2012 Case Closures for Transition Age Customers in States

 

Author: Dr. Lydia Schuck

Using the Separate Rehabilitation Agency Service Model

Introduction

The purpose of this analysis is to explore and illustrate data related to closure of VR cases among transition age youth. Specifically, I wanted to visualize the case closure rates among transition age youth (14-24) served in states where a separate agency serves blind individuals and another serves all other individuals with disabilities.

In some states, rehabilitation customers who are blind are served in an agency that is independent of the general rehabilitation agency. In other states, blind customers are served in a combined agency model, where all rehabilitation customers are served in one agency. Research indicates that blind customers served in separate agencies experience a higher rate of competitive employment placement and can potentially earn higher salaries than blind customers served in combined agency models. In addition, the cost, duration, and number of services to a blind individual do not differ between the separate and combined agency models (Cavenaugh, Giesen, & Pierce, 2000; Cavenaugh & Pierce, 1998; Cavenaugh, 1999; JWK International Corporation, 1981; Kirchner, 1982; Kirchner & Peterson, 1982; Management Services Associates, 1975).

Some of the services provided by VR agencies are associated with positive outcomes in employment among youth with disabilities. Having higher levels of career awareness, knowing how to set goals, taking occupational courses, and having paid employment in high school are all predictors of post-high school success in employment (Test, Mazzotti, Mustian, Fowler, Kortering, & Kohler, 2009). Learning travel skills is an indicator of employment success that is particularly relevant to blind young adults (Cmar, 2015). The advent of the Workforce Innovations and Opportunity Act (WIOA) law in 2014 brought new and additional requirements for rehabilitation agencies serving customers in transition to adulthood. Information found in the Open Data Lab at Explore VR could be useful to examine patterns of case closures of transition age youth served in the rehabilitation agencies before the new regulations came into effect.

Methods

I used the table TransitionAge2012.xls, found at the ExploreVR Open Data Lab. Raw data listed the number of transition and non-transition clients served in all of the blind, general, and combined rehabilitation agencies in all of the federal entities. I removed the cost of closure variables and calculated percentages from the counts of non-transition and transition age consumers. All of the states that serve rehabilitation customers in a separate agency model were included in the analysis. Data for all states that use a combined model were omitted from the analysis. An Excel software graph was used for the visualization.

Analysis and Results

The data were aggregated at the state level, and therefore do not show the percentage of transition age youth whose cases were closed versus not closed in 2012. The data show the percentage of transition age youth as percentage of all closed cases in particular states. Table 1 shows data that was derived for Explore VR from the 2012 RSA911 data. The data were aggregated at the state level. By definition and requirements of the Rehabilitation Act and Workforce Investment Opportunity Act, individuals 14 and up may become customers of rehabilitation services. Transition age customers are aged 14 through 24. Non-transition customers are individuals over age 24. Table 1 shows the closed cases for transition age customers served by the blind and general agencies as a raw count and as a percentage of closures for customers of all ages in those states. In 2012, South Carolina closed the smallest number of cases for blind transition age customers as a percentage of all cases closed (8.4%). The state which included the largest percentage of transition age case closures among blind customers was Nebraska (24.4%). The distribution of transition age and non-transition age customers is fairly uniform for persons with all disabilities, and therefore, closure rates would be expected to be the similar for individuals of similar ages, whether served by an agency for blind customers or a general rehabilitation agency. However, the data show that transition age youth comprise a much larger percentage of closed cases in general rehabilitation agencies. Closed cases for transition age customers ranged between 21.1% (Oregon) and 48.6% (Iowa) of all cases closed by the general agencies. Only in New Mexico did the blind agency record a higher percentage of transition age closures that the general agency. In most states, the number of case closures representing transition age youth was two to three times as high in the general agency as in the blind agency.

