Visualizing Case Closures Among Transition Age Youth -- Explore VR Open Data Lab

2012 Case Closures for Transition Age Customers in States
Using the Separate Rehabilitation Agency Service Model
Introduction
The purpose of this analysis is to explore and illustrate data related to closure of VR cases among transition age youth. Specifically, I wanted to visualize the case closure rates among transition age youth (14-24) served in states where a separate agency serves blind individuals and another serves all other individuals with disabilities.
In some states, rehabilitation customers who are blind are served in an agency that is independent of the general rehabilitation agency. In other states, blind customers are served in a combined agency model, where all rehabilitation customers are served in one agency. Researchers have found that blind customers served in separate agencies experience a higher rate of competitive employment placement and earn higher salaries than blind customers served in combined agency models. In addition, the cost, duration, and number of services to a blind individual do not differ between the separate and combined agency models (Cavenaugh, Giesen, & Pierce, 2000; Cavenaugh & Pierce, 1998; Cavenaugh, 1999; JWK International Corporation, 1981; Kirchner, 1982; Kirchner & Peterson, 1982; Management Services Associates, 1975)
Some of the services provided by VR agencies are associated with positive outcomes in employment among youth with disabilities. Having higher levels of career awareness, knowing how to set goals, taking occupational courses and having paid employment in high school are all predictor of post-high school success in employment (Test, Mazzotti, Mustian, Fowler, Kortering, & Kohler, 2009). Learning travel skills is an indicator of employment success that is particularly relevant to blind young adults (Cmar, 2015). The advent of the WIOA law in 2014 brought new and additional requirements for rehabilitation agencies serving customers in transition to adulthood. Information found in the Open Data Lab at Explore VR could be useful to examine patterns of case closures of transition age youth served in the rehabilitation agencies before the new regulations came into effect.
Methods
I used the table TransitionAge2012.xls, found at the ExploreVR Open Data Lab. Raw data listed the number of transition and non-transition clients served in all of the blind, general, and combined rehabilitation agencies in all of the federal entities. I removed the cost of closure variables and calculated percentages from the counts of non-transition and transition age consumers. All of the states that serve rehabilitation customers in a separate agency model were included in the analysis. Data for all states that use a combined model were omitted from the analysis. An Excel software graph was used for the visualization.
Analysis and Results
The data were aggregated at the state level, and therefore do not show the percentage of transition age youth whose cases were closed versus not closed in 2012. The data show the percentage of transition age youth as percentage of all closed cases in particular states. Table 1 shows data that was derived for Explore VR from the 2012 RSA911 data. The data were aggregated at the state level. By definition and requirements of the Rehabilitation Act and Workforce Investment Opportunity Act, individuals 14 and up may become customers of rehabilitation services. Transition age customers are aged 14 through 24. Non-transition customers are individuals over age 24. Table 1 shows the closed cases for transition age customers served by the blind and general agencies as a raw count and as a percentage of closures for customers of all ages in those states. In 2012, South Carolina closed the smallest number of cases for blind transition age customers as a percentage of all cases closed (8.4%). The state which included the largest percentage of transition age case closures among blind customers was Nebraska (24.4%). The distribution of transition age and non-transition age customers is fairly uniform for persons with all disabilities, and therefore, closure rates would be expected to be the similar for individuals of similar ages, whether served by an agency for blind customers or a general rehabilitation agency. However, the data show that transition age youth comprise a much larger percentage of closed cases in general rehabilitation agencies. Closed cases for transition age customers ranged between 21.1% (Oregon) and 48.6% (Iowa) of all cases closed by the general agencies. Only in New Mexico did the blind agency record a higher percentage of transition age closures that the general agency. In most states, the number of case closures representing transition age youth was two to three times as high in the general agency as in the blind agency.
_______________
Table 1 here
_______________
Figure 1 visualizes the proportions of transition and non-transition customers served by both agencies in each state.
_______________
Figure 1 here
_______________
Discussion
Between two and three times as many cases were closed for transition age customers in general agencies in 2012, in comparison to agencies that serve blind customers. Some factor or factors may be suppressing the closure of cases for transition age youth at agencies for the blind. Cases may be kept open longer for blind young adults, resulting in a lower proportion of cases closed for younger participants than in the general agency. Agencies for the blind may have a higher percentage of customers who have more significant disabilities, who might need longer training for employment, resulting in more cases closed later, after age 24. A blind rehabilitation agency may provide college tuition at a higher rate than the general agency in the state, resulting in a greater proportion of younger customers keeping their cases open while they finish college.
To more completely explore the closures of cases for customers of transition age, it would be necessary to use data not available at the ExploreVR Open Data Lab. The discrepancy between blind and general agencies of proportions of transition age youth between This result difficult to interpret, but worthy of future investigation.
A limitation is noted in the use of data from just one year, 2013. It is impossible to make long-term projections of proportions of kinds of customers served using one year of data. This analysis did not explore every possible comparison among the data from the agencies. As noted above, it is not possible to say whether the customers represented in the data became employed or had cases closed for other reasons.
Although the data do not indicate why the cases were closed, this analysis presents a snapshot of the closures in this one year, showing who is being served. Although the data is from one point in time, the preponderance of states show increased closures for transition age customers of the general agency versus the blind agency. This pattern is difficult to interpret, but worthy of future investigation. Further research is recommended using RSA911 individual case data. This analysis adds to the literature by showing a simple way to use and visualize some of the data available in the ExploreVR Open Data Lab.






