Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States and Territories: Overview and Analysis of the Allotment Formula

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, authorizes the federal government to make
grants to states and territories to provide vocational rehabilitation services to persons with
disabilities who are interested in seeking employment. State and territorial vocational
rehabilitation agencies work with clients to determine their optimal employment outcomes and
put together packages of services to help them meet these employment goals.
The authorization for the vocational rehabilitation program expired at the end of FY2003;
Congress has continued to make appropriations to the Department of Education to fund the
program under the provisions of an extension clause in the Rehabilitation Act. Both chambers ^th
worked on bills in the 109 Congress that would formally extend this authorization through
FY2011, but these bills did not result in the enactment of a law before the end of that Congress. ^th
Reauthorization bills may be taken up by both chambers in the 110 Congress.
Money for vocational rehabilitation is allotted to states and territories according to a complicated
formula. This formula does not take into account the size of a state’s vocational rehabilitation
caseload or its success at finding employment for its clients. Rather, state vocational rehabilitation
allotments are based on state allotments in FY1978, state population, and state per capita income.
The allotment formula has been criticized for not ensuring that each state or territory is given an
increase in funding to match increases in the cost of living. In addition, the formula has been
criticized for not including measures related to a state’s or territory’s overall performance and for
negatively affecting states that have seen large population growth since the mid-1970s.
This report will be updated to reflect any major legislative activity.

Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Individual Eligibility for Vocational Rehabilitation Services..........................................................2
Definition of Disability.............................................................................................................2
Order of Selection to Receive Services.....................................................................................3
Services Provided by Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies..............................................................4
Individualized Employment Plan (IEP)....................................................................................4
Employment Outcomes and Case Closure................................................................................5
State Vocational Rehabilitation Plans and Matching Requirements................................................5
State Plans.................................................................................................................................5
Matching Requirement..............................................................................................................6
Authorization for Federal Funding of Vocational Rehabilitation....................................................6
Extension of Authorization.......................................................................................................6
Effect of the Extension of Authorization on Appropriations...............................................7 ^th^th^th
Legislative Activity in the 108, 109, and 110 Congresses to Extend the
Authorization for Vocational Rehabilitation Appropriations.................................................8 ^th
Activity in the 110 Congress.............................................................................................9
Vocational Rehabilitation Allotment Formula.................................................................................9
Step 1. Determine A State’s Allotment Percentage.................................................................10
Step 2. Determine the Final Allotment.....................................................................................11
Reallotment .............................................................................................................................. 11
Analysis of the Vocational Rehabilitation Allotment Formula......................................................12
The Formula Does Not Take Into Account a State or Territory’s Ability to Pay its
Share of the Match...............................................................................................................12
The Increase in the CPI-U is Not Always Passed Along to the States and Territories............13
The Formula Does Not Take Into Account a State’s or Territory’s Caseload or Success
at Returning Clients to Work................................................................................................14
The Formula’s 1978 Baseline Negatively Affects States With Population Growth
Since the Mid-1970s............................................................................................................15
Issues for the 110^th Congress.........................................................................................................16
Figure 1. Vocational Rehabilitation Appropriations, FY1999-FY2008...........................................7
Figure 2. Changes in Vocational Rehabilitation Appropriations and the Consumer Price
Index (CPI-U), FY1999-FY2008.................................................................................................8
Table A-1. Order of Selection Status for States and Territories with Combined Vocational
Rehabilitation Agencies, FY2007...............................................................................................17

Table A-2. Order of Selection Status for General and Blind Vocational Rehabilitation
Agencies, by State, FY2007.......................................................................................................17
Table B-1. Changes in Vocational Rehabilitation Appropriations and the Consumer Price
Index (CPI-U), FY1999-FY2008...............................................................................................19
Table B-2. Vocational Rehabilitation State and Territorial Final Allotments, FY2008.................19
Table C-1. Vocational Rehabilitation Funds Returned for Reallotment, FY1991-FY2006...........21
Table D-1. Vocational Rehabilitation State FY2007 Allotments, FY2007 Modified
Allotments, and 1976 to 2005 Population Growth.....................................................................22
Appendix A. Order of Selection Status for State and Territorial Vocational Rehabilitation
Agencies ....................................................................................................................... .............. 17
Appendix B. Vocational Rehabilitation Appropriations and State Allotment Data.......................19
Appendix C. Vocational Rehabilitation Funds Returned for Reallotment.....................................21
Appendix D. State Vocational Rehabilitation Allotments, Modified Allotments, and
Population Data..........................................................................................................................22
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................23

Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, authorizes the federal government to make
grants available to states and territories for the purpose of providing vocational rehabilitation ¹
services to persons with disabilities who are seeking competitive employment. Grants may not
be used to provide services connected with non-competitive employment such as sheltered ²
workshops or for jobs that pay below the minimum wage. Vocational rehabilitation grants are
administered by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), an agency of the Department
of Education, and can be used by designated state or territorial agencies to provide customized
supports and services to persons with disabilities with the goal of providing these persons
increased opportunities to secure competitive employment and self-sufficiency. States and
territories may establish a single vocational rehabilitation agency (referred to as a combined
agency) or establish separate agencies to handle persons with general disabilities and persons
with blindness. States and territories are required to match a portion of their federal grants and
contribute 21.3% of the total cost of providing vocational rehabilitation services.
In FY2005, states and territories spent over $1.7 billion on vocational rehabilitation services.³ In

2005, state and territorial vocational rehabilitation agencies worked with nearly 1.4 million clients ⁴

and helped over 206,000 persons with disabilities achieve employment.
The authorization for vocational rehabilitation grants to states and territories expired at the end of
FY2003 and Congress has continued to make capped appropriations to fund the program under
the provisions of a extension clause in the law. The House of Representatives and Senate each ^th^th
passed bills to reauthorize the vocational rehabilitation program in both the 108 and 109
Congresses, however, these efforts did not become law. It is likely then that the reauthorization of ^th
the vocational rehabilitation program will be on the agenda of the 110 Congress.
This report provides an overview of the vocational rehabilitation program, including discussions
on the eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services, the types of services provided by state and
territorial vocational rehabilitation agencies, and the requirements concerning state plans and
funding matches that states and territories must meet in order to qualify for federal grants.
This report also discusses the current authorization for vocational rehabilitation grants and recent
legislative attempts to extend this authorization. In addition, this report describes the formula
used to determine each state and territory’s allotment of vocational rehabilitation funds. Several
issues surrounding this formula, including problems stemming from the use of FY1978
allotments as a baseline are analyzed.
This is the first in a series of three reports on vocational rehabilitation under development by the ^th
Congressional Research Service during the first session of the 110 Congress. One future report
is to examine the impact of regulations that require state and territorial vocational rehabilitation

¹^T^h^e^Re^ha^bilita^tio^{n A}^c^{t of}¹⁹⁷³^w^a^{s a}^m^e^nde^{d in}¹⁹^{74 (}^P^.L^{. 93}^-6⁵¹^),¹⁹^{78 (}^P^.L^{. 95}^-6^02),¹⁹⁸⁴⁽^P^.L^{. 98}^-2^21),¹⁹⁸⁶
⁽^P^.L^{. 99-}⁵⁰⁶⁾^,¹⁹⁹²⁽^P^.L^{. 1}^02-⁵⁶⁹⁾^aⁿ^d¹⁹⁹⁸⁽^P^.L^{. 10}^5-²²⁰⁾^.
²^Com^p^e^titiv^e^e^m^ploy^m^e^{nt is de}^fⁱ^ne^{d by}^re^g^u^la^{tion a}^t³⁴^C.F.R^.^§³^61.^5(b)(¹¹⁾^.
³^T^h^is^a^m^{ount e}^x^c^l^ude^s^a^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tiv^e^c^o^s^t^s^a^{nd is}^le^s^s^t^h^aⁿ^t^h^e^tota^l^a^ppr^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^{on f}^o^r^FY²⁰⁰⁴^.
⁴^Da^ta^ta^k^e^{n f}^r^o^m^the^RSA^w^e^bsit^e^a^t^http^://w^ww^.^e^d.g^o^v^/^rs^c^h^sta^t/e^v^a^l/re^h^a^b^/sta^tistic^s.htm^l^{, T}^a^ble¹⁴^{. Clie}^nt^da^ta
^inc^l^u^d^e^s^a^{ll pe}^rsoⁿ^{s w}^{ho ha}^d^c^oⁿ^t^a^c^t^w^{ith a}^v^o^c^a^tiona^{l re}^ha^bili^ta^tio^{n a}^g^eⁿ^c^y^{, f}^r^o^m^initia^{l a}^ppl^ic^a^tion^thro^ug^h
^em^ploy^m^e^nt.

agencies to give priority for services to persons with the most significant disabilities, even
though, these people, by nature of the significance of their disabling conditions, may be the least
likely people to become employed after receiving services. Another future report is to look at
various measures of program success, including the overall caseload and number and type of
employment outcomes to assess the overall impact of the federal commitment to vocational
rehabilitation for persons with disabilities.

Section 102(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 establishes the requirements a person must meet
in order to be eligible to receive vocational rehabilitation services from a state or territorial ⁵
agency. The requirements state that a person must be disabled and must also need vocational
rehabilitation services to become employed, stay employed or return to previous employment.
A person is considered disabled for the purposes of eligibility for vocational rehabilitation
services if he or she
⁽ⁱ⁾^ha^{s a}^p^hysi^c^a^l^o^r^m^e^nt^a^lⁱ^m^p^aⁱ^r^m^e^nt^w^hⁱ^c^h^fo^r^suc^hⁱⁿ^dⁱ^vⁱ^d^u^a^l^c^o^nstⁱ^t^ut^e^s^o^r^r^e^sul^t^sⁱⁿ^a
^s^u^bs^t^aⁿ^tⁱ^a^lⁱ^m^pedi^m^e^nt^t^o^e^m^pl^oy^m^eⁿ^t^{, an}^{d (i}ⁱ⁾^can^beⁿ^e^fi^tⁱⁿ^t^e^r^m^s^of^aⁿ^e^m^pl^o^y^m^e^nt
^ou^tco^m^e^f^r^o^m^v^o^catioⁿ^a^{l re}^habilitation^s^e^rv^ice^s^pu^r^s^u^aⁿ^t^{to T}^{itle I, III, or VI (of}^th^e⁶
^R^e^h^a^bi^lⁱ^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^o^f^1973).
The definition of disability used by the vocational rehabilitation program is different from that
used by the Social Security disability programs. In order to receive vocational rehabilitation
services a person does not need to be eligible for, or have applied for, Social Security Disability ⁷
Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI). However, Section 102(a)(3) of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 specifies that any person receiving SSDI or SSI benefits shall be
presumed to be eligible for vocational rehabilitation services if he or she intends to pursue ⁸
employment. Each state or territorial agency has the responsibility for determining the eligibility
of applicants for vocational rehabilitation services consistent with program rules specified in ⁹
Section 102 of the act and in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

