improving what data are collected and how VR services are
delivered. While Education generally agreed with the substance of our
recommendations, it disagreed on when economic conditions and state
demographics should be considered in assessing agency performance. Instead
of using this information to help set performance measures, the department
said that it takes these factors into account when it monitors agency
performance results and believes that its approach is effective. We
believe that incorporating this contextual information into assessing
performance is essential to provide the state agencies with a more
accurate picture of their relative performance. Although Education stated
that it was open to our recommendation on improving data quality, it
suggested that validating self-reported information would be a potential
burden to state agencies and suggested other approaches, such as
conducting periodic studies. Our recommendation that Education explore
cost-effective ways to validate self-reported data was based on the
experience of some VR agencies that have obtained data successfully from
official sources and not relied solely on self-reported information. We
made additional technical changes as appropriate based on Education's
comments. See appendix II for a full reprinting of Education's comments
and our detailed responses.

SSA stated that our report has methodological flaws that introduced
aggregation bias and false correlations, and suggested that we should have
focused on individual-level analysis or reported the results of both
individual and aggregate-level analyses. We used aggregated data--a widely
used means of analysis--because our primary objective was to understand
better the wide variation in outcomes for state VR agencies that serve SSA
beneficiaries rather than the outcomes for individuals. Further, we used
appropriate statistical techniques to ensure the lack of bias due to
clustering of individual cases within agencies (see app. I for a more
detailed discussion). Because we used aggregated data, we did not attempt
to infer the effects of individual behavior or individual outcomes.
Additionally, SSA had concerns about the implications of our analysis of
state economic factors on agency-level outcomes. Our findings related to
the influence of state economic characteristics were highly statistically
significant as well as corroborated by previous research, and we believe
these results have important implications for VR agency performance
measures. SSA provided additional comments, which we addressed or
incorporated, as appropriate. See appendix III for a full reprinting of
SSA's comments as well as our detailed responses.

Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretary of Education, the
Commissioner of SSA, appropriate congressional committees, and other
interested parties. The report is also available at no charge on GAO's Web
site at http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-7215. Other major contributors to this
report are listed in appendix IV.

Denise M. Fantone
Acting Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To understand the variation in state agency outcomes for Social Security
Administration (SSA) disability beneficiaries completing the vocational
rehabilitation (VR) program, we conducted two sets of analyses. First, we
used descriptive analyses to compare agency performance with three
measures of earnings outcomes from 2001 to 2003. Second, using agency and
survey data, we conducted econometric analyses of the three measures of
earnings outcomes to determine how state and agency characteristics
related to state agency performance.

We developed our analyses in consultation with GAO methodologists, an
expert consultant, and officials from SSA and the Department of Education
(Education).^1 To choose the appropriate variables for our analyses, we
reviewed pertinent literature and consulted with agency officials and
academic experts.

This appendix is organized in four sections: Section 1 describes the data
that were used in our analyses and our efforts to ensure data reliability.
Section 2 describes the study population, how the dependent variables used
in the analyses were constructed, and the descriptive analyses of those
variables. Section 3 describes the econometric analyses. Section 4
explains the limitations of our analyses.

Section 1: Data Used, Information Sources, and Data Reliability

This section describes each of the datasets we analyzed, the variables
from each dataset that were used in our analyses, and the steps that were
taken to assess the reliability of each dataset.

To conduct our analyses, we used several data sources: (1) a newly
available longitudinal dataset that includes information from several SSA
and Education administrative databases on all SSA disability beneficiaries
who completed the VR program from 2001 through 2003; (2) data from
Education on yearly spending information by service category for each
state VR agency; (3) data from the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, and other data sources regarding state demographic and
economic characteristics; and (4) original survey data collected by GAO
from state VR agencies. To perform our analyses, we used variables from
each of the above datasets by merging, by agency and year, each of the
datasets into one large data file.

^1We are especially grateful to Professor Herbert Smith--Professor of
Sociology and Director, Population Studies Center at the University of
Pennsylvania, and an expert in the area of statistical analysis--who
provided valuable advice on our statistical methods.

Education and SSA Beneficiary Data

We obtained a newly available longitudinal dataset--a subfile of SSA's
Ticket Research File (TRF)--which contains information from several SSA
and Education administrative databases on all SSA disability beneficiaries
who completed the federal-state VR program between 1998 and 2004.^2 SSA
merged this dataset with its Master Earnings File (MEF), which contains
information on each beneficiary's annual earnings from 1990 through 2004.
The combined data provide information about each beneficiary's disability
benefits, earnings, and VR participation.^3 See section 2 of this appendix
for a description of how these data were used to create our dependent
variables on earnings outcomes.

We were interested in how earnings outcomes were affected by differences
across agencies, including differences in characteristics of the
individuals served by the different agencies. Table 1 shows information
from the TRF subfile on characteristics of our study population that we
included among our explanatory variables.^4

2In 2003, SSA contracted with Mathematica Policy Research to conduct a
full evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program. As part of this evaluation,
Mathematica constructed the Ticket Research File, a compilation of
longitudinal data from SSA. An extract of the TRF was merged with
vocational rehabilitation data from the Department of Education's RSA-911
database by an SSA official.

^3Education's data on VR closures were available from 1998 to 2004. Data
from SSA's TRF database were available from 1994 to 2004, with MEF
earnings data available from 1990 to 2004. Social Security's MEF data are
annual earnings based on Internal Revenue Service W-2 tax filings. At the
time we obtained this dataset from SSA, earnings data for 2005 were not
available.

^4For the purposes of this study, the term "explanatory variable" is used
to describe a variable that is used to predict the value of another
variable, and the term "dependent variable" is used to describe a variable
whose values are predicted by the explanatory variable.

Table 1: Explanatory Variables from the TRF Subfile

State agency demographic characteristics                             
Percentage of beneficiaries between the ages of 18 and 25            
Percentage of beneficiaries between the ages of 26 and 35            
Percentage of beneficiaries between the ages of 36 and 45            
Percentage of beneficiaries between the ages of 46 and 55            
Percentage of beneficiaries between the ages of 56 and 64            
Percentage of female beneficiaries                                   
Percentage of white beneficiaries                                    
Percentage of African-American beneficiaries                         
Percentage of Native-American beneficiaries                          
Percentage of Asian and Pacific Islander beneficiaries               
Percentage of Hispanic beneficiaries                                 
Percentage of multiracial beneficiaries                              
Stage agency medical characteristics                                 
Percentage of beneficiaries who are blind or have visual impairments 
Percentage of beneficiaries with sensory impairments                 
Percentage of beneficiaries with physical impairments                
Percentage of beneficiaries with mental impairments                  
State agency program participation                                   
Percentage of beneficiaries receiving Supplemental Security Income   
Percentage of beneficiaries receiving Disability Insurance           
Percentage of concurrent beneficiaries (receiving both SSI and DI)   
Proportion of SSA beneficiaries served by an agency^a                

Source: SSA and Education data.

a To construct this variable, additional information was obtained from
Education on the total number of clients completing the VR program.

To determine the reliability of the TRF subfile, we

           o reviewed SSA and Education documentation regarding the planning
           for and construction of the TRF subfile,
           o conducted our own electronic data testing to assess the accuracy
           and completeness of the data used in our analyses, and
           o reviewed prior GAO reports and consulted with GAO staff
           knowledgeable about these datasets.

On the basis of these steps, we determined that despite the limitations
outlined in section 4, the data that were critical to our analyses were
sufficiently reliable for our use.