Table 1. 2012 Transition-Age Closures at Separate Agencies

State	Agency for blind customers			General agency for other customers
	Transition Age Closures	All Closures	% of all closures	Transition Age Closures	All closures	% of all closures
Arkansas	67	534	12.5	2625	6737	39.0
Connecticut	25	142	17.6	1136	3732	30.4
Delaware	14	88	15.9	977	2605	37.5
Florida	301	2121	14.2	9244	29828	31.0
Idaho	21	173	12.1	2229	6726	33.1
Iowa	21	129	16.3	3222	6631	48.6
Kentucky	75	626	12.0	4284	11738	36.5
Maine	24	227	10.6	1195	3306	36.1
Massachusetts	38	363	10.5	3426	10986	31.2
Michigan	93	411	22.6	7179	22708	31.6
Minnesota	60	249	24.1	3076	7683	40.0
Missouri	78	532	14.7	5101	14801	34.5
Nebraska	30	123	24.4	1660	4794	34.6
New Jersey	79	566	14.0	4467	12677	35.2
New Mexico	34	98	34.7	1072	3403	31.5
New York	150	1004	14.9	16101	38033	42.3
North Carolina	100	1111	9.0	8049	24338	33.1
Oregon	35	205	17.1	1540	7285	21.1
South Carolina	42	500	8.4	4362	15100	28.9
South Dakota	23	236	9.7	828	2623	31.6
Texas	422	3220	13.1	10747	33870	31.7
Vermont	16	93	17.2	1306	4257	30.7
Virginia	117	524	22.3	4684	10598	44.2
Washington	91	430	21.2	2617	10977	23.8

 

Figure 1 visualizes the proportions of transition and non-transition customers served by both agencies in each state.

Discussion

Between two and three times as many cases were closed for transition age customers in general agencies in 2012, in comparison to agencies that serve blind customers. Some factor or factors may be suppressing the closure of cases for transition age youth at agencies for the blind. Cases may be kept open longer for blind young adults, resulting in a lower proportion of cases closed for younger participants than in the general agency. Agencies for the blind may have a higher percentage of customers who have more significant disabilities, who might need longer training for employment, resulting in more cases closed after age 24. A blind rehabilitation agency may provide college tuition at a higher rate than the general agency in the state, resulting in a greater proportion of younger customers keeping their cases open while they finish college^1.

To more completely explore the closures of cases for customers of transition age, it would be necessary to use data not available at the ExploreVR Open Data Lab. The discrepancy between blind and general agencies of proportions of transition age youth is difficult to interpret, but worthy of future investigation.

A limitation is noted in the use of data from just one year, 2012. It is impossible to make long-term projections of proportions of kinds of customers served using one year of data. This analysis did not explore every possible comparison among the data from the agencies. As noted above, it is not possible to say whether the customers represented in the data became employed or had cases closed for other reasons.

Although the data do not indicate why the cases were closed, this analysis presents a snapshot of the closures in this one year, showing who is being served. Although the data is from one point in time, the preponderance of states show increased closures for transition age customers of the general agency versus the blind agency. This pattern is difficult to interpret, but worthy of future investigation. Further research is recommended using RSA911 individual case data. This analysis adds to the literature by showing a simple way to use and visualize some of the data available in the ExploreVR Open Data Lab.

References

Cavenaugh, B., Giesen, J., & Pierce, S. (2000). Rehabilitation of visually impaired persons in separate and general agencies. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 94 (3), 133-145.

Cavenaugh, B. S., & Pierce, S. J. (1998). Characteristics, services, and outcomes of rehabilitation consumers who are blind or visually impaired served in separate and general agencies (Technical Report). Mississippi State: Mississippi State University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Blindness and Low Vision.

Cavenaugh, B. S. (1999). Relationship of agency structure and client characteristics to rehabilitation services and outcomes for consumers who are blind (Technical Report). Mississippi State: Mississippi State University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Blindness and Low Vision.

Cmar, J. (2015) Orientation and mobility experiences and outcome expectations as predictors of employment for young adults with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairments & Blindness, 109(2), 95-106.

ExploreVR (2015). _ TransitionAge2012.xls _[Data file]. Available from: http://www.explorevr.org

JWK International Corporation (1981). Evaluation of RSA programs for blind and visually handicapped persons. Annandale, VA: Author.

Kirchner, C. (1982). Effects of state agency structures on VR services for blind and visually impaired persons: Part 1. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 76(1), 31-33.

Kirchner, C., & Peterson, R. (1982). Effects of state agency structures on VR services for blind and visually impaired persons: Part II. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 76(2), 73-78.

Management Services Associates. (1975). Study of the organization, service delivery, evaluation of programs to effectively serve the blind. Austin, TX: Author.

Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L. J., & Kohler, P. H. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160-181. doi: 10.1177/0885728809346960

---

¹ Additionally, agencies for the blind serve a demographically different population in terms of age than general VR agencies. This helps explain the case closure rate gap for transition age youth found in most states. To learn more, read: Age of VR Consumers at General Vs. Blind Agencies