⁵^{29 U}^.^S.C^.^§⁷²²⁽^a⁾^.
⁶^{29 U}^.^S.C.^§⁷⁰⁵⁽²⁰^{). T}^itle^III^of^the^Re^ha^bilita^tⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^{t of}¹⁹⁷³^a^u^t^horiz^e^s^de^m^ons^tra^tio^{n pr}^oje^c^t^s^,ⁱⁿ^c^l^udi^ng^proje^c^t^s
^f^o^r^mⁱ^g^r^aⁿ^{t fa}^r^m^w^o^rk^e^r^s.^T^itle^{VI of}^the^a^c^t^a^u^th^oriz^e^s^pr^oje^c^t^{s w}ⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^dustry^a^{nd su}^pp^orte^d^e^m^ploy^m^e^{nt prog}^ra^m^s^.
⁷^S^u^p^p^l^em^en^t^a^l^S^ecu^ri^t^y^In^co^{me (S}^S^{I) b}^eⁿ^e^fⁱ^t^s^are^m^e^an^{s t}^e^st^ed^and^{are avai}^l^a^b^l^{e t}^o^adu^l^t^s^and^chⁱ^l^dren^wⁱ^t^h
^disa^bilitie^{s a}ⁿ^d^pe^{rsons a}^g^e^d⁶⁵^o^r^olde^{r w}^ith^{or w}^itho^u^t^di^sa^bilit^ie^{s. In t}^h^{is re}^p^o^rt,^SSI^be^ne^f^{its w}^{ill only}^re^f^e^{r to}
^be^ne^f^{its pa}^{id t}^o^a^d^{ults a}ⁿ^{d c}^h^il^dreⁿ^w^{ith disa}^bi^litie^s.^F^o^{r a}^d^diti^ona^l^inf^o^rm^a^{tion on}^the^S^S^{I pr}^og^ra^m^s^e^e^{CRS Re}^port
^R^L³²²⁷^9,^Prime^r^oⁿ^Disa^bili^ty^B^e^ne^{fits: Soc}ⁱ^a^l^Se^c^u^rity^Disa^bility^Insura^nc^e⁽^{SSDI) a}^nd^Su^pp^le^me^ntal^Se^c^u^rity
^Iⁿ^c^o^m^e⁽^SSI⁾^,^by^Sc^{ott Sz}^y^m^e^nde^r^a^.
⁸^{29 U}^.^S.C^.^§⁷²²⁽^a⁾⁽³⁾^.
⁹³⁴^C^.^F^.^R^.^§§³⁶^1.⁴¹^-³⁶¹^.⁴⁴^.

If a state or territorial vocational rehabilitation agency feels that it will not have enough resources
during a given fiscal year to provide services to all eligible persons with disability, then it must
notify the RSA that it will implement an “Order of Selection” plan to determine which persons
will have the first priority to receive services. Regulations require that the order of selection plan
must ensure that persons with the “most significant disabilities” will be able to receive services ¹⁰
before other eligible persons. Other persons not placed in the priority group may be placed on a
waiting list but are not guaranteed services. A state or territorial agency is given a certain degree
of latitude in determining how it will set up its order of selection system and neither the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 nor the CFR provide firm requirements on how agencies should ¹¹
determine which persons have the most significant disabilities.
While SSDI and SSI beneficiaries are presumed to be eligible for vocational rehabilitation
services, they may not be deemed to have the most significant disabilities by their state or
territorial vocational rehabilitation agency. In such a case, it would be possible for a state to deny
vocational rehabilitation benefits to persons receiving benefits from a Social Security disability
program. If a SSDI or SSI recipient is a participant in the Ticket to Work program, but deemed
not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services because of an order of selection rule, he or she
would not be able to use a Ticket to Work voucher to pay for vocational rehabilitation services
from a state or territorial agency and would be required to obtain services from a private sector ¹²
employment network.
States and territories may implement order of selection plans at the beginning of a fiscal year or
during a fiscal year if it becomes likely that they will not be able to provide services to all eligible
persons. For FY2007, 41 of the 80 state and territorial vocational rehabilitation agencies are ¹³
operating under order of selection procedures. The longest continuous order of selection is in
Georgia, which first established its procedure in 1979. Tables A-1 and A-2, in Appendix A,
provide the order of selection status for each of the 80 state and territorial vocational
rehabilitation agencies for FY2007. Of the 32 states and territories with combined vocational
rehabilitation agencies, 21, or 66%, are operating under an order of selection procedure. In
addition, 15 of the 24 general vocational rehabilitation agencies (63%) and five of the 24 agencies ¹⁴
serving the blind (21%) have orders of selection in place.
At the end of FY2005, 38,315 individuals were on waiting lists for vocational rehabilitation ¹⁵
services because of state and territorial orders of selection. There is wide variance in the size of

¹⁰^{34 C}^.^F.R^.^§³⁶^1.³⁶⁽^a⁾⁽³⁾⁽^iv⁾⁽^A⁾^.
¹¹^For^a^dditi^ona^l^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^t^h^e^pr^oc^e^d^ur^e^s^us^e^d^t^o^e^s^ta^blis^{h a}ⁿ^o^r^de^r^of^s^e^le^c^{tion s}^y^s^t^em^se^e^R^ona^{ld M.}^H^a^g^e^r^,
^Orde^{r of Se}^le^c^tio^{n f}^o^{r V}^o^c^a^ti^on^al^Re^ha^bilit^ati^on^Se^rv^ic^e^s^{: An Opti}^{on f}^o^{r S}^t^ate^V^R^A^g^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s^W^{ho C}^a^nno^{t Se}^rv^e^All
^Eligi^b^le^In^divⁱ^d^uals^,^C^o^rⁿ^e^{ll U}ⁿⁱ^v^e^r^sⁱ^t^y^W^o^r^k^Iⁿ^c^eⁿ^tiv^e^s^Supp^or^t^C^e^nte^r^P^o^lic^y^a^nd^P^r^a^c^tic^e^B^r^ie^f^{23, N}^o^v^e^m^b^e^r^2004;
^a^v^a^ila^ble^{on the}^C^o^rne^l^l^Univ^e^r^sit^y^E^m^plo^y^m^e^{nt a}^{nd Disa}^bility^Institute^w^e^bsite^a^t
^http:^//dig^ita^lc^om^m^ons^.ilr^.c^or^ne^ll.^e^du/^c^g^i/^vⁱ^e^w^c^onteⁿ^t.c^g^i?^a^r^tic^le⁼^1058&^c^o^nte^x^t=^e^d^ic^olle^c^t^.
¹²^For^a^dditi^ona^l^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^t^h^e^Tⁱ^c^k^e^t^{to W}^o^r^k^pr^og^r^a^m^s^e^e^C^R^{S R}^e^por^t^R^L³¹¹⁵⁷^,^T^h^{e T}ⁱ^cket^t^o^Wo^{rk a}ⁿ^d^Wo^rk
^Iⁿ^c^eⁿ^tiv^e^s^I^m^pr^ov^e^m^eⁿ^{t Ac}^t^{of 1}⁹^99:^I^m^ple^m^eⁿ^tatⁱ^oⁿ^St^at^us^,^by^J^e^nnif^e^r^H^e^s^s^a^{nd K}^a^r^e^{n T}^r^itz⁽^{out of}^prⁱⁿ^{t; a}^v^a^ila^ble
^upo^{n r}^e^q^u^e^s^{t f}^r^om^Sc^{ott Sz}^y^m^e^nde^r^a⁾^.
¹³^O^r^de^r^of^s^e^le^c^{tion i}ⁿ^f^o^r^m^a^{tion is}^{not y}^e^{t a}^v^a^ila^ble^f^o^r^FY²⁰⁰⁸^.
¹⁴^Dat^a^p^r^o^vⁱ^d^{ed t}^o^t^h^{e C}^oⁿ^g^ressi^on^al^Research^S^e^rvi^{ce (CRS}^{) b}^y^t^h^{e Dep}^a^rt^men^t^o^f^E^d^u^catⁱ^oⁿ^,^Of^fⁱ^c^e^o^f^S^p^eci^al
^Educ^a^tio^{n a}ⁿ^{d Re}^ha^b^ilita^ti^on^Se^rv^ic^e^s^.
¹⁵^D^a^ta^is^ta^k^e^{n f}^r^o^m^a^nnua^{l s}^t^a^t^e^r^e^ports^pr^ov^ide^d^to^the^Re^ha^b^ilita^tⁱ^on^Se^rv^ic^e^s^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^ra^{tion (RS}^A^{) a}^s^pa^{rt of}^its
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

state and territorial waiting lists. At the end of FY2005, 10 agencies operating under orders of
selection had no waiting lists while the waiting list in Tennessee had over 9,000 persons on it and
there were 11,729 persons on the waiting list for services from the Washington general vocational
rehabilitation agency.

Vocational rehabilitation agencies provide a wide range of customized services to their clients.
Agency staff work with each client individually to design a package of services that are intended
to help the client achieve his or her employment goal. There is no master list of services that can
or cannot be provided by vocational rehabilitation agencies and no package of services that are
provided to every client.
The core of the vocational rehabilitation service model is the Individualized Employment Plan
(IEP). Every client who receives services from a vocational rehabilitation agency prepares an IEP
with the assistance of agency staff. The IEP states the employment goal of the client as well as the
specific services that the agency will provide to help the client reach his or her goal.
Before an IEP can be created, staff of the vocational rehabilitation agency perform an assessment
of the client. This assessment looks at the factors that may affect the client’s prospects for
employment, including factors related to the client’s disability, work history, and educational
background. The assessment also identifies the client’s specific needs that can be met by the
vocational rehabilitation agency.
While the staff of the vocational rehabilitation agency provides assistance to the client in the
preparation of the IEP, it is the client that has the final say on his or her employment goal and the
services that he or she would like to be provided with. The staff member has the responsibility of
providing the client with enough information about available jobs and services to assist the client
in making an informed choice about his or her employment goal and service package. Clients
may develop their own IEPs with the assistance of persons outside of the vocational rehabilitation
agency. However, the agency must approve all IEPs before services can be provided. The IEP is
reviewed by the staff and the client at least once per year and changes are made if necessary.
Section 102(b)(3) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 specifies that an IEP must include the
following items:
• the specific employment outcome chosen by the client;
• the specific vocational rehabilitation services that will be provided to the client;

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^Ma^na^g^e^m^e^{nt I}ⁿ^f^o^r^m^a^{tion Sy}^s^t^em⁽^M^I^S⁾^.^T^h^e^R^S^A^MI^{S is}^a^v^a^ila^bl^e^{on t}^h^e^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^Educ^a^tioⁿ^w^e^bs^ite^a^t
^http:^//w^dc^robc^ol^p0^1.e^d^.g^ov^/^C^FA^PPS/^R^S^A^M^IS/c^hoos^e^.^c^f^m^.