VR Agency Administrative Data

To determine whether differences in agency size and expenditure patterns
affected earnings outcomes, we obtained information on state VR agency
expenditures for the years 2000 through 2002 from the RSA-2 data, an
administrative dataset compiled by Education. The RSA-2 data contain
aggregated agency expenditures for each of the 80 state VR agencies as
reported in various categories, such as administration and different types
of services. Table 2 shows the variables that were derived from the RSA-2
data.

Table 2: Explanatory Variables from Education's RSA-2 Data

Agency structure                                                           
Type of agency: (1) general, (2) blind, and (3) combined agencies          
Number of people receiving services (proxy for size)                       
Total expenditures on services (proxy for size)                            
Agency expenditures                                                        
Percentage of all service expenditures spent on assessment                 
Percentage of all service expenditures spent on diagnosis/treatment        
Percentage of all service expenditures spent on training services for VR   
clients                                                                    
Percentage of all service expenditures spent on maintenance                
Percentage of all service expenditures spent on transportation             
Percentage of all service expenditures spent on personal assistance        
services                                                                   
Percentage of all service expenditures spent on placement services         
Percentage of all service expenditures spent on post employment services   
Percentage of all service expenditures spent on other services             
Percentage of total service expenditures (not including assessment,        
counseling, guidance, and placement) spent on assessment^a                 
Percentage of total service expenditures (not including assessment,        
counseling, guidance, and placement) spent on diagnosis/treatment^a        
Percentage of total service expenditures (not including assessment,        
counseling, guidance, and placement) spent on training services for VR     
clients^a                                                                  
Percentage of total service expenditures (not including assessment,        
counseling, guidance, and placement) spent on maintenance^a                
Percentage of total service expenditures (not including assessment,        
counseling, guidance, and placement) spent on transportation^a             

Percentage of total service expenditures (not including assessment,        
counseling, guidance, and placement) spent on personal assistance          
services^a                                                                 
Percentage of total service expenditures (not including assessment,        
counseling, guidance, and placement) spent on placement^a                  
Percentage of total service expenditures (not including assessment,        
counseling, guidance, and placement) spent on post employment services^a   
Percentage of total service expenditures (not including assessment,        
counseling, guidance, and placement) spent on other services^a             
Percentage of total expenditures spent on administration                   
Percentage of total expenditures spent on services provided directly by VR 
personnel                                                                  
Percentage of total expenditures spent on purchased services               
Percentage of total expenditures spent on services purchased from public   
vendors                                                                    
Percentage of total expenditures spent on services purchased from private  
vendors                                                                    
Percentage of total expenditures spent on services to individuals with     
disabilities                                                               
Percentage of total expenditures spent on services to groups with          
disabilities                                                               

Source: Education data.

^aThese total expenditures include those optional services that are
provided to clients based on their specific needs. They do not include
assessment, counseling, guidance, and placement services provided directly
by VR personnel since these services are generally provided to all VR
clients.

To determine the reliability of the RSA-2 data, we

           o reviewed relevant agency documentation and interviewed agency
           officials who were knowledgeable about the data, and
           o conducted our own electronic data testing to assess the accuracy
           and completeness of the data used in our analyses.

On the basis of these steps, we determined that the data that were
critical to our analyses were sufficiently reliable for our use.

State Economic and Demographic Data

We were interested in how differences in state characteristics affected
earnings outcomes of SSA beneficiaries completing VR at different VR
agencies. The state characteristics we considered included economic
conditions (unemployment rates, per capita income, and gross state product
growth rates), population characteristics (including size, density, and
percentage living in rural areas and on Disability Insurance), and
availability of the Medicaid Buy-in program. Data on state characteristics
were downloaded from several sources, including federal agencies and
research institutes. The research institutes from which we obtained data
included Cornell University Institute for Policy Research and Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc., both authorities in social science research. Table
3 summarizes the state data that were collected and the sources for those
data.

Table 3: State Economic and Demographic Explanatory Variables and Their
Sources

Variable                        Data source                                
Annual state unemployment rates Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor       
                                   Statistics                                 
Gross state product (GSP)       Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic 
growth rate                     Analysis                                   
Annual per capita income        Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic 
                                   Analysis                                   
Annual population               Department of Commerce, Census Bureau      
Population density              Department of Commerce, Census Bureau      
Percentage of rural population  Department of Commerce, Census Bureau      
Medicaid Buy-In participation   Cornell University Institute of Policy     
                                   Research and Mathematica Policy Research,  
                                   Inc. (primary sources)                     
Ticket to Work program          Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.          
implementation                                                             

Source: Various data sources listed in table.

For each of these data sources we reviewed documentation related to the
agency's or research organization's efforts to ensure the accuracy and
integrity of their data. On the basis of these reviews, we concluded that
the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review.

VR Agency Survey Data

We were also interested in how differences in the VR agencies themselves
affected earnings outcomes. To obtain information about the policies,
practices, and environment of each state VR agency, we conducted a
detailed survey of all state agencies. The survey was intended to collect
information that may be relevant to explaining earnings outcomes of SSA
beneficiaries who exited the VR program between federal fiscal years 2001
through 2003. Specifically, we collected information on the structure of
the VR program, staffing and turnover rates, performance measures, service
portfolios, and the extent of integration with outside partners such as
other state and federal agencies and the business community.^5 In
developing our survey, we identified relevant areas of inquiry by
conducting a review of the literature on state VR agency performance and
consulting with state agency officials and outside researchers.

^5Electronic copies of the survey are available upon request.

For the final survey, we sent e-mail notifications asking state agency
officials to complete either a Web-based version of the survey (which was
accessible to those with visual impairments) or a Microsoft Word version
of the survey by August 4, 2006. We closed the survey on August 22, 2006.
We obtained survey responses from 78 of the 80 state VR agencies, for a
response rate of 98 percent.

Because this was not a sample survey, it has no sampling errors. However,
the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors,
commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in
interpreting a particular question or sources of information available to
respondents can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We
took steps in developing the questionnaire, collecting the data, and
analyzing them to minimize such nonsampling error. For example, we
pretested the content and format of our survey with officials from 17
state agencies to determine if it was understandable and the information
was feasible to collect, and we refined our survey as appropriate. When
the data were analyzed, an independent analyst checked all computer
programs. Since the data were collected with a Web-based and Word format
survey, respondents entered their answers directly into the electronic
questionnaire, thereby eliminating the need to key data into a database,
minimizing another potential source of error.

The variables that we analyzed from the survey data are presented in table
4. These included the structure of the agency (stand-alone agencies,
umbrella agencies with and without autonomy over staff and finances, and
others), agency staffing, agency management, indicators of the existence
of performance targets and incentives, specialized caseloads, case
management systems and system components, and integration with outside
partners and the business community. Since we had data on each of the
earnings outcomes and most of the state and agency characteristics for
each of the 3 years, we included in our analysis an indicator for year.

