Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Agency Decision-Making Control and Employment Outcomes by Vocational Rehabilitation Consumers Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Steinman, Bernard A. Kwan, Ngai Boeltzig-Brown, Heike Haines, Kelly Halliday, John T. Foley, Susan M. |
| Copyright Year | 2013 |
| Abstract | Over time, federal legislation has aimed to provide states more flexibility with respect to the organizational structure and control over administrative functions in state vocational rehabilitation agencies that serve individuals who are blind or visually impaired (in this article, visually impaired refers to people who have low vision). Since the early enactment of the Barden-LaFollette Act of 1943 (Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1943, P.L. 78-113), which first extended federal-state rehabilitation support to individuals who are blind or visually impaired (Rubin & Roessler, 2008), federal regulations have evolved to ensure that vocational rehabilitation agencies do not lose their abilities to make decisions by being submerged too deeply within larger government agencies and structures. For instance, an important legacy of the Barden-LaFollette Act is that it provided more flexibility to states with legally constituted commissions for the blind. These states' commissions for the blind were allowed to control the administration of independent state or federal vocational rehabilitation programs specifically for consumers who are blind or visually impaired (Cavenaugh, 2010). Currently, many state vocational rehabilitation programs offer specialized intensive services to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, within agencies that are separate from general or combined vocational rehabilitation agencies. Combined agencies often have separate subdivisions that provide services to people who are blind or visually impaired, and general agencies often have counselors who specialize in and exclusively work with people who are blind or visually impaired (Rehabilitation Act amendments of 1998, P.L. 105-220). Other legislative changes that influenced the placement of vocational rehabilitation agencies within state organizational structures were implemented as a result of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act amendments of 1954 (P.L. 83-565). These amendments allowed states to establish independent agencies dedicated to the administration of vocational rehabilitation programs (RSA-TAC-12-03, April 16, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2012). In addition, the 1965 amendments to the Vocational Rehabilitation Act (P.L. 89-333) granted states the option to administer vocational rehabilitation programs within larger state agencies. State vocational rehabilitation programs are required to adopt organizational structures in which agencies designated to administer vocational rehabilitation programs are either uniquely designated state agencies primarily concerned with vocational rehabilitation, or other rehabilitation of individuals with disabilities, or both; or designated state units within designated state agencies charged primarily with responding to a broader swath of social needs (departments of education, for example). When vocational rehabilitation programs are implemented under a "designated state unit within designated state agency" structure, the vocational rehabilitation designated state unit must be located at an organizational level that is comparable to other major units within the larger designated state agency (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). Finally, the Workforce Investment Act and Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-220) empowered vocational rehabilitation agencies by broadening connections with and access to other programs that provide job-training and employment services. These legislative gestures encourage the retention of control within agencies to direct the course of services, and presumably improve outcomes for consumers. In addition to organizational structure, the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) has made explicit recommendations regarding program management to facilitate agency-level control over day-to-day functioning and administrative activities. For example, some program management activities--including planning, personnel management, and use of management information systems--are to be carried out within the vocational rehabilitation designated state unit as part of its day-to-day administration (U. … |
| Starting Page | 437 |
| Ending Page | 451 |
| Page Count | 15 |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| DOI | 10.1177/0145482x1310700606 |
| Volume Number | 107 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://www.explorevr.org/sites/explorevr.org/files/files/Agency%20Decision%20Making(1).pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482x1310700606 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