• the time line for starting services and achieving the employment outcome;
• the specific entity, selected by the client, from which services will be obtained;
• the criteria that will be used to evaluate the progress made by the client;
• the responsibilities of the client, the vocational rehabilitation agency, and other
entities included in the IEP;
• the extended services that will be needed if the client is expected to need
supported employment; and
• the projected need for post-employment services.¹⁶
Vocational rehabilitation agencies are to work with clients until their selected employment goals
are met. Regulations specify that a vocational rehabilitation case can not be considered closed
until all of the following conditions have been met:
• the client has achieved the employment outcome specified in his or her IEP;
• the client has maintained the employment outcome for a period of at least 90
days;
• the client and the vocational rehabilitation counselor meet after 90 days of
employment and agree that the employment outcome is satisfactory; and
• the client is informed of the availability of post-employment services.¹⁷
For cases that resulted in employment outcomes in 2005, clients received vocational ¹⁸
rehabilitation services for an average of 26.3 months.

In order to qualify for funding under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a state or territory must file a
state plan with the Department of Education. This plan must designate the state or territorial
agency that will provide vocational rehabilitation services and must specify if a separate state
agency will provide services to blind clients. A state or territory’s order of selection plan must
also be included as part of the state plan. The state plan must demonstrate how the state or
territory will meet the specific requirements of Section 101 of the act, including requirements
concerning program goals and evaluation, cooperation with other agencies, the IEP process, and

¹⁶^{29 U}^.^S.C^.^§⁷²²⁽^b)⁽³⁾^.
¹⁷^{34 C}^.^F.R^.^§³⁶^1.^56.
¹⁸^Da^ta^ta^k^e^{n f}^r^o^m^the^RSA^w^e^bsit^e^a^t^http^://w^ww^.^e^d.g^o^v^/^rsc^h^sta^t/e^v^a^l/re^h^a^b^/sta^tistic^s.htm^l^{, T}^a^ble¹⁴^.

the provision of vocational rehabilitation services to qualified individuals.¹⁹ A state plan does not
have to be submitted each year, but must be amended to reflect any changes in state vocational
rehabilitation policy.
Section 104 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 includes a requirement that states and territories
that receive vocational rehabilitation grants match a portion of their federal allotment with state or ²⁰
territorial funds. Section 7(14) of the act sets the federal share of vocational rehabilitation
funding at 78.7% and requires that states and territories provide the remaining 21.3% of ²¹
vocational rehabilitation funding.

Section 100(b)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 authorizes Congress to make appropriations
to the Department of Education for the purposes of providing vocational rehabilitation grants to ²²
states and territories. For each year authorized, the appropriation for vocational rehabilitation
must be no lower than the previous year’s appropriation increased by the percentage change in ²³
the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). This authorization expired at the
end of FY2003.
The mandatory minimum increase in appropriations is based on the change in the CPI-U reported
in October of each year. Because this CPI-U report comes out in November, after the beginning
of the next federal fiscal year, the appropriation for a given fiscal year is based on the
appropriation for the previous fiscal year increased by the change in the CPI-U reported in
October of the second previous fiscal year. For example, the mandatory minimum appropriation
for FY2003 was based on the appropriation for FY2002 increased by the change in the CPI-U
between October 2000 and October 2001.
Although the authorization for vocational rehabilitation appropriations expired at the end of
FY2003, Section 100(d) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 includes a provision to automatically
extend this authorization for years after the final authorized fiscal year if Congress has not ²⁴
amended the act to extend the authorization. Under the provisions of this extension, the
appropriations for vocational rehabilitation are capped at the amount appropriated in the previous

¹⁹^{29 U}^.^S.C^.^§⁷²^1.
²⁰^{29 U}^.^S.C^.^§⁷²^4.
²¹^{29 U}^.^S.C^.^§⁷⁰⁵⁽¹⁴⁾^.
²²^{29 U}^.^S.C^.^§⁷²⁰⁽^b)⁽¹⁾^.
²³^Se^c^tion¹⁰⁰⁽^c⁾⁽¹⁾^of^the^R^e^ha^bi^li^ta^{tion A}^c^{t of}¹⁹^{73 (}²⁹^U^.^S.C^.^§⁷²⁰⁽^c⁾⁽¹⁾⁾^r^e^quir^e^s^t^h^e^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^L^a^bor^to
^pub^lis^h,^be^f^o^r^e^N^o^v^e^m^b^e^r^{15, the}^c^h^aⁿ^g^e^{in t}^h^e^C^o^ns^um^e^r^P^r^ic^e^Iⁿ^de^x^f^o^r^A^{ll U}^r^ba^{n C}^ons^um^e^r^s⁽^C^P^I^-^U⁾^f^r^om^the
^p^r^evi^o^u^s^fⁱ^scal^y^ear.
²⁴^{29 U}^.^S.C^.^§⁷²⁰⁽^d)^.

fiscal year increased by the percentage change in the CPI-U using the same formula outlined
above. For example, the maximum appropriation for FY2008 is the appropriation for FY2007
increased by the change in the CPI-U from October 2005 to October 2006.
The extension of authorization provision sets a cap on the amount Congress can appropriate to the
Department of Education for vocational rehabilitation state grants until the act is reauthorized.
Appropriations under this provision are capped at the previous year’s level increased by the
change in the CPI-U. This funding cap went into effect with the expiration of the vocational
rehabilitation authorization at the end of FY2003 and was first part of the appropriations process
for FY2004.
Figures 1 and 2, show the appropriations and change from the previous fiscal year for the period
FY1999 through FY2007. Because the authorization is under extension beginning in FY2004,
appropriations after FY2003 are capped at the rate of the increase in the CPI-U. However, even
before FY2004, annual vocational rehabilitation appropriations exceeded the growth in the CPI-U
only in FY1999. Because the funding in years prior to the extension of budget authority was at
the minimum level of increase, the cap placed on appropriations by the expiration of the funding
authority at the end of FY2003 has not had any practical impact on the overall funding level of
the vocational rehabilitation program.
Figure 1. Vocational Rehabilitation Appropriations, FY1999-FY2008

3,000^o^lla

2,900^f^D

2,800^s^o

2,700^ioⁿ

2,600

2,500^Mill

2,400
2,300
2,200
901234678

1992002002002002002005200200200^Fi^s^c^a^l^Y^e^a^r^s

^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS) figure with data on ap}^{propriations take}^{n from t}^he^conferen^ce
^{reports accom}^panying^{each FY’s}^approp^{riations bill.}
^Notes:^{Data to accompany this f}^{igure can}^{be fou}^{nd in}^Ta^{ble B-1}ⁱⁿ^{Appendix B}^{. Appro}^{priations data includes}
^{money ap}^{propriated to Native A}^{merican I}^{ndian Tribes}^{under t}^he^{provisions of Section 121}^{of the}^{Rehabilitation}
^{Act of 19}^{73 (}^{29 U.S.C. § 741).}

Figure 2. Changes in Vocational Rehabilitation Appropriations and the Consumer
Price Index (CPI-U), FY1999-FY2008
^C^h^a^ngeⁱⁿ

5.0%^A^p^p^r^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^F^r^om^P^r^e^vⁱ^ous^F^Y

4.0%^Ch^an^g^eⁱⁿ^C^P^I-^U

3.0%

2.0%

1.0%

0.0%

99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
^Fⁱ^s^{cal Y}^e^ar^s
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS) figure with data on ap}^{propriations take}^{n from t}^he^conferen^ce
^{reports accom}^panying^{each FY’s}^approp^{riations bill and data on th}^{e CPI-U taken from t}^{he we}^bsite^{of the}
^Department^{of Commerce, Bure}^{au of Labor Statistics at ft}^p://ftp.b^ls.gov/^pub/^{special.request}^s/^{cpi/cpiai.txt.}
^Notes:^{Data to accompany this f}^{igure can}^{be fou}^{nd in}^Ta^{ble B-1}ⁱⁿ^{Appendix B}^{. Appro}^{priations data includes}
^{money ap}^{propriated to Native A}^{merican I}^{ndian Tribes}^{under t}^he^{provisions of Section 121}^{of the}^{Rehabilitation}
^{Act of 19}^{73 (}^{29 U.S.C. § 741).}

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed bills in the 108^th and 109^th Congresses
that would have, if enacted, extended the authorization for appropriations for vocational ²⁵
rehabilitation state grants. These bills were part of larger packages of legislation that would
have made technical changes to the vocational rehabilitation program and re-authorized the ²⁶
Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
In the 108^th Congress, H.R. 1261, the Workforce Investment Act Amendments of 2003 would
have extended the authorization for vocational rehabilitation state and territorial grants until the
end of FY2009. This bill was passed by the House on May 8, 2003 and by the Senate on ²⁷
November 14, 2003 with the bills differing in areas not related to vocational rehabilitation. A
conference committee was appointed to resolve the differences in the two versions of the bill but
no conference report was issued and the bill was not considered for final passage into law.

²⁵^{For a}^dditi^ona^l^inf^o^rm^a^{tion o}ⁿ^le^gⁱ^sla^{tion re}^la^te^d^to^v^o^c^a^tiona^{l re}^ha^bilita^ti^on^{in t}^h^e¹⁰⁹^th^Coⁿ^g^{ress, see CRS Rep}^o^r^t
^R^L³³²⁴^9,^Re^ha^bilit^atio^{n Ac}^t^of¹⁹⁷³^{: 1}⁰⁹^th^C^o^ngr^e^s^s^Le^gis^l^atio^n,^FY20⁰⁶^Bu^dge^t^Re^que^s^t^,^a^{nd F}^Y²⁰⁰⁶
^Appr^o^p^rⁱ^a^tio^ns^,^by^Sc^{ott Sz}^y^m^e^nde^r^a^.
²⁶^For^a^dditi^ona^l^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^t^h^e^W^o^r^k^f^o^r^c^e^Iⁿ^v^e^s^t^m^e^nt^A^c^{t of}^{1998 a}ⁿ^{d i}^t^s^r^e^-^a^uth^o^rⁱ^z^a^tio^{n, s}^e^e^C^R^{S R}^e^por^t
^R^L³²⁷⁷^8,^T^h^e^W^o^r^k^for^c^e^Iⁿ^v^e^s^tm^eⁿ^{t Ac}^{t o}^f¹⁹⁹⁸⁽^W^I^A⁾^:^Re^aut^horⁱ^z^atio^{n o}^f^J^o^b^Tr^aiⁿⁱ^ng^Pr^ogr^am^s^{in t}^h^e¹⁰⁹^th
^C^ongr^e^s^s^,^by^B^l^a^k^e^A^l^aⁿ^N^a^ug^{hton a}ⁿ^{d A}^{nn L}^o^r^d^e^m^aⁿ^.
²⁷^T^h^e^Se^na^te^{’s v}^e^{rsion of}^this^bill^w^a^{s S. 16}²⁷^aⁿ^d^di^{d n}^o^t^dif^f^e^{r signif}ⁱ^c^aⁿ^tly^{on issue}^s^re^la^te^{d to v}^o^c^a^tiona^l
^re^ha^bilita^ti^{on f}^r^om^the^House^v^e^{rsion. T}^h^e^Se^na^te^inc^o^r^pora^t^e^d^S.¹⁶²^{7 i}ⁿ^t^o^H.R.¹²⁶¹^a^s^aⁿ^a^m^e^ndm^eⁿ^{t in t}^h^e^na^t^u^re
^of^a^substitute^a^nd^pa^sse^{d this}^a^m^e^nde^{d v}^e^rsion^of^{H.R. 1}²⁶¹^.