Table 4: Explanatory Variables from the VR Agency Survey Data

Agency structure                                                           
Number of clients per VR counselor^a                                       
Number of counselors employed (proxy for agency size)^a                    
Indicates whether the director had authority over developmental disability 
services                                                                   
Indicates whether the director had authority over independent living       
services                                                                   
Indicates whether the director had authority over disability determination 
services                                                                   
Indicates whether the director had authority over other programs or        
services                                                                   
Percentage of counselors who left VR agency (turnover)^a                   
Percentage of counselors meeting comprehensive system of personnel         
development (CSPD) standards^a                                             
Percentage of senior managers who left VR agency (turnover)^a              
Length of time director has held his/her position (director tenure)^a      
Length of time director has been with the VR agency (director              
experience)^a                                                              
Length of time the director has held his/her position as a percent of      
their time at the agency^a                                                 
Indicates whether the agency operated under an order of selection          
Indicates whether the program had a wait list                              
Length of wait list                                                        
Indicates whether the program had a wait list and, if so, its length       
Performance targets/incentives                                             
Scale indicating number of reported specific and numerical targets         
including SSA reimbursements, individual plans for employment (IPE)        
initiated, client referrals, contacts with businesses, client              
satisfaction, and other client employment outcomes by year                 
Indicates whether counselors had performance expectations with numerical   
targets based on successful VR employment outcomes (status 26 closures)    
Nature of performance expectations                                         
Indicates whether counselors had numerical targets in their performance    
expectations                                                               
Average number of status 26 case closures required for satisfactory        
performance^a                                                              
Indicates whether there were performance expectations that contained       
numerical targets for SSA reimbursements                                   
Indicates whether there were performance expectations that contained       
numerical targets for the number of IPEs initiated                         
Indicates whether there were performance expectations that contained       
numerical targets for the number of client referrals                       
Indicates whether there were performance expectations that contained       
numerical targets for the number of contacts made with businesses for job  
development                                                                
Indicates whether there were performance expectations that contained       
numerical targets for client satisfaction rates                            
Indicates whether there were performance expectations that contained       
numerical targets for any other outcomes                                   
Indicates whether there were monetary performance incentives to VR         
counselors                                                                 
Indicates how frequently a VR program reported on agencywide performance   
Specialized caseloads                                                      
Indicates whether there were in-house benefits counselors                  
Number of benefits counselors^a                                            
Indicates whether there were job development specialists                   
Number of job development specialists^a                                    
Scale measuring the number of types of specialized caseloads covered,      
including transitioning high school students, mental health, developmental 
disabilities, traumatic brain/spinal cord injuries, hearing impairments,   
visual impairments (not counted for blind-serving agencies), or other      
groups                                                                     
Percentage of counselors with specialized caseloads serving transitioning  
high school students^a                                                     
Percentage of counselors with specialized caseloads serving clients with   
mental health issues^a                                                     
Percentage of counselors with specialized caseloads serving clients with   
developmental disabilities^a                                               
Percentage of counselors with specialized caseloads serving clients with   
traumatic brain/spinal cord injuries^a                                     
Percentage of counselors with specialized caseloads serving clients with   
hearing impairments^a                                                      
Percentage of counselors with specialized caseloads serving clients with   
visual impairments^a                                                       
Percentage of counselors with specialized caseloads serving any other      
group of clients^a                                                         
Case management system                                                     
Scale indicating the sophistication of the case management system          
including the ability of the case management system to collect Education   
data, collect fiscal data, generate IPEs, generate client letters, produce 
state-level management reports, and produce counselor-level management     
reports                                                                    
Indicates whether an agency used an automated case management system       
Indicates whether the automated case management system was new if an       
agency used one                                                            
Indicates whether an agency used an automated case management system and   
if so, whether the system was new                                          
Indicates whether case management system could collect RSA 911 data        
Indicates whether case management system could collect fiscal data         
Indicates whether case management system could generate IPEs               
Indicates whether case management system could generate client letters     
Indicates whether case management system could generate state level        
management reports                                                         
Indicates whether case management system could generate reports at VR      
counselor level                                                            
Integration with outside partners                                          
Indicates whether any VR staff worked full-time or part-time at Workforce  
Investment Act (WIA) one-stops                                             
Total number of staff (both full- and part-time) that worked at a WIA site 
Indicates whether VR program purchased any services from public or private 
vendors                                                                    
Indicates how many purchased services had fee for service arrangements     
Indicates how many purchased services had contracts with outcome-based     
performance measures                                                       
Indicates how many purchased services had vendor fees tied to meeting      
performance measures                                                       
Indicates how many purchased services had renewal of their contracts tied  
to meeting performance measures                                            
Indicates how many purchased services were evaluated by VR to see whether  
performance measures were met at contract end                              
Indicates how many purchased services were evaluated by VR by group or     
type of vendor                                                             
Scale indicating the average support level received from different types   
of programs including WIA one-stops, social service departments, mental    
health departments, education systems, Medicaid program, Medicare program, 
substance abuse departments, and developmental disabilities programs       
Indicates the extent to which a VR program received support from the state 
WIA one-stop system                                                        
Indicates the extent to which a VR program received support from state     
social services                                                            
Indicates the extent to which a VR program received support from the state 
mental health department                                                   
Indicates the extent to which a VR program received support from the state 
education system                                                           
Indicates the extent to which a VR program received support from the state 
Medicaid program                                                           
Indicates the extent to which a VR program received support from the state 
Medicare program                                                           
Indicates the extent to which a VR program received support from the state 
substance abuse department                                                 
Indicates the extent to which a VR program received support from the state 
development disabilities program                                           
Indicates the extent to which a VR program received support from another   
state program                                                              
Integration with business community                                        
Scale indicating agency's level of integration with the business           
community, including the average frequency with which the agency sponsors  
job fairs, attends business network meetings, meets with local businesses, 
meets with chambers of commerce, interacts with civic clubs, and hosts     
employer breakfasts                                                        
Frequency with which agency sponsored job fairs                            
Frequency with which agency representatives attended job fairs             
Frequency with which agency representatives attended meetings of business  
networks                                                                   
Frequency with which agency met with local businesses                      
Frequency with which agency met with local chambers of commerce            
Frequency with which agency representatives interacted with civic clubs    
Frequency with which agency hosted employer breakfasts                     
Frequency with which agency representatives participated in other business 
outreach                                                                   
Agency structure 1--indicates whether agency is (1) part of an umbrella    
agency with autonomy over its own staff and finances, (2) part of an       
umbrella agency without autonomy over its own staff and finances, (3) a    
stand-alone agency, and (4) other type of agency                           
Agency structure 2--indicates whether agency is part of an umbrella agency 
Agency structure 3--indicates whether agency is in an umbrella agency that 
was a part of (1) social services, (2) education, (3) labor (4) human      
services, (5) a stand-alone, or (6) other type of agency                   
Agency staffing                                                            
Percentage of service delivery sites staffed full-time^a                   
Percentage of service delivery sites staffed part-time^a                   
Percentage of service delivery sites shared with social services^a         
Percentage of service delivery sites shared with education^a               
Percentage of service delivery sites shared with labor^a                   
Percentage of service delivery sites shared with human services^a          
Percentage of service delivery sites shared with other agencies^a          
Indicates whether the VR program experienced a hiring freeze in a given    
fiscal year                                                                
Indicates whether the VR program experienced a large number of retirements 
in a given fiscal year                                                     
Indicates whether the VR program experienced a large influx of new hires   
in a given fiscal year                                                     
Indicates whether the VR program experienced downsizing through layoffs in 
a given fiscal year                                                        
Indicates whether the VR program experienced unusual changes in staffing   
in a given fiscal year                                                     
Indicates whether VR counselors were affiliated with a union in a given    
fiscal year                                                                
Agency management                                                          

Source: GAO survey data.

a Indicates variables that were categorized.

To determine whether the survey data were sufficiently reliable for our
analysis, we collected and analyzed additional data. Specifically, we
included questions in the survey that were designed to determine whether
each state VR agency uses certain practices to monitor the quality of
computer-processed data that were used to complete the survey.^6 From
these questions, we developed a variable to indicate whether a particular
agency might have unreliable data. To determine whether there was a
relationship between agencies with data reliability issues and the
earnings outcomes we were studying, we included this variable in our three
models of earnings outcomes (described below).

