The order of selection mandate, the cornerstone of the federal policy initiative to serve individuals with the most severe disabilities in the state-federal vocational rehabilitation (VR) program, is examined from the perspective of equity. The order of selection mandate is founded on the fair opportunity rule, which asserts that individuals who experience the most severe disadvantages resulting from disability have the greatest claim to available agency resources. Several challenges to the appropriate implementation of the order of selection mandate are identified. Also, difficulties in evaluating equity in program participation and agency resource allocation are discussed, and two standards for evaluation, consistency, and impartiality are proposed. Then, recent research on the quality of order of selection implementation in state-federal VR is reviewed, and recommendations to facilitate the equitable implementation of the mandate and to evaluate progress in meeting the goal of serving individuals with the most severe disabilities are proposed. Most importantly, standard, quantifiable data on VR program participants' severity of disability are needed to permit warranted conclusions about equity in order of selection implementation and evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, H., Barker, J., Pittman, J., Mars, L., Struening, E., & LaRocca, N. (1992). National trends in vocational rehabilitation: A comparison of individuals with physical disabilities and individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 58 (1), 7–16.
2.
Barrett, L., Collignon, F., Dodson, R., Langlois, S., Rogers, J., & Shea, S. (1978). Implementing the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: The vocational rehabilitation program response. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Planning Associates.
3.
Bellini, J., Bolton, B., & Neath, J. (1995). The development of a scale of social disadvantage for vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 19 (2), 107–118.
4.
Bellini, J., Bolton, B., & Neath, J. (1996). Diagnostic determinants of rehabilitation counselor eligibility decisions. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 20 (2), 93–106.
5.
Berkowitz, E. (1987). Disabled policy: America's programs for the handicapped. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Bolton, B. (1987). Outcome analysis in vocational rehabilitation. In M. J. Fuhrer (Ed.), Rehabilitation outcomes: Analysis and measurement (pp. 57–70). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
7.
Chamie, M. (1990). The status and use of the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps. World Health Statistics Quarterly, 43 (4), 272–280.
8.
Crewe, N., & Athelstan, G. (1984). Functional assessment inventory manual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
9.
Eleventh Institute on Rehabilitation Services. (1974). Rehabilitation of the severely disabled. Dunbar, WV: West Virginia Research and Training Center.
10.
Federal Register. (1993, July 16). Vol. 58, No. 135. Proposed rules.
11.
Frey, W. (1984). Functional assessment in the '80s: A conceptual enigma, a technical challenge. In A. S. Halpern & M. J. Fuhrer (Eds.), Functional assessment in rehabilitation (pp. 11–44). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
12.
Gatens-Robinson, E., & Rubin, S. (1995). Societal values and ethical commitments that influence rehabilitation service delivery behavior. In S. Rubin & R. Roessler (Eds.), Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation process (4th ed.) (pp. 157–174). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
13.
Growick, B., & Stueland, D. (1979). The relationship between differential service patterns and change in weekly earnings for three disability groups. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 22, 431–436.
14.
Howie, J., Gatens-Robinson, E., & Rubin, S. (1992). Applying ethical principles in rehabilitation counseling. Rehabilitation Education, 6, 41–55.
15.
Koshel, J., & Granger, C. (1978). Rehabilitation terminology: Who is severely disabled?Rehabilitation Literature, 39 (4), 102–106.
16.
Moriarty, J., & Walls, R. (1988). Employability of clients served in state vocational rehabilitation agencies: A national census. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 32 (2), 108–121.
17.
Nagi, S. (1991). Disability concepts revisited: Implications for prevention. In A. M. Pope & A. R. Tarlov (Eds.), Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for prevention (pp. 309–329). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18.
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. (1992). Digest of data on persons with disabilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
19.
Obermann, C. E. (1965). A history of vocational rehabilitation in America. Minneapolis, MN: T. S. Denison.
20.
Rehabilitation Services Administration. (1978). Rehabilitation Brief: Who is severely handicapped?—The need for a workable definition. Washington, DC: Author.
21.
Rehabilitation Services Administration. (1992). Order of selection for services guidance, Chapter G2501. Washington, DC: Author.
22.
Rehabilitation Services Administration. (1995). Information memorandum: Caseload statistics, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, Fiscal Year 1993. Washington, DC: Author.
23.
Rehabilitation Services Administration. (1996). Commissioner's memorandum: State VR agencies on an order of selection as of April 1, 1996. Washington, DC: Author.
24.
Rubin, S., & Roessler, R. (1995). Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation process (4th ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
25.
Salkever, D. (1994). Access to vocational rehabilitation services for people with severe disabilities: Analysis of the 1990 Developmental Disabilities National Consumer Survey. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 5 (2), 45–64.
26.
Schriner, K. F. (1996). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992: Initiatives and issues. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 27 (1), 37–41.
27.
Schriner, K. F., Rumrill, P., & Parlin, R. (1995). Rethinking disability policy: Equity in the ADA era and the meaning of specialized services for people with disabilities. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 17, 478–500.
28.
Stone, D. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
29.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1991). Vocational rehabilitation: Clearer guidance could help focus services on those with severe disabilities. Gaithersburg, MD: Author.
30.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993). Vocational rehabilitation: Evidence for federal program's effectiveness is mixed. Gaithersburg, MD: Author.
31.
Urban Institute. (1974). Report of the Comprehensive Service Needs Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
32.
Young, P. (1994). Equity: In theory and practice. Princeton, NJ: Sage Publications.