In the 109^th Congress, H.R. 27, the Job Training Act of 2005, would have extended the
authorization for the vocational rehabilitation program until the end of FY2011 and was passed
by the House on March 2, 2005. S. 1021, the Workforce Investment Act Amendments of 2005,
was incorporated into H.R. 27 as an amendment in the nature of a substitute and the amended
version of H.R. 27 was passed by the Senate on June 29, 2006 and would have extended the
authorization for appropriations for vocational rehabilitation until the end of FY2011.
The Senate bills in the 108^th and 109^th Congresses included provisions requiring the Comptroller
General to conduct a study on the current state allotment formula to determine the impact of this
formula on the ability of states and territories to adequately provide vocational rehabilitation
services in accordance with their state plans. In its report on S. 1021, the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions expressed its concerns with the current allotment
formula, stating
^T^h^{e com}^m^{ittee recog}ⁿ^izes^th^a^tⁱⁿ^States^w^h^er^{e cas}^eloads^{are con}^s^tan^t^{or in}^creasⁱⁿ^g^,^bu^t
^w^h^{ere t}^h^{e S}^t^at^{e i}^s^l^o^sⁱ^ng^g^eⁿ^e^r^a^l^popu^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^,^t^h^{e S}^t^at^{e t}^y^pi^cal^l^y^d^o^e^sⁿ^o^t^r^eceiv^e^{a percen}^tag^e
ⁱⁿ^creas^{e i}ⁿ^f^uⁿ^d^ing^t^h^{at eq}^u^a^ls^th^{e percen}^ta^g^eⁱⁿ^creas^e^f^o^{r the a}^m^oun^{t appropriated f}^o^{r th}^e
^en^tir^{e v}^o^catioⁿ^a^{l r}^e^h^a^b^ili^tatioⁿ^s^y^ste^m^.^A^d^d^itioⁿ^a^l^l^y^{, t}^h^{e c}^o^m^mⁱ^{ttee r}^eco^gⁿ^{izes t}^h^{at t}^h^e
^f^acto^r^{s u}^s^ed^to^d^e^ter^mⁱⁿ^{e p}^e^r^cap^{ita in}^co^m^e^p^r^o^v^id^{e sig}ⁿⁱ^f^icaⁿ^tl^y^m^o^r^e^f^uⁿ^d^s^,^oⁿ^a^p^e^r^c^a^pⁱ^t^a²⁸
^b^a^{sis, to}^States^wⁱ^t^h^lo^w^e^r^p^e^r^cap^{ita in}^co^m^e^s.
The House and Senate bills in the 109^th Congress largely differed on matters unrelated to
vocational rehabilitation and no conference committee was formed. A final version of these bills ^th
was not passed by the 109 Congress.

To date no bills that would extend the authorization for vocational rehabilitation appropriations ^th
have been introduced in the 110 Congress. Both chambers may consider vocational
rehabilitation reauthorization during this Congress as part of larger efforts to reauthorize the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998.

Sections 8 and 110 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provide a formula to be used by the RSA in ²⁹
determining each state and territory’s allotment of appropriated vocational rehabilitation funds.
This allotment formula does not take into account a state or territory’s vocational rehabilitation
caseload, or the employment rate of a state or territory’s vocational rehabilitation clients. Rather,
the formula is based on the following three factors:
• the state or territory’s vocational rehabilitation allotment in FY1978;³⁰

²⁸^{U.S. C}^ong^re^{ss, Se}^na^te^Com^m^itte^e^{on He}^a^lth^{, Ed}^uc^a^tio^{n, L}^a^bor,^aⁿ^d^P^e^nsi^ons,^Wo^rkf^o^{rce In}^vest^m^en^t^A^c^t
^A^m^en^d^m^en^t^s^of²⁰⁰⁵^,^r^e^por^t^{to a}^c^c^o^m^p^aⁿ^y^{S. 10}^21,¹⁰⁹^th^C^ong^.¹^st^s^e^s^s^{., S.R}^e^pt.¹⁰^9-¹³⁴^,⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton: G}^P^O²⁰⁰⁵⁾^,
^{pp. 54}^-⁵^5.
²⁹²⁹^U^.^S^.^C^.^§§⁷⁰^6,⁷³^0.
³⁰^A^sta^t^e^{or te}^rritory^{’s a}^llotm^eⁿ^{t in}^FY19⁷⁸^w^a^{s ba}^se^{d on a}^sta^t^e^’^{s p}^opu^la^tio^{n a}ⁿ^{d its a}^l^l^o^tm^eⁿ^{t pe}^rc^eⁿ^ta^g^e^de^te^r^m^ine^d
^u^sⁱⁿ^{g t}^h^{e sam}^e^f^o^rm^u^l^{a cu}^rren^t^l^y^u^s^edⁱⁿ^S^t^{ep 1}^.

• the state’s per capita income as a compared to the national per capita income;³¹
and
• the state or territory’s population.³²
A state or territory’s vocational rehabilitation allotment in FY1978 and its population both have a
direct relationship to its current final allotment. States and territories that received larger
allotments in FY1978 and states or territories with larger populations will receive larger
allotments of vocational rehabilitation funding.
A state’s per capita income as compared to the national per capita income has an inverse
relationship to the final allotment. The higher a state’s per capita income is as compared to the
national per capita income, the lower its final allotment of vocational rehabilitation funds.
A two-step process is used to determine each state and territory’s vocational rehabilitation
allotment. In the first step, the Allotment Percentage is determined using the formula specified in
Section 8 of the act. In the second step, this allotment percentage is used in a formula specified in
Section 110 of the act.
Each state is assigned an allotment percentage which is used in Step 2 of the allotment formula.
In general, the larger a state’s allotment percentage, the larger its final allotment of vocational
rehabilitation funds will be. A state with a larger per capita income relative to other states will
have a smaller allotment percentage.
Stat ePer Capit a Income⎡⎤

100% 50%Al lot ment Per cent age =− ×⎢⎥

Nati onal PerCapi taI ncome⎣⎦
This formula is not used for territories or the District of Columbia. The allotment percentage for
these jurisdictions is set at 75%. No state may have an Allotment Percentage less than 33% or
greater than 75%. If a state’s allotment percentage falls outside of these boundaries, it is
automatically increased to 33% or decreased to 75% as necessary. Each state’s allotment
percentage is calculated only in even numbered years and is current for that year and the
following year.

³¹^T^hⁱ^s^f^act^o^r^d^o^e^{s n}^o^t^ap^pl^y^t^o^t^h^e^Di^st^ri^ct^o^f^Co^l^u^m^bⁱ^a^o^r^t^h^{e t}^e^rri^t^o^ri^es.^A^st^at^{e’s p}^e^{r cap}ⁱ^t^a^an^d^t^h^e^natⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^p^e^r
^capⁱ^t^aⁱⁿ^co^m^eⁱ^s^d^e^t^e^rmⁱⁿ^ed^b^y^t^a^kiⁿ^g^t^h^{e averag}^{e o}^f^t^h^{e p}^e^{r cap}ⁱ^t^aⁱⁿ^co^m^e^f^o^{r t}^h^{e m}^o^st^rec^eⁿ^t^t^h^ree^coⁿ^s^ecu^tⁱ^v^{e years}
^a^s^de^te^r^m^ine^d^by^the^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^C^o^m^m^e^r^c^e^.
³²^A^s^t^a^t^e^or^te^r^r^itor^y^’^s^popula^tⁱ^oⁿⁱ^s^de^te^r^m^ine^d^by^ta^kⁱ^ng^the^m^o^s^t^r^ecen^t^d^a^t^a^p^u^b^lⁱ^s^h^e^d^b^y^t^h^{e Dep}^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f
^Co^{mmerce b}^e^f^o^{re Oct}^o^b^e^{r 1}^o^f^t^h^e^y^{ear p}^r^ecedⁱⁿ^{g t}^h^{e f}ⁱ^scal^{year o}^f^t^h^{e app}^r^op^ri^atⁱ^oⁿ^.