We found two issues associated with the survey data that are related to
our findings. First, net of other effects, agencies that reported having a
data reliability issue had significantly lower rates of SSA beneficiaries
departing the disability rolls.^7 Although we suspect that data quality
issues do not have a direct effect on the rates of SSA beneficiaries
departing the rolls, poor data quality might be correlated with some other
characteristic that we were not able to measure (e.g., agency efficiency),
which may have an impact on the rate of departures from the rolls. Second,
11 agencies did not report the percentage of CSPD-certified counselors (a
variable that we found to be significantly related to the percentage of
SSA beneficiaries with earnings during the year after completing VR) for
at least 1 year. For these agencies, the percentage of counselors was
imputed using the mean derived from agencies that did report. Statistical
tests were conducted to ensure that the observations for which data were
imputed did not have significantly different rates of having earnings than
those for which the data were not missing.

^6Specifically, we inquired about whether (1) there were written
procedures that define data elements or specify how the data for each data
system were collected and if so, how well the procedures were followed;
(2) anyone conducted routine internal reviews of the data to check for
errors in completeness, accuracy, or reasonableness; (3) anyone
independent of the organization conducted periodic monitoring or audits of
the data to check for errors in completeness, accuracy, or reasonableness;
and (4) there were any potential problems or limitations with the
reliability of the data that were used to answer the survey questions.

^7This variable was significant at the 0.10 level.

Section 2: Study Population and Descriptive Analyses

Study Population

In consultation with SSA officials and contractors as well as Education
officials, we selected as our study population working age individuals who
(1) were either receiving Disability Insurance (DI) only, Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) only, or both DI and SSI benefits concurrently; and
(2) exited VR after having completed VR services.^8 To use the most recent
data available, we further refined this population to include those
beneficiaries who

           o Began receiving VR services no earlier than 1995 and who
           completed VR after having received services in fiscal years 2001
           though 2003.
           o Had received a DI or SSI benefit payment at least once during
           the 3 months before application for VR services. Beneficiaries
           were defined as concurrent if they received both DI and SSI
           benefits for at least 1 month in the 3 months before VR
           application. We selected a 3-month window to account for the fact
           that many beneficiaries, SSI beneficiaries in particular,
           fluctuate in their receipt of benefits for any given month.

We excluded from our study population those disability beneficiaries who

           o Completed VR after 2003, because we lacked at least 1 year of
           post-VR earnings data.
           o Applied for or started VR services, but did not complete VR.
           o Began receiving disability benefits after receiving VR services
           because these beneficiaries may have differed in certain important
           characteristics from those receiving benefits before VR
           participation.
           o Reached age 65 or died at any point in their VR participation or
           during the time frame of our study. We excluded the beneficiaries
           who died or reached age 65 because they would have left the
           disability rolls for reasons unrelated to employment. For example,
           beneficiaries who reach age 65 convert to SSA retirement benefits.

^8Our study population included disabled adult children and disabled
widow(er)s, who may receive DI benefits based on their parents' or
spouses' Social Security earnings record. While their benefits are paid
from the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, these individuals are
disabled and are eligible for VR services.

Computation of Dependent Variables

Using the Ticket Research File (TRF) subfile combined with data from SSA's
Master Earnings File (MEF), we computed three measures of earnings
outcomes for the 2001 through 2003 exit cohorts for each state VR agency:
(1) the percentage of beneficiaries who had earnings during the year after
receiving VR services, (2) the average amount they earned,^9 and (3) the
percentage that left the disability rolls by 2005. The data sources for
our three earnings outcomes or dependent variables are shown in table 5.

Table 5: Dependent Variables Used in the Analyses

                                                         Dataset from which   
Dependent variable                                    variable was derived 
Percentage of beneficiaries with earnings during the  MEF                  
year after VR                                                              
Average annual earnings for SSA beneficiaries among   MEF                  
those with earnings during the year after exiting VR                       
Percentage of beneficiaries that left the rolls by    TRF subfile          
2005                                                                       

Source: SSA data.

To adjust for inflation, all of our earnings figures were computed in 2004
dollars using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
The CPI-U, maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, represents
changes in prices of all goods and services purchased for consumption by
urban households. The CPI-U can be used to adjust for the effects of
inflation, so that comparisons can be made from one year to the next using
standardized dollars. We standardized the value of average annual earnings
to 2004 dollars because this was the most recent year for which earnings
data were available at the time of our analysis.

Departures from the Disability Rolls

To determine whether disability beneficiaries left the rolls before 2005,
we used data from the TRF subfile that indicated the month in which a
beneficiary left the rolls because of work. We included all beneficiaries
who left the rolls after their VR application date. Concurrent
beneficiaries were considered to have left the rolls only if they stopped
receiving benefits from both programs.

^9To determine a beneficiary's earnings in the year after VR, we
calculated earnings in the calendar year after the year in which
beneficiaries completed VR. For example, whether the beneficiary completed
VR in January or December 2000, earnings from January 2001 through
December 2001 would have been used to determine earnings in the year after
VR.

Descriptive Analyses

To depict the variation of agency performance in earnings outcomes of SSA
beneficiaries completing VR from 2001 to 2003, we performed two
descriptive analyses. First, we developed distributions of each earnings
outcome. Second, we computed the means and ranges of these outcomes by
year and agency type. With data from 78 agencies over 3 years (from
persons who exited the state VR programs from 2001 to 2003), we had 234
cases in our data file.^10 Both sets of analyses are presented in the
findings section of the report.

Section 3: Econometric Analyses

To identify key factors related to the earnings outcomes of SSA
beneficiaries completing VR programs, we used econometric methods to
analyze data from various sources related to VR agencies and the SSA
beneficiaries who exited them from 2001 through 2003. Our econometric
analyses focused on the differences across agencies for the three
different dependent variables: (1) the percentage of beneficiaries who had
earnings during the year after leaving VR; (2) among those with earnings,
the average beneficiary earnings level during the year after leaving VR;
and (3) the percentage of beneficiaries that left the disability rolls as
a result of finding work by the end of 2005.

We began our econometric analysis with ordinary least squares (OLS) and
logistic regression models to analyze differences in outcomes based on
individual characteristics. That is, we started with as many observations
as there were individuals in our study population, each observation being
assigned the characteristics of the agency as well as of the individual.
Given that our data were multilevel (i.e., included information on both
individuals and agency-level characteristics), we used statistical
techniques to assess the feasibility of using ordinary least squares and
logistic regression at the individual level rather than hierarchical
modeling techniques.^11 As a result of these analyses, we chose to use
robust standard errors to account for clustering in agencies rather than
hierarchical modeling techniques. However, preliminary analyses using the
individual-level data to model binary outcomes and each individuals'
earnings revealed that regression and logistic models frequently failed
statistical tests when compared to a null model with no explanatory
variables, and only accounted for a small fraction of the variability
outcomes of interest to us.^12

10We have only 232 observations in our model of earnings because we
considered average earnings among only those beneficiaries with earnings
in the year following their exit from VR. Two agencies did not have any
beneficiaries with reported earnings from employment in 2002.

^11We used Stata's xtreg and rtlogit commands to calculate the intraclass
correlation coefficient rho. These analyses revealed minimal clustering
among individuals within agencies (rho of 0.02 and below); that is,
individuals' characteristics and employment outcomes appeared to vary as
much within agencies as across agencies. This suggests that inferences
derived from OLS and logistic regressions with robust standard errors are
not misleading as a result of failure to hierarchically account for
clustering of individuals within agencies.

