This article reports on a survey of 871 visually impaired persons with developmental disabilities in 42 states to determine the effect of separate state blindness-specific vocational rehabilitation agencies on the receipt of services. The results indicate that visually impaired persons in states with specialized agencies are less likely than are those in other states to receive services, except when an agency's budget is large.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerkowitzE.D. (1987). Disabled policy: America's programs for the handicapped.New York: Cambridge University Press.
2.
HopkinsK. (1991). The studies of service delivery systems in rehabilitation of the blind and visually impaired: Review and analysis.Northridge: California Council of the Blind.
3.
KirchnerC. (1982). Effects of state agency structures on VR services for blind and visually impaired persons: Part I.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 76, 31–33.
4.
KirchnerC., & PetersonR. (1982). Effects of state agency structures on services for blind and visually impaired persons: Part II.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 76, 73–76.
5.
NelsonK.A., & DimitrovaE. (1993). Severe visual impairment in the United States and in each state, 1990.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 87, 80–85.
6.
Rehabilitation Services Administration, U.S. Department of Education. (1990). Annual report to the president and to the Congress, fiscal year 1989, on federal activities related to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7.
Rehabilitation Services Administration, U.S. Department of Education. (1991). Annual report to the president and to the Congress, fiscal year 1990, on federal activities related to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
8.
Rehabilitation Services Administration, U.S. Department of Education. (1992). Annual report to the president and to the Congress, fiscal year 1991, on federal activities related to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
9.
Rehabilitation Services Administration, U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Unpublished data on expenditures. Washington, DC: Author.
10.
RidgelyM.S., GoldmanH.H., & WillenbringM. (1990). Barriers to the care of persons with dual diagnoses: Organizational and financing issues.Schizophrenia Bulletin, 16, 123–132.
11.
SalkeverD.S. (1994). Access to vocational rehabilitation services for persons with severe disabilities: Analysis of the 1990 Developmental Disabilities National Consumer Survey.Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 5, 45–64.
12.
SalkeverD.S., CurcioL.M., JonesA.S., & SeidmanR. (1983). Analysis and scaling of self-reported health status measures: Application of a least-squares method for ordered responses. In U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Priorities in health statistics: Proceedings of the 19th national meeting of the Public Health Conference on Records and Statistics, August 1983 (PHS Publication, No. 81-1214, pp. 384–389). Washington, DC: U.S. Public Health Service.
13.
SalkeverD.S., GermanP.S., ShapiroS., HorkyR., & SkinnerE.A. (1976). Episodes of illness and access to care in the inner city: A comparison of HMO and non-HMO populations.Health Services Research, 11, 252–270.
14.
Temple University. (1990). The final report on the 1990 National Consumer Survey of People with Developmental Disabilities and Their Families.Philadelphia: Author.
15.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990). Unpublished disability estimates from the 1990 census.Washington, DC: Author.
16.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1991). Vocational rehabilitation: Clear guidance could help focus services on those with severe disabilities (Report No. HRD-92-12). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