'1978Fi nalAll otment St ate sFY Allotment=+
()²S t a t ePop ul a t i o n A l l ot ment Per cent ag e Excess Amou nt×
² 2Stat ePopulat ion Allot mentPercentage×+×∑
^A^llS^ta^tes
Stat ePopulat ion AllotmentPercent age× ExcessAmou nt×
( St a t ePop ul a t i o n A l l ot× )2^A^llS^ta^tes me nt Percent ag e∑
This formula uses the allotment percentage calculated in Step 1. The excess amount is the
difference between the total appropriation for a given FY and the total appropriation for FY1978.
No state’s final allotment can be less than 1/3 of 1% of the total amount appropriated or ³³
$3,000,000, whichever is greater. If a state falls below this amount, its final allotment is
increased to this level and the final allotments of all other states are decreased in proportion to
their share of the total appropriation.
The vocational rehabilitation allotment formula does not contain a hold harmless provision and it
is possible that a state or territory could receive less in a given fiscal year than it did in a previous
fiscal year. This occurred in FY2000, when the District of Columbia, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New York, saw their final allotments decrease from FY1999. That year, the
reduction in funding for the District of Columbia was due to a drop in population while the other
states saw their per capita incomes grow faster than the national average.
The vocational rehabilitation allotments for each state and territory for FY2007 can be found in
Table B-2 in Appendix B.
Section 110(b) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that the RSA commissioner determine
each year if any state or territory will not be able to fully spend its vocational rehabilitation ³⁴
allotment and then reallot this money to states that will be able to fully utilize these funds. This
determination must be made no later than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year with the
reallotment taking place as soon as is practical but not after the end of the fiscal year.
There is no law or regulation governing how the RSA must reallot these funds. However, current
RSA policy is to first make reallotments to those states and territories that did not see their
original allotment increase by at least the increase in the CPI-U and then make any additional ³⁵
reallotments in accordance with the standard vocational rehabilitation allotment formula. States

³³^T^h^{is prov}^isioⁿ^doe^{s n}^o^{t a}^p^ply^to^the^te^rritorⁱ^e^s^but^d^o^e^s^a^pply^{to t}^h^e^Dⁱ^s^t^rⁱ^c^t^of^C^o^lum^b^ia^.
³⁴^{29 U}^.^S.C^.^§⁷³⁰⁽^b)^.
³⁵^De^pa^rtm^e^{nt of}^Educ^a^tion,^Re^ha^b^ilita^tio^{n Se}^rv^ic^e^A^d^mⁱ^nistra^tion,^Iⁿ^for^m^at^io^{n M}^e^m^o^r^aⁿ^dum^R^S^A-^I^M^-^06-⁰⁸^:^FY
²⁰⁰^{6 Re}^allo^tm^eⁿ^t^Sc^he^du^le^for^F^o^r^m^ula^G^r^ants^U^nde^r^t^h^e^Re^h^abil^itati^on^Ac^t,^J^u^ne²²^,²⁰^06,^a^v^a^ila^ble^oⁿ^t^h^e^w^e^bs^ite
^o^f^th^{e Dep}^a^rtm^eⁿ^t^o^f^Ed^u^catioⁿ^{at h}^t^t^p^://w^ww^.ed^.^g^o^v^/^p^o^licy^/^sp^eced^/g^uⁱ^d^/^rsa/i^m^-0⁶^-⁰⁸^.p^d^f^{. T}^h^{e W}^o^rk^f^o^rc^{e In}^v^e^st^m^eⁿ^t^th
^A^c^t^o^f¹⁹⁹⁸⁽^S^.¹⁶²⁷⁾ⁱⁿ^th^{e 10}⁸^C^ong^r^e^s^s^a^{nd T}^h^e^W^o^r^k^f^o^r^c^e^I^nve^s^t^m^e^{nt A}^c^{t A}^m^e^ndm^eⁿ^ts^of²⁰⁰^{5 (}^S^.¹⁰²¹⁾ⁱⁿ^the^th
¹⁰⁹^Con^g^{ress co}ⁿ^t^aiⁿ^e^{d p}^r^o^vⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^h^at^w^o^u^l^{d h}^a^{ve gi}^ven^st^at^{es t}^h^at^dⁱ^dⁿ^o^t^recei^{ve an}ⁱⁿ^{crease i}ⁿ^ap^p^r^op^ri^atⁱ^oⁿ^s
^e^qua^{l to}^the^inc^r^e^a^s^e^{in the}^C^P^I^-^U^pr^ior^ity^w^h^eⁿ^a^pplyⁱ^ng^f^o^r^r^e^a^llotm^eⁿ^{t f}^unds^.

must request a reallotment and must provide matching state funds according to the standard
vocational rehabilitation matching requirements that set the federal share at 78.7% and the state
share at 21.3%. Money realloted to states and territories or money not expended after the
reallotment period can be carried over into the next fiscal year.

Rehabilitation advocates and Congress have raised several issues of concern with the current
vocational rehabilitation allotment formula. Advocacy groups have consistently called for
changes in the formula and the Senate has twice attempted to pass legislation that would require
the Comptroller General to investigate the formula. The issues raised by advocacy groups and
Congress fall into the following four general categories:
• First, the current formula does not take into account a state’s ability to pay its
share of the funding or spend its allotment and as a result states frequently return
unspent funds to the RSA for reallotment.
• Second, the increase in the CPI-U that affects the total appropriation is not
always passed on to each state or territory. As a result, some states and territories
do not receive an increase in funding to keep pace with increased costs due to
inflation.
• Third, the current funding formula does not account for the size of a state’s
caseload or its success at rehabilitating clients and assisting them in finding and
keeping competitive employment.
• Fourth, the current formula’s use of a state or territory’s 1978 allotment as a
baseline lessens the impact of a state’s population on its allotment and tends to
negatively affect states with large population growth since 1978.
The current vocational rehabilitation allotment formula does not take into account a state or
territory’s ability or willingness to match the federal grant with state or territorial funds as
required by law. As a result, states and territories that for political or economic reasons are not
able to contribute the required 21.3% of total vocational rehabilitation funding must return some
of their federal funding to the RSA for reallotment. The Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions has recognized this as a problem with the current formula stating in its report ^th
on S. 1021 in the 109 Congress:
^Year^l^y^{, States r}^e^t^u^rⁿ^m^illioⁿ^s^o^f^Fed^e^r^a^ll^y^ap^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^ated^d^o^llar^s^to^car^r^y^o^u^{t v}^o^catioⁿ^a^l
^r^e^h^a^b^ilitatioⁿ^ser^v^ice^s^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^uⁿ^d^er^S^u^b^title^{A to}^t^h^e^Dep^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^Ed^u^c^a^tioⁿ^to³⁶
^r^e^dⁱ^strⁱ^b^u^{te, as th}^e^y^w^e^r^e^uⁿ^ab^{le to}^m^a^tch^t^h^{e allo}^tted^f^uⁿ^d^s^wⁱ^t^h^S^t^{ate d}^o^llar^s^.

³⁶^{U.S. C}^ong^re^{ss, Se}^na^te^Com^m^itte^e^{on He}^a^lth^{, Ed}^uc^a^tio^{n, L}^a^bor,^aⁿ^d^P^e^nsi^ons,^Wo^rkf^o^{rce In}^vest^m^en^t^A^c^t
^A^m^en^d^m^en^t^s^of²⁰⁰⁵^,^r^e^por^t^{to a}^c^c^o^m^p^aⁿ^y^{S. 10}^21,¹⁰⁹^th^C^ong^.¹^st^s^e^s^s^{., S.R}^e^pt.¹⁰^9-¹³⁴^,⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton: G}^P^O²⁰⁰⁵⁾^,^p.
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

As shown in Table C-1 of Appendix C, since 1991 states and territories have returned over $321
million in federal vocational rehabilitation funds to the RSA for reallotment. This amount is less
than 1% of the total federal funding for vocational rehabilitation state and territorial grants during
this period.
As shown in Table B-1 of Appendix B, total federal spending on vocational rehabilitation
generally keeps pace with price inflation as reflected by the CPI-U. However, while the total
appropriation for vocational rehabilitation increases each year to reflect higher prices, the
individual amounts allotted to states and territories may not. There is no hold-harmless provision
in the law that guarantees that a state or territory will see an increase in its vocational
rehabilitation allotment at all, let alone a guarantee that it will see an increase that matches the
increase in the CPI-U.
In FY2008, 26 states and the District of Columbia received lower allotments than they had ³⁷
received in FY2007. Also in FY2008, 11 states and two territories received increases that were ³⁸
less than the growth in the CPI-U from the previous year.
The Senate passed legislation in the 108^th and 109^th Congresses that would have partially dealt
with this issue by requiring that states and territories that did not receive an increase in their
vocational rehabilitation allotment that was at least equal to the increase in the CPI-U from the
previous year would receive the first priority for any reallotted funds. The RSA currently reallots
funds using this method. Advocacy groups have taken this a step further, however, and both the
National Rehabilitation Association and the Council of State Administrators of Vocational
Rehabilitation (CSAVR) have publicly called for changes to the vocational rehabilitation funding
process that would ensure that each state and territory receives an annual allotment that keeps ³⁹
pace with the increases in the cost of living.

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^55.
³⁷^T^h^e^sta^t^e^s^of^A^l^a^b^a^m^a^,^A^r^k^a^nsa^s^{, Ca}^lif^ornia^,^Co^nne^c^tic^ut^{, De}^la^w^a^re^{, Flori}^d^a^,^Ha^w^a^{ii, Illino}ⁱ^{s, Iow}^a^{, Ka}^nsa^s^{, Ma}^ine^,
^M^a^ry^l^aⁿ^d^,^M^a^ssach^u^s^et^t^s^,^Miⁿⁿ^eso^t^a,^Mⁱ^ssi^ssi^ppⁱ^,^M^oⁿ^t^an^a,^Neb^r^aska,^Ne^w^H^a^m^p^shⁱ^r^e,^New^M^e^xi^co^,^P^eⁿⁿ^sy^l^v^anⁱ^a^,
^R^hode^I^s^la^nd,^So^ut^{h D}^a^k^o^ta^{, T}^e^nne^s^s^e^e^,^Ve^r^m^{ont, V}ⁱ^r^g^inia^{, W}^e^s^t^Vir^g^inia^aⁿ^{d t}^h^e^Dⁱ^s^t^rⁱ^c^t^of^C^o^lu^m^b^ia^r^e^ce^iv^e^d^le^s^s
^f^undingⁱⁿ^FY²⁰⁰⁸^t^h^aⁿ^t^h^e^y^did^{in FY}²⁰^07.
³⁸^T^h^e^s^t^a^t^e^s^of^A^l^a^s^k^a^{, I}^d^a^{ho, I}^ndi^aⁿ^a^,^K^e^ntuc^k^y^{, Mic}^h^ig^aⁿ^{, N}^e^w^Jer^s^ey^{, N}^e^w^Y^o^r^k^{, O}^k^la^hom^a^,^O^r^eg^{on, S}^out^h
^Caro^lⁱⁿ^a,^and^Wⁱ^scoⁿ^sⁱⁿ^an^{d t}^h^e^t^e^rri^t^o^ri^{es o}^f^Ameri^can^S^a^m^o^{a an}^{d t}^h^{e U.}^S^.^Vⁱ^rgiⁿ^Isl^a^nd^{s recei}^vedⁱⁿ^{creases i}ⁿ^t^h^ei^r
^a^llotm^eⁿ^{ts tha}^t^w^e^re^le^{ss tha}ⁿ^t^h^e¹^.³^%ⁱⁿ^{crease i}ⁿ^t^h^{e C}^P^I-U.
³⁹^Na^tiona^{l Re}^ha^bilita^ti^on^A^ssocⁱ^a^tⁱ^on,^Re^c^o^mme^nda^tio^{ns for}^Re^au^th^orizatⁱ^on^{of t}^h^e^Re^h^abi^lita^tio^{n Ac}^t,^J^a^nua^r^y^29,
²⁰⁰^{3, a}^v^a^ila^ble^{on t}^h^e^w^e^bsite^of^the^Na^tiona^l^Re^ha^bili^ta^tio^{n A}^ssocⁱ^a^{tion a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.na^tiona^lre^h^a^b^.org^/^w^e^b^site^/g^ov^t/
²⁰⁰²⁴^0.^htm^{l; a}^{nd C}^o^uⁿ^c^{il of}^Sta^t^e^A^d^mⁱ^nistra^{tors of}^V^o^c^a^tⁱ^ona^{l R}^e^ha^bilita^ti^on,^C^S^AV^{R C}^o^m^m^e^nts^{on H}^R²⁷^{, Fe}^b^r^ua^ry
^14,²⁰⁰⁵^{, a}^v^a^ila^ble^oⁿ^the^w^e^bsite^of^the^Co^unc^il^of^Sta^t^e^A^d^mⁱ^nistra^{tors of}^Voc^a^tiona^{l Re}^ha^bilita^ti^on^a^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.r^e^h^a^bne^tw^or^k^.^or^g^/^wⁱ^a_r^e^ha^b_a^c^t^/^h^r^c^om^m^e^nts^.^htm^.