Because our econometric models using individual-level data explained very
little variation in earnings outcomes (i.e., low predictive power), we
proceeded to model outcomes at the agency level. Specifically, we combined
data on the aggregate characteristics of individuals within agencies (such
as the percentage of female beneficiaries or Disability Insurance
recipients within an agency) with agency-level data on structure,
expenditures, and policies and practices. In other words, rather than
assess whether individuals differed in the likelihood of getting a job or
leaving the rolls or had different earnings, we analyzed whether the
agencies' earnings outcomes varied as a function of the characteristics of
the agencies, the aggregate characteristics of beneficiaries within each
agency, and the characteristics of the states the agencies were located
in.^13 Our dependent variables thus contained, for each agency in a given
fiscal year, the average earnings level among those with jobs, the
percentage at each agency who had earnings during the year after
completing VR, and the percentage of those leaving the rolls due to work.

As with our descriptive analysis, we had 234 cases in our data file, a
number that was fairly small relative to the large number of agency
characteristics whose effects we wanted to estimate.^14 We could not, as a
result, fit models that estimated the effects of all of the
characteristics of interest simultaneously to determine which were
statistically significant. We therefore chose to proceed by first
estimating, in a series of bivariate regression models, which state and
clientele characteristics (or characteristics of the types of SSA
beneficiaries served in each agency) were significant. After obtaining
preliminary estimates, we aggregated sets of significant state and
clientele characteristics into single models for each of the three
outcomes, and reassessed the significance of their net effects when they
were estimated simultaneously in a multivariate regression model.^15 We
next tested the stability and magnitude of statistically significant
coefficients for the state and clientele characteristics under different
model specifications, and proceeded to introduce the agency
characteristics (e.g., structure, management, expenditures, etc.) one at a
time into these base models with the significant state and case mix
characteristics. After determining individually significant agency
characteristics, we used an iterative procedure to reassess agency-level
effects by testing model stability and which variables were and were not
significant when others were included, and retesting the significance of
selected state, case mix, and agency characteristics that were marginally
significant in prior models.^16 In all cases we used robust regression
procedures to account for the clustering of cases within agencies (i.e.,
the lack of independence within agencies over time), and weighted the
cases in our analyses according to either the total number of
beneficiaries in each agency in each year (for models of having earnings
or leaving the rolls) or the total number of beneficiaries with earnings
due to work in each year (for models of earnings).

^12For example, our multivariate models of earnings were only able to
explain, at best, approximately 8 percent of the variation in individuals'
earnings.

^13Although the alternative of looking at individual outcomes with
individual data might have allowed us to control for individual
characteristics somewhat better before estimating the effects of the state
and agency characteristics, we believe modeling the variability in
outcomes using the aggregate data was more appropriate given the objective
of assessing which agency-level characteristics are related to employment
outcomes. However, because aggregation reduces our degrees of freedom and
may compound individual measurement error in variables such as earnings,
we recognize that our estimated coefficients may not be as precise as ones
generated using individual characteristics. See section 4 of this appendix
for more information on measurement issues.

^14We have only 232 observations in our model of earnings because two
agencies did not have any beneficiaries with reported earnings from
employment in 2002.

Ultimately, we obtained the models shown in table 6. Each of the models
consisted of 7 to 9 characteristics that jointly accounted for between 66
and 77 percent of the variability in each dependent variable. Although
certain characteristics were significant in some specifications for each
outcome, the limited degrees of freedom prevented us from including all
but the most consistently significant variables with greatest stability
across models. In the models that estimated factors affecting the
percentage of SSA beneficiaries who had earnings and factors affecting
average earnings, state characteristics accounted for a substantial
portion of the explained variance. Although state characteristics were
also important in the model estimating the percentage getting off the
rolls by 2005, the year that beneficiaries exited the agency accounted for
the greatest portion of the variance explained, a result reflecting that
those who exited the rolls earlier had more time to do so.

^15Statistical significance was measured at a p-value <0.05 and marginal
significance was measured at p-value <0.10.

^16Although we considered this full range of variables in the series of
models leading to our final specifications for each outcome, not all
variables are significant for each outcome. We used a variety of factors
to decide which characteristics to include or exclude in the model for
each outcome. We considered statistical significance, magnitude of each
effect, stability of included coefficients across model specifications
with different regressors, changes in the proportion of variance explained
using F-tests for nested models (when appropriate), and theoretical
considerations based on past research and input from agencies we surveyed
and interviewed.

Table 6: Coefficients for Multivariate Models Estimating the Effects of
State and Agency Characteristics on Three VR Outcomes, and the Proportion
of Variance Explained (R-Squared) by Each Model

Significant explanatory                                                    
variables for percentage of                                                
beneficiaries with earnings                                                
during the year after VR                           Robust standard         
(R-squared = 0.66)              Effect coefficient           error P-value 
Unemployment rate                            -2.22            .358   <.001 
Per capita income (per $10,000)               3.90            1.42    .008 
Population size (per 1 million)               -.40            .047   <.001 
Percentage of female                         -.508            .202    .014 
beneficiaries                                                              
Combined agency                               8.08            1.95   <.001 
General agency                               10.35            2.22   <.001 
Proportion of SSA beneficiaries               .397            .140    .006 
served                                                                     
Percentage of counselors                      5.63            2.06    .008 
meeting CSPD requirements                                                  
In-house benefits counselor                 -.3.61           1.251    .005 
Constant                                     60.19            9.89   <.001 
Significant explanatory                                                    
variables for average earnings                                             
among SSA beneficiaries                            Robust standard         
(R-squared = 0.77)               Effectcoefficient           error P-value 
Per capita income (per $10,000)            1684.54          185.25   <.001 
Percentage of beneficiaries                 -82.16            3.61   <.001 
with mental impairments                                                    
Percentage of beneficiaries on              -64.52            8.20   <.001 
Disability Insurance                                                       
Agency integration with                     727.37          350.63    .041 
business community                                                         
Degree of support/cooperation               858.15          249.87    .001 
with other agencies                                                        
Percentage of expenditures on                12.54            3.95    .002 
training                                                                   
Proportion of SSA beneficiaries             -27.55           11.77    .022 
served                                                                     
Constant                                   9059.65          824.75   <.001 
Significant explanatory                                                    
variables for percentage of                                                
beneficiaries leaving the                                                  
disability rolls (R-Squared =                       Robuststandard         
0.76)                            Effectcoefficient           error P-value 
Exit year 2002                               -1.89            .170   <.001 
Exit year 2003                               -4.07            .194   <.001 
Per capita income (per $10,000)               1.98            .326   <.001 
Population size (per 1 million)              -.068            .014   <.001 
Percentage of beneficiaries on               -.040            .016    .021 
Disability Insurance                                                       
Percentage of beneficiaries 46               -.078            .043    .073 
to 55 years of age                                                         
Percentage of beneficiaries                  -.084            .016   <.001 
with mental impairments                                                    
Percent of beneficiaries with                -.045            .010   <.001 
visual impairments                                                         
Agency integration with                       1.62            .788    .044 
business community                                                         
Constant                                     11.64            1.58   <.001 

Source: GAO analysis of SSA, Education, GAO survey, and data from various
sources listed in table 3.

Note: While earnings are coded in units of dollars, per capita income is
coded in units of $10,000 so that the coefficient represents the effect of
a $10,000 change in per capita income. Population is coded in per million
persons. Percentage and proportion variables are coded between 0 and 100;
this includes the percentage of beneficiaries with earnings, leaving the
rolls, on Disability Insurance, and with mental and visual impairments, as
well as the percentage of agency budget spent on training and the
percentage of CSPD-certified counselors. Agency integration with the
business community and support and cooperation with other agencies are
scaled between 0 and 1.