Table 1. 2012 Transition-Age Closures at Separate Agencies
State
Agency for blind customers
General agency for other customers

Transition Age Closures
All
Closures
% of all closures
Transition Age Closures
All closures
% of all closures
Arkansas
67
534
12.5
2625
6737
39.0
Connecticut
25
142
17.6
1136
3732
30.4
Delaware
14
88
15.9
977
2605
37.5
Florida
301
2121
14.2
9244
29828
31.0
Idaho
21
173
12.1
2229
6726
33.1
Iowa
21
129
16.3
3222
6631
48.6
Kentucky
75
626
12.0
4284
11738
36.5
Maine
24
227
10.6
1195
3306
36.1
Massachusetts
38
363
10.5
3426
10986
31.2
Michigan
93
411
22.6
7179
22708
31.6
Minnesota
60
249
24.1
3076
7683
40.0
Missouri
78
532
14.7
5101
14801
34.5
Nebraska
30
123
24.4
1660
4794
34.6
New Jersey
79
566
14.0
4467
12677
35.2
New Mexico
34
98
34.7
1072
3403
31.5
New York
150
1004
14.9
16101
38033
42.3
North Carolina
100
1111
9.0
8049
24338
33.1
Oregon
35
205
17.1
1540
7285
21.1
South Carolina
42
500
8.4
4362
15100
28.9
South Dakota
23
236
9.7
828
2623
31.6
Texas
422
3220
13.1
10747
33870
31.7
Vermont
16
93
17.2
1306
4257
30.7
Virginia
117
524
22.3
4684
10598
44.2
Washington
91
430
21.2
2617
10977
23.8





Figure 1.




References
Cavenaugh, B., Giesen, J., & Pierce, S. (2000). Rehabilitation of visually impaired persons in separate and general agencies. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 94 (3), 133-145.
Cavenaugh, B. S., & Pierce, S. J. (1998). Characteristics, services, and outcomes of rehabilitation consumers who are blind or visually impaired served in separate and general agencies (Technical Report). Mississippi State: Mississippi State University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Blindness and Low Vision.
Cavenaugh, B. S. (1999). Relationship of agency structure and client characteristics to rehabilitation services and outcomes for consumers who are blind (Technical Report). Mississippi State: Mississippi State University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Blindness and Low Vision.
Cmar, J. (2015) Orientation and mobility experiences and outcome expectations as predictors of employment for young adults with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairments & Blindness, 109(2), 95-106.
ExploreVR (2015). TransitionAge2012.xls [Data file]. Available from: http://www.explorevr.org
JWK International Corporation (1981). Evaluation of RSA programs for blind and visually handicapped persons. Annandale, VA: Author.
Kirchner, C. (1982). Effects of state agency structures on VR services for blind and visually impaired persons: Part 1. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 76(1), 31-33.
Kirchner, C., & Peterson, R. (1982). Effects of state agency structures on VR services for blind and visually impaired persons: Part II. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 76(2), 73-78.
Management Services Associates. (1975). Study of the organization, service delivery, evaluation of programs to effectively serve the blind. Austin, TX: Author.
Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L. J., & Kohler, P. H. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160-181. doi: 10.1177/0885728809346960







2012 Transition and Nontransition Closures in States with Separate Agencies