A state or territory’s vocational rehabilitation allotment is based on its allotment in 1978, its per
capita income, and its population. The size of a state or territory’s vocational rehabilitation
caseload, or its success at returning portion of this caseload to the workforce are not part of the
allotment formula and are not a factor in determining how much money a state or territory will
have available for vocational rehabilitation services.
Because the size of a state or territory’s caseload is not part of the allotment formula, state and
territorial vocational rehabilitation agencies are often unable to provide services for persons that
want them. Currently, more than half of all state vocational rehabilitation agencies are operating
under orders of selection which require that they establish waiting lists for vocational services and
provide services to persons determined to have the most significant disabilities. Nearly 40,000
persons with disabilities seeking vocational rehabilitation services are currently waiting on these
lists.
In addition to disregarding the size of a state or territory’s vocational rehabilitation caseload, the
allotment formula does not take into account a state or territory’s performance in returning clients
to the workforce and helping them maintain competitive employment. As a result, the Department
of Education is left without a possible tool to encourage compliance with established performance
standards and has no way to reward state or territorial agencies that are successful at returning
clients to the workforce.
Section 107(c) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 does give the Secretary of Education the ability
to withhold vocational rehabilitation funding from any state or territory that is not in compliance
with its published state plan or that is falling below the performance standards established by the
Department of Education for the vocational rehabilitation program. However, despite the fact that
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified two cases in FY2003 in which
vocational rehabilitation agencies failed to meet these performance standards, the Department of
Education has never withheld funding from a state or territorial vocational rehabilitation agency ⁴⁰
because of performance.
The GAO cited the inability of the Department of Education to establish a means to reward
successful vocational rehabilitation agencies with increased funding as part of the agency’s
overall inability to properly monitor and manage the performance of the state and territorial ⁴¹
vocational rehabilitation agencies that it provides funding to. In addition, the Senate recognized ^th
this shortcoming in the current law and Section 421 of S. 1021 in the 109 Congress provided
authorization for the Department of Education to provide incentive grants to states that ⁴²
demonstrated success at returning persons with disabilities to the workforce. In its report on S.
1021, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions stated

⁴⁰^G^o^v^e^rn^m^e^nt^A^c^c^ounta^b^ility^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^,^Voc^a^ti^on^{al Re}^h^a^b^ilit^atio^{n: Be}^tte^r^M^e^as^ur^e^s^{and M}^o^nit^o^rⁱⁿ^g^Co^{uld Im}^pr^ov^e^the
^Pe^r^f^or^m^anc^e^of^the^V^R^Pr^o^g^r^a^m^,^GAO-0⁵^-⁸⁶⁵^,^(W^ashⁱⁿ^g^toⁿ^:^G^P^{O 2}⁰⁰⁵⁾^,^p.³⁵^.^(Hereaf^{ter cited}^{as GAO-0}⁵^-⁸⁶⁵⁾^.
⁴¹^G^A^O^-^05-⁸⁶⁵^.
⁴²^T^h^is^pr^ov^is^io^{n w}^a^s^a^l^s^o^inc^l^u^d^e^d^a^s^Se^c^tion⁴¹⁹^of^{S. 1}⁶²⁷^{, t}^h^e^W^o^r^k^f^o^r^c^e^Iⁿ^v^e^s^t^m^e^{nt A}^c^t^A^m^e^ndm^eⁿ^ts^of²⁰⁰^{3, i}ⁿ
^the¹⁰⁸^th^C^ong^r^e^s^s^.

^Bas^e^{d on}^prog^ram^dat^a^an^{d ot}^h^e^{r s}^o^u^r^ces^ofⁱⁿ^f^o^r^m^atⁱ^oⁿ^,ⁱ^tⁱ^s^apparen^t^t^h^at^t^h^{ere i}^s^a^wⁱ^de
^v^a^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ^t^h^e^p^e^r^f^o^r^m^aⁿ^c^e^o^fⁱⁿ^dⁱ^vⁱ^d^u^a^l^S^t^a^t^e^v^o^catioⁿ^a^l^r^e^h^a^b^ilitatioⁿ^ag^eⁿ^cies.^Iⁿ^Sect^ioⁿ
^{421 of}^S^.¹⁰^{21 t}^h^{e C}^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^e^{e perm}^aⁿ^ent^l^y^a^u^t^h^ori^zes^t^h^e^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^’^s^V^o^catⁱ^oⁿ^a^l
^Reh^a^b^ili^tatioⁿ^Iⁿ^cen^tiv^e^Gr^an^{ts P}^r^o^g^r^a^m^as^a^m^e^t^h^{od to en}^cou^r^a^g^{e State}^v^o^cation^a^l
^r^e^h^a^b^ilitatioⁿ^ag^eⁿ^cie^s^toⁱ^m^p^r^o^v^{e th}^eⁱ^r^p^e^r^f^o^r^m^aⁿ^{ce. T}^h^e^Co^m^m^itteeⁱⁿ^ten^d^{s t}^h^at^g^r^aⁿ^t
^f^uⁿ^d^s^{be u}^s^{ed pri}^m^aril^y^{to en}^cou^r^ag^e^Stat^{e v}^o^catioⁿ^a^{l reh}^a^bilitatioⁿ^ag^eⁿ^cies^{to adopt}
^ef^f^e^c^tiv^e^str^a^tegⁱ^e^s^toⁱ^m^p^r^o^v^{e e}^m^p^l^o^y^m^eⁿ^t^o^u^tco^m^{es f}^o^rⁱⁿ^dⁱ^vⁱ^d^u^al^s^wⁱ^t^h^dⁱ^sab^ilities⁴³
^receivⁱ^ng^as^sⁱ^s^t^aⁿ^ce^uⁿ^d^{er th}^e^v^o^cation^a^{l reh}^a^bili^tation^prog^r^a^m^.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that these incentive grants would have cost ⁴⁴
$13 million in 2006 and $137 million over the period from 2006 through 2010.
A unique feature of the vocational rehabilitation allotment formula is its use of a state’s 1978
allotment as a baseline for all current and future allotments. While the formula also considers a
state’s per capita income and population, these variables only affect a state’s share of the excess
amount—the difference between the total appropriations for the current FY and the total
appropriations for FY1978. For FY2007 the excess amount makes up 73% of the total vocational
rehabilitation appropriation meaning that 27% of the total appropriation is not affected by the ⁴⁵
allotment formula but rather is distributed to match each state and territory’s FY1978 allotment.
In order to analyze the impact of the 1978 baseline on the vocational rehabilitation allotment
formula, each state and territory’s FY2007 allotment is estimated using a modified formula that ⁴⁶
does not take into account a state or territory’s allotment in FY1978. Table D-1, in Appendix D
shows each state and territory’s estimated allotment for FY2007 under this modified formula and
the difference between these amounts and the actual allotments. In this table, states with positive
differences between their actual and modified allotments are benefitting from the current formula
and its use of the FY1978 allotment as a baseline while states with negative differences are not
benefitting from this formula.
An analysis of the modified allotment formula as compared to the actual FY2007 state allotments
shows that states with the largest increases in population from 1976 until 2005 also had the
largest reductions due to the use of the FY1978 baseline to actual allotments. Nevada, the state
with the largest population growth also had the largest difference in allotments and of the five
states with the largest differences in allotments, four were also among the top five states in
population growth. Statistical analyses of the data show strong and significant negative
correlations between a state’s rate of population growth from 1976 and the difference between its

⁴³^{U.S. C}^ong^re^{ss, Se}^na^te^Com^m^itte^e^{on He}^a^lth^{, Ed}^uc^a^tio^{n, L}^a^bor,^aⁿ^d^P^e^nsi^ons,^Wo^rkf^o^{rce In}^vest^m^en^t^A^c^t
^A^m^en^d^m^en^t^s^of²⁰⁰⁵^,^r^e^por^t^{to a}^c^c^o^m^p^aⁿ^y^{S. 10}^21,¹⁰⁹^th^C^ong^.¹^st^s^e^s^s^{., S.R}^e^pt.¹⁰^9-¹³⁴^,⁽^W^a^s^hing^{ton: G}^P^O²⁰⁰⁵⁾^,^p.
^56.
⁴⁴^C^ong^r^e^s^sⁱ^ona^{l B}^udg^e^t^O^f^fⁱ^ce^,^S.¹⁰²^{1 W}^o^r^k^for^c^e^Iⁿ^v^e^s^tm^eⁿ^{t Ac}^t^A^m^e^ndm^eⁿ^ts^of²⁰⁰⁵^,^co^st^estⁱ^m^at^e^,^(W^ashⁱⁿ^g^t^oⁿ^:
^G^P^O²⁰⁰⁵⁾^,^p.^6.
⁴⁵^T^h^e^tota^{l a}^llo^tm^eⁿ^{t in FY1}⁹⁷⁸^w^a^{s $75}^9,³¹⁷^,8^{31 w}^h^ile^t^h^e^to^ta^{l a}^l^lotm^eⁿ^{t f}^o^{r FY200}^{7 w}^a^{s $2,}⁸⁰^2,7^16,⁰⁰^0.
⁴⁶^T^h^is^m^odifⁱ^e^d^a^llotm^eⁿ^{t is}^c^a^l^c^u^la^te^{d by}^m^u^ltiply^ing^a^s^t^a^t^e^’^s^s^h^a^r^e^of^the^e^x^c^e^s^s^am^{ount by}^the^tota^{l a}^ppr^opria^ti^on
^f^o^r^FY²⁰⁰^7.

FY2007 allotment and its modified allotments.⁴⁷ These negative correlations demonstrate that
states with large increases in population since the mid-1970s have the largest differences between
their actual and modified allotments under the current allotment formula. This analysis also
demonstrates how the current vocational rehabilitation allotment formula does not properly
account for population changes, such as migrations to the Southern and Western states during this
period.