Taking each outcome one at a time, the coefficients in table 6 suggest the
following:

           o The percentage of SSA beneficiaries who had earnings was
           significantly lower in more populous states and states with higher
           unemployment rates, and significantly higher in states with higher
           per capita incomes. The percentage of SSA beneficiaries who exited
           VR agencies and had earnings was also significantly lower in
           agencies in which greater percentages of the beneficiaries are
           female. Independent of these effects of the state in which the
           agencies are located, and the gender composition of the
           beneficiaries who exit the agencies, there were also significant
           net effects of certain agency characteristics. Agencies that
           served only blind beneficiaries had lower percentages of SSA
           beneficiaries who had earnings than combined agencies or general
           agencies that did not serve the blind. The percentage of SSA
           beneficiaries who had earnings was also higher in agencies that
           served a higher proportion of SSA beneficiaries and had a higher
           percentage of counselors who met CSPD requirements, but lower in
           agencies that had an in-house benefits counselor.

           o Among the SSA beneficiaries who had earnings, those who were in
           agencies in states that had higher per capita incomes had higher
           average incomes. Net of these effects, agencies that (1) were more
           integrated with the business community, (2) had a higher degree of
           support and cooperation from other agencies, and (3) spent more of
           their total budget on training had higher average annual incomes
           among SSA beneficiaries completing VR services. Agencies with a
           higher percentage of beneficiaries on Disability Insurance, with
           mental impairments, and higher proportions of SSA beneficiaries
           served had lower average annual incomes among SSA beneficiaries
           completing VR services.

           o With respect to leaving the disability rolls by 2005, our final
           model showed that beneficiaries who exited agencies more recently
           were less likely to leave the rolls by 2005. (See section 4 for an
           explanation of why this might be the case.) Net of this, agencies
           in states with larger populations had lower percentages of
           beneficiaries who left the rolls by 2005, while agencies in states
           with higher per capita incomes had higher percentages who left the
           rolls by 2005. The characteristics of clientele served by each
           agency had a significant effect on the percentage of SSA
           beneficiaries who got off the rolls by that year. Agencies with
           higher percentages of beneficiaries who were blind or had mental
           impairments had lower percentages getting off the rolls by 2005.
           Those agencies with a higher proportion of DI beneficiaries had
           lower percentages that got off the rolls by 2005. The only agency
           characteristic with consistent statistical significance was the
           integration with the local business community; a greater
           proportion of beneficiaries in agencies with better integration
           with businesses left the rolls.^17 Agencies with a greater
           proportion of beneficiaries from 46 through 55 years of age had
           fewer recipients leaving the rolls, but this effect is only
           significant at the 90 percent confidence level in our final model.

Section 4: Limitations of our Analyses

Our results cannot be generalized to the larger population of all SSA
disability beneficiaries or all VR participants because we looked only at
VR participants who were SSA beneficiaries. Because VR participation is
voluntary, beneficiaries who participate in VR may have certain
characteristics that make them different from other SSA beneficiaries and,
therefore, more likely or less likely to succeed in the workforce.

Because our primary goal was not to conduct an impact evaluation of the VR
program, but rather to conduct a comparative analysis of earnings outcomes
across state VR agencies to determine what might account for differences
in state agency performance, we felt that our analysis did not require a
control group of SSA beneficiaries that did not receive VR services.
Nonetheless, as a secondary analysis goal, we attempted to identify such a
group using the data that were available to us on SSA beneficiaries that
had applied for but did not receive VR services. However, we were unable
to identify a subset of this group that was sufficiently similar to the VR
participants to feel confident that any differences in earnings outcomes
that we found between them and those that completed the VR program would
be attributable to the VR program and not to the differences in individual
characteristics. Therefore, our findings do not allow us to report on the
overall effectiveness of the VR program.

^17Several other agency characteristics, notably the percentage of
expenditures on purchased services, had marginally significant effects and
were not included in the final model.

Our earnings data had several limitations that may have resulted in an
under- or overestimation of beneficiaries' earnings. For example, although
the beneficiary earnings data were provided to SSA by the Internal Revenue
Service and are considered to be the most comprehensive and accurate
measure of earnings available, they excluded several categories of workers
who participated in alternative retirement systems and whose earnings may
not have been reported to SSA.^18 Such omissions could have resulted in an
under- or overestimate of beneficiary earnings. On the other hand, some
earnings reported to SSA may have included income derived from work
activity in a previous year, such as commissions or bonuses. Further, the
earnings data included some forms of nonwork income, such as sick leave
earnings and profit sharing. These additional sources of income could not
be identified and, therefore, could result in an overestimation of
beneficiaries' earnings in a particular year. The data did not allow us to
estimate the magnitude of the effect of these factors on our analyses.

Our findings that beneficiaries receiving DI and beneficiaries from later
cohort years were less likely to leave the rolls are likely due to several
factors related to program structure and the updating of data. First,
under current program rules, DI beneficiaries are allowed a trial work
period (9 months) and an extended period of eligibility (36 months) before
they are considered off the rolls.^19 SSI beneficiaries who earn enough so
that they do not receive a benefit for 12 months are taken off the rolls.
Therefore, given that we measured whether beneficiaries left the rolls by
2005, beneficiaries from earlier cohort years would have had more time to
leave the rolls. Further, by 2005 many DI beneficiaries may not yet have
entered or completed their extended period of eligibility or reached the
point where they would have been considered off the rolls.

In addition, delays in the reporting of earnings may also have contributed
to our finding that relatively more SSI beneficiaries and beneficiaries
from earlier cohort years left the rolls. There can be a significant
delay--up to 3 years--between when beneficiaries begin work and when SSA
is notified or learns of their earnings. This delay is more likely to
occur with DI beneficiaries, whose earnings were reviewed on a yearly
basis as compared to monthly earnings reviews for SSI beneficiaries during
the time frame of our study. Because of this reporting delay, the TRF
subfile data that indicated whether a beneficiary had left the rolls may
not have contained completely up-to-date data, especially for later
cohorts. For these two reasons, we did not include comparisons of the
rates of departures from the disability rolls by exit year because they
would be misleading.

^18Workers who may have been excluded include federal civilian employees
hired before 1984 and certain state and local government employees.

^19The 9-month trial work period must occur within a 60-month period.

With respect to earnings after VR, we included all earnings in the
calendar year after VR, irrespective of the time gap between VR completion
and the first month of earnings. Therefore, the start month for
calculating earnings in the year after VR could have ranged from 1 to 12
months after VR, depending on which month the beneficiary exited. In other
words, beneficiaries who exited VR in January 2000 would have their 2001
annual earnings calculated beginning in January 2001--12 months after
their exit from VR. In contrast, beneficiaries who completed VR in
December 2000 would have been out of VR for 1 month when their 2001 annual
earnings calculation started in January 2001. We have no indication of
clustering in earnings relative to VR completion and therefore expect a
fairly even distribution of earnings over time. We do not expect the time
lag in the earnings calculation to vary systematically by year or cohort.

Finally, our analysis of the impact of agency characteristics on earnings
outcomes of particular exit cohorts was limited by the time frames of our
agency data. Specifically, we used information on the agency that
pertained to the year before each exit cohort completed VR to explain the
earnings outcomes of that exit cohort (e.g., agency data from 2000 were
used to explain 2001 beneficiary outcomes). We did this for two reasons.
First, beneficiaries, on average, receive services from VR for
approximately 2 years. Therefore, for any given exit cohort, data on the
agency from the year prior to exit will cover the most beneficiaries in
that exit cohort. Second, although data from previous years might also
explain beneficiary outcomes for a given cohort, we did not want to impose
an inordinate burden on our survey respondents by collecting data on many
years, especially those prior to 2000. In conducting preliminary tests of
our survey questions, we also learned that the quality of the data may
have been lower in earlier years because some agencies retain data for a
limited time period.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education

Note: GAO's comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.

See comment 1.

See comment 3.

See comment 2.

See comment 6.

