This investigation determined whether differences still exist for racial minorities and women in terms of acceptance rates, employment outcomes, and quality of successful closures in the state-federal vocational rehabilitation system. Three control variables— age, education level, and severity of disability—were used in a logistic regression model. Differences in odds (based on odds ratio estimates) were found for the following: (a) acceptance rates—favored European Americans over African Americans, (b) employment outcomes—favored European Americans over both African Americans and Native Americans, and (c) quality of closures—favored men over women, with age acting as an effect modifier.
Although state agencies are required by law to assess their consumers' satisfaction with vocational rehabilitation (VR), each state uses its own instrument to measure satisfaction. This not only makes comparisons across states impossible but also means that the quality of these instruments varies widely from state to state. As with other satisfaction research in general, there have been, and continue to be, many problems with the measurement of consumer satisfaction in VR. The purpose of this study was to create a valid, reliable, multidimensional consumer satisfaction instrument specifically for clients of VR agencies, without the documented problems associated with much of the existing satisfaction research.
This study was an examination of four different aspects of employment (i.e., major occupational category, earnings, projected job growth, and transferable skill levels) that can be used to evaluate vocational rehabilitation (VR) outcomes beyond successful closure. Comparisons were made among VR consumers with hearing loss (the target group), VR consumers with other disabilities, and the general labor force. Results indicated few differences between the two VR consumer groups, but differences between both consumer groups and the general labor force were found across all employment outcome areas. A clear finding of this study was that more successfully closed VR consumers are employed in lower skill jobs than are members of the general labor force.
Previous research suggested an unexplained difference in the patterns of offending behaviors among deaf people when compared to hearing people. This study, conducted in Texas, compares the incidence and types of violent offenses of a deaf prison population in comparison to the hearing prison population. Sixty-four percent of deaf prisoners were incarcerated for violent offenses in comparison to 49% of the overall state prison offender population. This finding is consistent with previous research. The most significant difference between the populations was found in the category of sexual assault, which represented 32.3% of deaf offenders in contrast to 12.3% of hearing state prison inmates overall. Factors potentially impacting violent offending by deaf persons are their vulnerability to child sexual abuse, use of chemicals, educational histories, and development of language and communication skills. Additionally, there is a widespread lack of accessible intervention and treatment services available to deaf sex offenders across the nation.
This study investigated the relationship between the job satisfaction of counselors employed by a state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agency and the satisfaction of their consumers with both the counselor and the overall VR experience. Multiple regression was used to determine whether facets of job satisfaction were related to consumers' satisfaction. Results indicated that job satisfaction was significantly related to consumer satisfaction and was able to account for a significant amount of variance in consumer satisfaction. The implications of these findings for VR are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.