It is likely that the 110^th Congress will consider the reauthorization of the vocational rehabilitation
program. Efforts to reauthorize the program without significant changes to the allotment formula ^th^th
or other aspects of the program were unsuccessful in the 108 and 109 Congresses. If Congress
does consider reauthorization in 2007 or 2008, it may want to consider making changes to several
parts of the vocational rehabilitation program. Possible areas for reform include the definition of
disability used and the order of selection rules that give preference to persons with the most
severe disabilities even those this group may be the least likely to return to work. This issue is
expected to be addressed in a future Congressional Research Service report.
In addition, Congress may wish to consider some method for increasing the overall success rate
of the vocational rehabilitation program. Currently, the RSA has very little ability to give states
and territories incentives to improve the return to work rate of their vocational rehabilitation
clients or to punish states that fail to meet established expectations for vocational rehabilitation ^th
agencies. The Senate’s reauthorization bill in the 109 Congress did include a program of
authorization grants that could be used to reward states that demonstrate success at returning
clients to the workforce. The overall effectiveness of the vocational rehabilitation program is to
be examined in a future Congressional Research Service report.
In its previous two attempts at vocational reauthorization, the Senate has recognized some of the ^th^th
shortcomings of the allotment formula discussed in this report. In both the 108 and 109
Congress the Senate reauthorization bills would have required the GAO to study the vocational
allotment formula.
As demonstrated in this Congressional Research Service report, the current formula fails to
account for a state or territory’s ability to pay its share of the costs of vocational rehabilitation or
its caseload. In addition, this report has shown that the current formula does not ensure that
funding increases due to changes in the cost of living are passed along to individual states and
territories. The formula also does not take into account a state or territory’s success at returning
vocational rehabilitation clients to work. Finally, this report has shown the impact of the allotment
formula on the vocational rehabilitation funding levels of states that have seen significant
population growth since the 1970s. Each of these concerns with the allotment formula are areas
that the House and Senate may consider as they prepare to consider reauthorization of the ^th
vocational rehabilitation program in the 110 Congress.

⁴⁷^T^h^{e st}^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^cal^an^al^y^s^es^yⁱ^el^d^e^d^{a P}^earson^’^s^P^r^od^u^c^t^M^o^m^eⁿ^t^Co^rre^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^C^o^ef^fⁱ^ci^en^t^o^f^-0^.⁷⁴⁴⁹^and^{a S}^p^earm^aⁿ^’^s
^Ra^nk^Orde^{r Corre}^la^tio^{n Coe}^f^fⁱ^cⁱ^eⁿ^{t of}^-0.⁶⁹⁶⁸^.^Bo^th^c^o^e^f^fⁱ^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ts we}^re^sigⁿ^if^ic^aⁿ^{t a}^t^the^le^v^e^{l of}^p^<0^.⁰⁰⁰¹^.^T^h^ese
^s^t^a^tis^tic^a^l^te^s^t^s^m^e^a^s^ur^e^the^c^o^r^r^e^la^tion^be^tw^e^eⁿ^a^s^t^a^t^e^’^s^popula^tⁱ^oⁿ^g^r^ow^{th a}^{nd t}^h^e^dif^f^e^r^e^nc^e^be^t^w^{een its}^c^u^r^r^e^{nt a}ⁿ^d
^m^odifⁱ^e^d^a^llotm^eⁿ^ts^{, but t}^h^e^y^{do not}^ne^c^e^s^s^a^rⁱ^l^y^indic^a^t^e^a^c^a^u^s^a^{l r}^e^la^tions^hi^p^be^tw^e^eⁿ^the^s^e^v^a^rⁱ^a^b^l^e^s^.^A^dditiona^l
ⁱⁿ^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ^oⁿ^t^h^{e st}^atⁱ^s^tⁱ^cal^an^al^{yses i}^s^av^a^ila^ble^f^r^o^m^the^a^u^thor^of^{this re}^por^t.

Table A-1. Order of Selection Status for States and Territories with Combined
Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies, FY2007
^State^{Order of}^Selection?^State^{Order of}^Selection?
^{Alabama No}^North^Dakota^Yes
^{Alaska No}^Ohio^Yes
^{Arizona Yes}^Oklahoma^Yes
^{California Yes}^Pennsylvania^Yes
^Colorad^{o Yes}^Rhode^Island^Yes
^{Georgia Yes}^Tennessee^Yes
^{Hawaii Yes}^Utah^No
^{Illinois Yes}^West^Virginia^Yes
^{Indiana Yes}^Wisconsin^Yes
^{Kansas Yes}^Wyoming^Yes
^Louisiana^Yes^{District of Columbia}^No
^{Maryland Yes}^American^Samoa^No
^{Mississippi Yes}^Guam^No
^Montana^No^{N. Mariana Isla}^nds^No
^{Nevada No}^Puerto^Rico^No
^{New Ham}^pshire^No^{U.S. V}^{irgin Islands}^Yes
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS) table with data provided by the U.S. Department o}^f^Education
^{Office of Special Education a}^{nd Rehabilitation Services.}
^Note:^{FY2008 order of selection}^{information is not yet available.}
Table A-2. Order of Selection Status for General and Blind Vocational Rehabilitation
Agencies, by State, FY2007
^{Order of}^Selection?
^State^{General Agency}^{Blind Agency}
^{Arkansas Yes}^Yes
^{Connecticut Yes}^No
^{Delaware No}^Yes
^{Florida No}^No
^{Idaho No}
^{Iowa Yes}^No
^{Kentucky Yes}^Yes

^{Order of}^Selection?
^State^{General Agency}^{Blind Agency}
^{Maine Yes}^Yes
^Massach^{usetts Yes}^No
^{Michigan No}
^{Minnesota Yes}^No
^{Missouri Yes}
^Nebras^{ka Yes}^No
^{New Jers}^ey^Yes^No
^{New Me}^xico^No^No
^{New York}^No^No
^{North Carolina}^Yes^No
^{Oregon Yes}
^{South Carolina}^No^No
^{South Dakota}^No^No
^{Texas No}
^{Vermont Yes}^No
^{Virginia Yes}^Yes
^{Washington Yes}^No
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS) table with data provided by the U.S. Department o}^f^Education
^{Office of Special Education a}^{nd Rehabilitation Services.}
^Note:^{FY2008 order of selection}^{information is not yet available.}

Table B-1. Changes in Vocational Rehabilitation Appropriations and the Consumer
Price Index (CPI-U), FY1999-FY2008
^Appr^opriations^Appr^{opriation (in}^{Change f}^rom^Previous^{Change in CPI-U}
^FY^Law^{thousands of $)}^{FY (%)}^(%)
¹⁹⁹⁸^P.L.^105-7⁸ ^2,24^6,88⁸^{n/a n/a}
¹⁹⁹⁹^P.L.^105-2⁷⁷ ^2,30^4,41^{1 2.6}^2.1
²⁰⁰⁰^P.L.^106-1¹³ ^2,33^8,97^{7 1.5}^1.5
²⁰⁰¹^P.L.^106-5⁵⁴ ^2,39^9,79^{0 2.6}^2.6
²⁰⁰²^P.L.^107-1¹⁶ ^2,48^1,38^{3 3.4}^3.4
²⁰⁰³^P.L.^108-7 ^2,53^3,49^{2 2.1}^2.1
²⁰⁰⁴^P.L.^108-1⁹⁹ ^2,58^4,16^{2 2.0}^2.0
²⁰⁰⁵^P.L.^108-4⁴⁷ ^2,63^5,84^{5 2.0}^2.0
²⁰⁰⁶^P.L.^109-1⁴⁹ ^2,72^0,19^{2 3.2}^3.2
²⁰⁰⁷^P.L.^110-5^a ^2,83^7,16^{0 4.4}^4.4
²⁰⁰⁸^P.L.^110-1⁶¹ ^2,87^4,04^{3 1.3}^1.3
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS) figure with data on ap}^{propriations take}^{n from t}^he^conferen^ce
^{reports accom}^panying^{each FY’s}^approp^{riations bill and data on th}^{e CPI-U taken from t}^{he we}^bsite^{of the}
^Department^{of Commerce, Bure}^{au of Labor Statistics at ft}^p://ftp.b^ls.gov/^pub/^{special.request}^s/^{cpi/cpiai.txt.}
^Notes:^{Appropriations data inclu}^{des money ap}^{propriated to Nativ}^{e American I}^{ndian Tribes}^under^t^he
^{provisions of Section 121}^{of the}^{Rehabilitation Act of 197}^{3 (2}^{9 U.S.C.}^{§ 741).}
^a.^{P.L. 110-5 was}^the^fourth^{in a ser}^{ies of continuing re}^{solutions used}^{to make app}^{ropriations for FY20}^07.
Table B-2. Vocational Rehabilitation State and Territorial Final Allotments, FY2008
^{State or Territory}^{Allotment (dollars)}^{State or Territory}^{Allotment (dollars)}
^{Alabama 55,8}^16,7⁸⁹^Nevada^17,9^31,5⁶⁵
^{Alaska 9,46}^3,83⁷^New^Ham^pshire^10,7^36,0¹³
^{Arizona 57,9}^50,2⁰⁰^New^Jers^ey^55,1^84,6³²
^{Arkansas 35,8}^09,2⁰⁴^New^Me^xico^22,6^84,8⁶²
^{California 275,}⁵⁹^3,20⁹^New^York^147,³⁵^1,56⁴
^Colorad^{o 36,0}^13,7²⁹^North^Carolina^92,8^12,9⁷⁹
^{Connecticut 19,9}^47,1¹⁵^North^Dakota^9,46^3,83⁷
^{Delaware 9,46}^3,83⁷^Ohio^120,⁴⁰^0,88⁶
^{District of Columbia}^12,6^18,2⁵²^Oklahoma^40,6^28,8⁸³
^{Florida 152,}⁸⁴^4,03⁴^{Oregon 35,1}^75,1⁷⁴
^{Georgia 92,2}^58,7⁹⁰^Pennsylvania^121,¹⁰^1,67⁶
^{Hawaii 11,0}^52,8²³^Rhode^Island^10,0^51,2⁸¹

^{State or Territory}^{Allotment (dollars)}^{State or Territory}^{Allotment (dollars)}
^{Idaho 15,8}^67,6⁵⁵^South^Carolina^50,7^34,7⁰⁸
^{Illinois 105,}²⁵^4,07⁰^South^Dakota^9,46^3,83⁷
^{Indiana 66,6}^60,0⁹⁴^Tennessee^65,5^75,7²⁰
^{Iowa 31,1}^55,6⁶⁴^Texas^217,⁷⁴^9,58⁴
^{Kansas 26,9}^29,1⁴⁴^Utah^28,0^30,4³⁹
^{Kentucky 51,7}^43,0⁹⁴^Vermont^9,46^3,83⁷
^{Louisiana 56,3}^83,2¹³^Virginia^62,0^84,1¹⁹
^{Maine 15,0}^30,2⁰²^Washington^51,1^25,4⁴⁸
^{Maryland 38,1}^14,0⁰⁰^West^Virginia^25,3^12,6⁶⁶
^Massach^{usetts 45,5}^30,3⁴⁰^Wisconsin^55,2^46,8⁷⁷
^{Michigan 97,3}^47,4⁹¹^Wyoming^9,46^3,83⁷
^{Minnesota 43,1}^24,0⁸⁴^American^Samoa^928,⁸⁰¹
^{Mississippi 41,2}^88,4⁵⁰^Guam^2,87^7,62⁸
^Missouri^62,0^37,5⁰⁶^Norther^{n Ma}^{riana Islands}^1,15^9,80⁶
^{Montana 10,7}^62,0²⁷^Puerto^Rico^71,0^21,0²¹
^Nebras^ka^17,3^56,1²⁴^{U.S. V}^{irgin Islands}^1,97^4,34³
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS) table with data taken from t}^{he Depa}^rtment^{of Edu}^cation
^{website at htt}^{p://www.ed.gov/}^{about/overview/budget/}^statetables/^08stby^program.pdf.
^Note:^D^{oes not include any r}^{eallotments that}^{have occ}^{urred or}^m^{ay occur in FY2}⁰⁰^8.