See comment 5.

See comment 4.

See comment 7.

See comment 9.

See comment 8.

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Education's letter
dated April 17, 2007.

GAO Comments

1. Education noted that more contextual information would help readers
better understand the data and findings in the report. We added additional
information to the report about VR reimbursement for successful SSA
beneficiary rehabilitations, the role of disability determination services
in VR referral, as well as a reference on where to find more information
on the structure of federal disability programs.

2. We disagree with Education that our measures of statistical
significance do not necessarily translate into issues of programmatic
significance for the VR program because it is a formula grant program or
that the agency characteristics we identify as having a significant impact
on agency-level performance with respect to SSA beneficiaries may be
overstated. Given Education's important leadership role in overseeing the
VR agencies, we believe that our findings are relevant to the guidance and
information that Education may choose to provide to state VR agencies.
While we acknowledge that many SSA disability beneficiaries will not be
able to return to work and leave the rolls for a variety of reasons, such
as the severity of their disability, we analyzed numerous versions of our
models and only reported on the relationships that were consistently
significant across many versions of the model. As such, we believe these
relationships are valid and deserve careful consideration.

3. Education stated that there is a significant difference between helping
more SSA beneficiaries participate in the workforce versus helping more
leave the disability rolls. While we agree, we believe that participating
in the workforce is an important first step and improves SSA
beneficiaries' potential for leaving the rolls.

4. We agree with Education that our description of the states' CSPD
certifications could be misconstrued. We clarified the CSPD language in
the background, findings, and recommendation sections of the report.

5. Education stated that overall collaboration between VR agencies and
other agencies providing complementary services may improve outcomes, but
that some collaboration resulting in better services to individuals with
disabilities may not always support more or better rehabilitations for SSA
beneficiaries. When we tested the effect of receiving support from
specific agencies on SSA beneficiary outcomes, we did not find support
from individual agencies to be significant. (See table 4 in app. I under
"Integration with Outside Partners" for a list of variables we tested.)
However, we found that when these relationships were aggregated, agencies
that received a greater degree of support from more than one public agency
had significantly higher levels of earnings among SSA beneficiaries.

6. Education suggested that VR agencies with high proportions of SSA
beneficiaries may also have high levels of collaboration with other
agencies because SSA beneficiaries may require long-term supports to live
in the community, which may in turn necessitate cooperation with other
public programs. The department noted that this may account for our
findings because benefit eligibility may be necessary to receive certain
supports from outside agencies. We added a footnote with this potential
explanation to the report.

7. Education noted that we questioned the validity of certain
self-reported data in this report, but deemed similar data acceptable in
our 2005 VR report.^1 In relation to our 2005 report, this report
references different self-reported data for different purposes.
Specifically, this report refers to clients' earnings data at the time of
application, whereas our 2005 report used clients' earnings data after
exiting VR (which was not used in this report). More importantly, this
report used data as part of an econometric model whereas our 2005 report
used self-reported data for descriptive purposes. While it is always
preferable to verify self-reported data, our reliability tests are limited
to our intended use of the data, and the data's reliability for that
purpose. Education said it was open to our recommendation, but sensitive
to the reporting burden on the VR agencies. Our recommendation that
Education explore cost-effective ways to validate self-reported data was
based on the experience of some VR agencies that have obtained data
successfully from official sources and not relied solely on self-reported
information.

8. Education disagreed with our recommendation on when economic conditions
and state demographics should be considered in assessing agency
performance. Instead of using this information to help set performance
measures, the department said that it takes these factors into account
when it monitors agency performance results and believes that its approach
is effective. However, on the basis of the statistical significance of
economic factors in our analysis, we believe that incorporating this
contextual information in assessing performance measures is essential to
provide state agencies with a more accurate picture of their relative
performance. Education also stated that the VR program's statutory funding
formula allocates relatively more funds to poorer states based on per
capita income to offset the lack of other resources in the state. However,
if the additional funds allocated to VR agencies located in states with
low per capita incomes actually offset the lack of other resources in the
state, we would not have found a significant relationship between per
capita income and state VR performance. Finally, Education stated the
overall state unemployment rate may not entirely correspond to the jobs
available to SSA beneficiaries. In our analysis, however, this variable
was highly significant in explaining the percentage of SSA beneficiaries
with earnings for state VR agencies.

^1 [51]GAO-05-865 .

9. We agree with Education that the report's title should indicate that
our sample was limited to SSA beneficiaries and we modified the title
accordingly.

Appendix III: Comments from the Social Security Administration

Note: GAO's comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.

See comment 5.

See comments 1 and 2.

See comment 2.

See comment 1.

See comment 3.

See comment 6.

See comment 2.

See comment 5.

See comment 4.

See comment 2.

See comment 8.

See comment 7.

See comment 2.

See comment 9.

The following are GAO's comments on the Social Security Administration's
letter dated April 13, 2007.

GAO Comments

1. We disagree with SSA that many of the comments provided on our previous
report ( [52]GAO-07-332 ) apply to this report because the methods and
data we used differed significantly from our earlier report. Prior to
submitting this report for agency comment, we carefully reviewed and
incorporated any comments from the earlier report that were relevant.

2. SSA stated that the report has methodological flaws that introduced
aggregation bias and false correlations. It suggested that we should have
focused on individual-level analysis or reported the results of both the
individual- and aggregate-level analyses. We disagree, as the primary goal
of our analysis was to analyze agency-level outcomes, not individual-level
outcomes. Specifically, our objective was to understand what "may account
for the wide variation in state VR agency outcomes with respect to SSA
beneficiaries." In doing so, we used aggregated data, which is a widely
used and, at times, necessary means of analysis throughout all social
sciences. Because we used aggregated data, we did not attempt to infer the
effects of individual behavior or individual outcomes and noted such in
our report. For example, we did not find that a lower percentage of women
beneficiaries had earnings relative to male beneficiaries. Rather, we
found that agencies serving a higher proportion of women beneficiaries had
lower percentages of beneficiaries with earnings relative to other
agencies.

We did not report the results from the individual-level analyses, as
recommended by SSA, because we did not find them sufficiently reliable
upon which to base findings. Specifically, we did not find the
individual-level results to be reliable, as we were not able to control
for some factors at the individual level--for example, severity of
disability--that were crucial to an individual-level analysis, but not
crucial to analyses at the aggregated level. Although we chose not to
report individual-level results, they were, in fact, consistent with the
results of our aggregate analyses.

We conducted statistical tests prior to our agency-level analyses to
ensure that our aggregate analyses were not biased by a failure to account
for certain types of correlations between individuals within agencies. Our
tests did not reveal such correlations. In the absence of such
correlations, several respected authorities agree that aggregate-level
analyses that incorporate aggregated individual-level characteristics will
not result in biased estimates.^1 To further ensure our methods were
appropriate and robust, our final report was reviewed and validated by an
expert in statistical analysis.^2

3. We agree with SSA that state agency rules about whether and how
disability beneficiaries are referred to VR may have an affect on agency
success rates, and controlled for it to the extent possible in our
analysis. While we were not able to control for differences in the way
states target beneficiaries for referral to VR as SSA suggested, we did
include a variable reflecting the percentage of SSA beneficiaries served
by a VR agency (computed as the percentage of all clientele served at that
agency). This variable was significant in two of our three models.

4. SSA had concerns that the Ticket to Work program was implemented during
the time frame of our study and should have been controlled for in our
analysis. Although there was a very slight overlap between the time frame
of our study and the timing of the Ticket to Work program, we nevertheless
conducted tests to determine whether the rollout of the Ticket program had
an effect on VR agency outcomes for SSA beneficiaries. The rollout of the
Ticket program was not significant and, therefore, we did not report its
effect.

