Skip to main content

Timeframe from Application to Closure in Integrated Employment for Vocational Rehabilitation Customers with Developmental Disabilities

Data Note 14, 2008

Download this publication in PDF.

By Alberto Migliore and Frank A. Smith.

Getting a job promptly after applying for vocational rehabilitation (VR) services is important for a successful career. Rapid placement boosts self-confidence and prevents applicants from losing work skills as a consequence of inactivity. Moreover, employers may prefer candidates whose work history shows limited gaps in employment.

This data note describes the integrated employment timeframe from application to closure for people with developmental disabilities (i.e., mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism) whose cases were closed by VR in 2006 (N = 27,579). VR typically closes cases when applicants have been in employment for at least 90 days.

The table below, divided by state, shows the percentages of cases closed within one year of application, between one and three years from application, and more than three years from application. Across all states, 33 percent of closures took place within one year of application, 49 percent between one and three years, and 18 percent more than three years after application. The highest percentage of cases closed within one year from application was 56, in both Vermont and Nevada. The highest percentages of cases closed more than three years from application was 42, in Oklahoma.

It is noteworthy that the time elapsed between application and closure is not necessarily a measure of individual success in employment outcomes. Applicants who are students may delay looking for employment until after completing secondary or postsecondary education. Moreover, some applicants may receive services beyond the 90th day of employment, extending the date of case closure in comparison to job entry. RSA 911 data do not provide the date of job entry.

Table: Timeframe from application to closure in integrated employment*

State

Number of Closures

Closed in one year or less (%)

Closed between 1 and 3 years (%)

Closed after more than 3 years (%)

AK

62

34

52

15

AL

1,343

30

43

27

AR

195

25

46

30

AZ

293

34

51

15

CA

2,693

36

48

17

CO

344

37

47

17

CT

133

27

55

18

DC

27

41

44

15

DE

121

47

43

10

FL

889

31

57

13

GA

1,137

29

50

22

HI

79

28

35

37

IA

477

16

53

31

ID

259

49

42

9

IL

950

32

40

28

IN

1,029

29

62

10

KS

296

33

53

14

KY

557

24

50

26

LA

219

6

71

23

MA

397

24

54

22

MD

421

40

45

14

ME

127

1

58

41

MI

969

46

40

14

MN

483

17

52

31

MO

827

31

60

9

MS

265

29

55

17

MT

116

39

47

14

NC

1,669

29

53

18

ND

89

29

53

18

NE

191

46

45

9

NH

144

43

47

10

NJ

425

41

51

8

NM

189

46

48

6

NV

75

56

37

7

NY

1,759

36

51

13

OH

1,153

51

42

7

OK

219

19

39

42

OR

477

52

42

6

PA

1,263

30

49

21

RI

113

29

39

32

SC

356

41

40

19

SD

215

50

32

18

TN

686

24

45

31

TX

1,029

31

52

18

UT

268

26

43

31

VA

950

37

44

19

VT

233

56

31

12

WA

561

25

60

15

WI

460

13

62

25

WV

273

33

44

23

WY

74

51

36

12

U.S. Total

27,579

33

49

18

*Totals not equal to 100 are due to rounding error.

Source RSA-911, FY2006.

Suggested Citation

Migliore, A. & Smith, F.A., 2007. Timeframe from Application to Closure in Integrated Employment for Vocational Rehabilitation Customers with Developmental Disabilities . DataNote Series, Data Note XIV. Boston, MA: Institute for Community Inclusion.

This is a publication of StateData.info, funded in part by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (#90DN0216). This Data Note was written by Alberto Migliore and Frank A. Smith.

The recommended citation for these charts and data is: Institute for Community Inclusion. (n.d.) StateData.info. Retrieved [today's date] from http://www.statedata.info.

 

This is a project of the Institute for Community Inclusion at UMass Boston supported in part by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under cooperative agreement #90DN0126 with additional support from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research of the U.S. Department of Education under grant #H133A021503. The opinions contained in this website are those of the grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of the funders.

 

Publication Date