Table C-1. Vocational Rehabilitation Funds Returned for Reallotment, FY1991-
FY2006
^FY^Amou^{nt Returned}^{Percent of Total Federal Allotment}
¹⁹⁹^{1 $26,7}^21,7⁹³^1.64
¹⁹⁹^{2 43,6}^86,6⁹⁸^2.45
¹⁹⁹^{3 5,89}^7,26¹^0.31
¹⁹⁹^{4 46,9}^24,2²²^2.38
¹⁹⁹^{5 24,1}^30,0⁶⁶^1.18
¹⁹⁹^{6 19,2}^66,7⁸¹^0.92
¹⁹⁹^{7 8,12}^6,33²^0.38
¹⁹⁹^{8 10,2}^19,8⁶¹^0.46
¹⁹⁹^{9 10,6}^53,9⁴⁸^0.47
²⁰⁰^{0 10,6}^60,2⁸³^0.46
²⁰⁰^{1 12,2}^32,6⁸⁵^0.51
²⁰⁰^{2 25,2}^69,0⁵⁵^1.03
²⁰⁰^{3 22,4}^42,5³⁶^0.90
²⁰⁰^{4 35,8}^30,9³³^1.40
²⁰⁰⁵^a⁰^0.00
²⁰⁰^{6 19,5}^25,4⁸¹^0.73
^Total^{321,587,935 0.90}
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS) table with data taken from a}ⁿⁿ^{ual Infor}^{mation Me}^moranda
^{released by th}^{e Rehabilitation Services Administration available on the web}^{site of the Depa}^rtment^{of Education}
^{at http://www.ed.gov/}^policy/spec^{ed/guid/rsa/information-memoran}^da.html.
^Note:^{Returned funding data}^{not available for FY2007.}
^a.^{Does not include reallotments m}^{ade under t}^he^{provisions of the}^{Assistance for I}^{ndividuals with Disabilities}
^{Affected by}^Hu^{rricanes Kat}^{rina or Rita Act of 20}^{05, P.L. 10}^9-82.

Table D-1. Vocational Rehabilitation State FY2007 Allotments, FY2007 Modified
Allotments, and 1976 to 2005 Population Growth
^{Estimated FY2}⁰⁰⁷^{Difference as}^Population
^{Actual FY2007}^{Modified Allotment}^{Percentage of FY2007}^{Growth, 1976 to}
^State^{Allotment ($)}^($)^{Modified Allotment}²⁰⁰^{5 (%)}
^Alabama^56,4^45,0^{98 52,5}^89,7²⁵^6.83^21.7⁷
^{Alaska 9,34}^2,38⁷^10,0^70,7⁸⁶^-7.80^65.4¹
^{Arizona 56,4}^06,8⁶³^65,6^72,1⁰⁰^-16.43^153.⁷³
^{Arkansas 35,7}^08,2²⁰^34,6^12,7⁴¹^3.07^27.9⁰
^{California 271,}⁴⁵^2,20²^294,⁰⁹^3,38⁶^-8.34^64.8²
^Colorad^{o 34,1}^05,0⁶⁹^35,4^00,4⁴⁶^-3.80^77.1⁶
^{Connecticut 19,8}^70,5³⁹^17,6^28,7⁴³^11.2⁸^13.5⁴
^{Delaware 9,34}^2,38⁷^10,0^70,7⁸⁶^-7.80^42.6³
^{Dist. of}
^{Columbia 12,1}^82,4^{51 9,26}^5,40⁴^23.9⁴^-15.92
^{Florida 154,}¹⁰^8,57⁵^171,⁴⁰^8,51⁴^{-11.23 105.}⁰⁰
^{Georgia 86,6}^85,2⁵⁵^89,9^10,2⁸⁸^-3.72^77.9²
^{Hawaii 11,2}^54,6¹⁸^12,2^67,3²²^-9.00^40.8²
^{Idaho 15,4}^64,6⁰⁹^16,6^23,3⁰⁸^-7.49^66.7⁹
^{Illinois 103,}⁹¹^1,34⁵^104,⁸⁰^6,37⁴^-0.86^12.5⁴
^{Indiana 66,2}^66,2⁶⁵^64,6^83,7⁷⁶^2.33^16.2⁷
^{Iowa 31,5}^80,8⁶⁸^30,9^21,0⁹⁰^2.09^2.15
^{Kansas 26,9}^63,3⁹⁹^27,1^06,8⁴⁷^-0.53^19.4³
^{Kentucky 50,8}^76,9²⁹^47,9^48,0⁴⁵^5.76^18.2³
^{Louisiana 56,3}^14,8⁵³^52,4^50,4²⁰^6.86^14.0⁹
^{Maine 14,8}^85,1⁹³^13,6^03,4²⁸^8.61^21.1¹
^{Maryland 39,0}^69,1⁵³^37,8^74,2³¹^3.06^34.6⁷
^Massach^{usetts 45,1}^64,3⁹⁰^36,9^66,7⁵⁶^18.1⁵^12.0¹
^{Michigan 95,2}^40,2⁵⁵^93,7^54,3⁹⁶^1.56^10.6⁴
^{Minnesota 43,3}^37,9⁵³^41,1^95,0⁶¹^4.94^29.3¹
^{Mississippi 41,0}^30,6³⁹^37,8^94,1³¹^7.64^19.7⁰
^{Missouri 61,0}^38,5⁵⁹^58,7^58,7⁵⁴^3.74^19.8¹
^{Montana 10,9}^07,0³⁶^11,0^00,9³⁵^-0.86^23.4³
^Nebras^{ka 17,5}^39,7³⁵^17,1^54,2³²^2.20^13.3⁶

^{Estimated FY2}⁰⁰⁷^{Difference as}^Population
^{Actual FY2007}^{Modified Allotment}^{Percentage of FY2007}^{Growth, 1976 to}
^State^{Allotment ($)}^($)^{Modified Allotment}²⁰⁰^{5 (%)}
^{Nevada 17,8}^43,8⁹⁹^21,7^31,4²³^-21.79^272.⁸⁶
^New
^Hamps^{hire 10,5}^73,7⁸⁶^10,0^00,3⁵⁷^5.42^54.6¹
^{New Jers}^ey^54,1^71,7⁴⁷^49,1^00,8⁰⁷^9.37^18.5⁸
^{New Me}^xico^22,3^59,5⁵¹^22,9^21,6⁴⁹^-2.51^61.9⁴
^{New York}^146,¹³^4,02²^134,⁹⁹^2,11⁸^7.62^7.67
^North
^{Carolina 90,3}^29,1⁷⁷^90,3^39,2⁹⁶^-0.01^54.6⁵
^{North Dakota}^9,34^2,38⁷^10,0^70,7⁸⁶^-7.80^-1.73
^{Ohio 118,}³⁹^6,84⁹^112,¹⁶^8,76⁶^5.26^6.68
^{Oklahoma 40,5}^64,9⁷⁶^39,8^24,3¹²^1.83^25.3⁵
^{Oregon 34,8}^55,4⁶⁶^36,6^84,2³³^-5.25^53.0¹
^{Pennsylvania 121,}⁷³^5,40³^112,¹⁸^2,66⁵^7.85^4.27
^{Rhode Island}^10,2^76,3²³^9,61^7,06⁶^6.42^13.4⁸
^{South Carolina}^49,5^94,6⁹⁵^48,9^51,4⁰²^1.30^44.2⁷
^{South Dakota}^9,34^2,38⁷^8,97^3,56⁸^3.95^12.8⁹
^{Tennessee 64,8}^66,4⁴⁷^62,5^49,7⁴⁵^3.57^37.0¹
^{Texas 212,}¹⁴^2,31³^226,⁸⁴^2,98⁹^-6.93^77.6⁸
^{Utah 26,8}^21,0²⁷^29,1^62,6⁷⁷^-8.73^95.3³
^{Vermont 9,34}^2,38⁷^9,90^0,77⁸^-5.98^28.3⁵
^{Virginia 62,4}^56,5⁸⁸^61,6^63,4¹⁶^1.27^47.6⁹
^{Washington 48,8}^30,5¹⁹^51,7^79,3⁴¹^-6.04^70.3⁵
^{West Virginia}^24,7^96,1⁵⁹^22,2^99,2⁶⁰^10.0⁷^-3.48
^{Wisconsin 54,8}^31,9⁶¹^52,1^83,8⁰⁰^4.83^20.2⁷
^{Wyoming 9,34}^2,38⁷^10,0^70,7⁸⁶^-7.80^28.1⁸
^Source:^{Congressional Researc}^h^{Service (CRS) table with data on FY200}^{7 Allotments taken}^from^{website of the}
^Department^{of Education at}^htt^{p://www.ed.gov/}^{about/overview/bu}^{dget/ statetables/08}^stby^program.^pdf;
^{population data taken f}^{rom the D}^epartme^{nt of Commerce, U.S. Census}^Burea^u.
^Notes:^{FY2007 Modified Allotm}^{ents are}^{calculated by m}^{ultiplying a state’s share}^{of the e}^xcess^am^{ount by}^the
^{total appropriation for FY20}^07.
^Sco^{tt Sz}^ym^eⁿ^d^e^r^a
^An^al^y^s^{t i}ⁿ^Di^sab^ilit^y^P^o^lic^y
^s^s^z^y^m^eⁿ^dera@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^o^v^{, 7-0014}