5. SSA questioned the value of measuring state-level economic factors and
the resultant implications for VR. Our findings on the influence of state
economic characteristics were highly significant and are corroborated by
previous research, and therefore we believe that implications and
recommendations can be offered from our analysis of state economic factors
on agency-level outcomes. However, nowhere in our report do we indicate
that our findings suggest that during times of high unemployment, less
funding should be allocated to VR agencies. To the contrary, we suggest
that economic factors should be controlled, or accounted for, when
assessing agency performance. Moreover, while we agree that economic
conditions are associated with tax revenues, we found that total state
agency expenditures on services (and several other expenditure variables
listed in table 2 of app. I) were not significant predictors of
agency-level earnings outcomes for SSA beneficiaries.

^1See, for example, Leigh Burstein, "The Analysis of Multilevel Data in
Educational Research and Evaluation," Review of Research in Education,
vol. 8, p. 158-233 (1980); Judith Singer, "Using SAS PROC MIXED to Fit
Multilevel Models, Hierarchical Models, and Individual Growth Models,"
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, vol. 24, no. 4 (1998);
and Stephen W. Raudenbush and Anthony S. Bryk, Hierarchical Linear Models:
Applications and Data Analysis Methods, second ed. (Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications, 2002), 99-159.

^2Herbert Smith, Professor of Sociology, Director of Population Studies,
University of Pennsylvania.

6. SSA had concerns about our findings on benefits counselors because they
differed from those of other research. While prior research focused on the
impact of benefits counseling in one state, our analysis focused on the
impact of benefits counseling across all state agencies. Additionally, we
noted that the time frame of our study was a period of transition for the
benefits counseling program. Therefore, while we believe our findings are
accurate, we also noted the contradictory findings in other research.

7. We agree with SSA that the higher earnings thresholds for the legally
blind allow them to earn more than other categories of workers with
disabilities while still keeping their disability benefit and have
modified our explanation of the results on beneficiaries who are blind.

8. SSA stated that SSI beneficiaries generally lack a work history that
qualifies them for DI benefits, and that this lack of work history is more
likely to lead SSI beneficiaries into entry-level jobs, resulting in lower
average annual earnings than DI beneficiaries. While we agree past work
history can be a contributing factor, we found the opposite effect. We
found that agencies with a higher proportion of SSA beneficiaries who were
DI beneficiaries had lower average annual earnings among SSA beneficiaries
and a lower percentage of beneficiaries leaving the rolls. We offer
potential explanations for these results in the report.

9. We incorporated SSA's technical comments as appropriate.

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Denise M. Fantone, Acting Director, (202) 512-7215, [email protected]

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above Robert E. Robertson, Director;
Michele Grgich, Assistant Director; Amy Anderson; Melinda Cordero; Erin M.
Godtland; Jay Grussing; Robert Marek; Brittni Milam; Nisha R. Unadkat; and
Rick M. Wilson made significant contributions to all phases of this
report. In addition, Susan Bernstein, Cindy Gilbert, Lisa Mirel, Thomas
McCool, Anna Maria Ortiz, Daniel A. Schwimer, Doug Sloane, and Shana B.
Wallace provided technical assistance.

Related GAO Products

Vocational Rehabilitation: Earnings Increased for Many SSA Beneficiaries
after Completing VR Services, but Few Earned Enough to Leave SSA's
Disability Rolls. [54]GAO-07-332 . Washington, D.C.: March 2007.

Vocational Rehabilitation: Better Measures and Monitoring Could Improve
the Performance of the VR Program. [55]GAO-05-865 . Washington, D.C.:
September 2005.

SSA Disability: SGA Levels Appear to Affect the Work Behavior of
Relatively Few Beneficiaries, but More Data Needed. [56]GAO-02-224 .
Washington, D.C.: January 2002.

SSA Disability: Other Programs May Provide Lessons for Improving
Return-to-Work Efforts. [57]GAO-01-153 . Washington, D.C.: January 2001.

Social Security Disability Insurance: Multiple Factors Affect
Beneficiaries' Ability to Return to Work. [58]GAO/HEHS-98-39 . Washington,
D.C.: January 1998.

Social Security: Disability Programs Lag in Promoting Return to Work.
[59]GAO/HEHS-97-46 . Washington, D.C.: March 1997.

SSA Disability: Program Redesign Necessary to Encourage Return to Work.
[60]GAO/HEHS-96-62 . Washington, D.C.: April 1996.

Vocational Rehabilitation: Evidence for Federal Program's Effectiveness is
Mixed. [61]GAO/PEMD-93-19 . Washington, D.C.: August 1993.

(130534)

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

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: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [[email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-521 .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Denise Fantone at (202) 512-4997 or
[email protected].

Highlights of [69]GAO-07-521 , a report to congressional requesters

May 2007

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Improved Information and Practices May Enhance State Agency Earnings
Outcomes for SSA Beneficiaries

State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies, under the Department of
Education (Education), play a crucial role in helping individuals with
disabilities prepare for and obtain employment, including individuals
receiving disability benefits from the Social Security Administration
(SSA). In a prior report (GAO-05-865), GAO found that state VR agencies
varied in the rates of employment achieved for SSA beneficiaries. To help
understand this variation, this report analyzed SSA and Education data and
surveyed state agencies to determine the extent to which (1) agencies
varied in earnings outcomes over time; (2) differences in state economic
conditions, client demographic traits, and agency strategies could account
for agency performance; and (3) Education's data could be used to identify
factors that account for differences in individual earnings outcomes.

[70]What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Education promote certain promising practices
identified in our analysis, reassess the data it collects on clients, and
consider economic factors when measuring state agency performance.
Education generally agreed with our recommendations, but disagreed that
economic factors should be incorporated into performance measures. It
considers these factors during monitoring and believes its approach to be
effective. We maintain that these factors are critical to measuring
agencies' relative performance.

Our analysis of data on state agency outcomes for SSA beneficiaries
completing VR found that state agencies varied widely across different
outcome measures for the years of our review. For example, from 2001 to
2003 average annual earnings levels among those SSA beneficiaries with
earnings during the year after completing VR varied across state agencies
from about $1,500 to nearly $17,000.

Distribution of State Agency Average Annual Earnings for SSA Beneficiaries
during the Year after VR

Note: Earnings are in 2004 dollars.

After controlling for a range of factors, we found that much of the
differences in state agency earnings outcomes could be explained by state
economic conditions and the characteristics of the agencies' clientele.
Together state unemployment rates and per capita income levels accounted
for roughly one-third of the differences between state agencies in the
proportion of SSA beneficiaries that had earnings during the year after
VR. The demographic profile of SSA clients being served at an agency--such
as the proportion of women beneficiaries--also accounted for some of the
variation in earnings outcomes.

We also found that after controlling for other factors, a few agency
practices appeared to yield positive earnings results. For example, state
agencies with a higher proportion of state-certified counselors had more
SSA beneficiaries with earnings during the year after completing VR.

However, we were unable to determine what factors might account for
differences in earnings outcomes at the individual level. This was due in
part to Education's data, which lacked information on important factors
that research has linked to work outcomes, such as detailed data on the
severity of clients' disabilities. Although Education collects extensive
client-level data, some key data are self-reported and not always verified
by state agencies.

References

Visible links
  45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-865
  46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-97-46
  47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-865
  48. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-332
  49. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-332
  50. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-626
  51. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-865
  52. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-332
  54. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-332
  55. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-865
  56. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-224
  57. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-153
  58. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-98-39
  59. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-97-46
  60. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-96-62
  61. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/PEMD-93-19
  69. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-521
*** End of document. ***