the statewide needs assessment · web viewthe statewide needs assessment a report on the service...
TRANSCRIPT
The statewide needs assessmentA report on the service needs of individuals with disabilities in the state of Oklahoma.
FFY 2014-2016Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services
Process Improvement Unit: Tiffany Davis, MALyudmyla Polyun, MATina CallowaySandra Wright, MPA
[This page intentionally left blank]
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Executive Summary 1Oklahoma 2014-2016 State Profile 7
TABLE 1: Oklahoma Prevalence of Disability by Race and Ethnicity 8
TABLE 2: VR/VS FFY 2014 All Clients Served Demographics vs. ACS
2014 5-Year Estimates of Disability by Race, Ethnicity, and
Gender for Population Aged 18-64 10
The Defined Research Goals 11The Team 12The Dissemination Plan 12The Methodology 13
The STATEWIDE NEEDS ASSESSMENT Plan and Execution 13
The Survey Instruments and Individual Project Area Analysis Methodology 15
Data Limitations 20Background 22
State Population and Disability Demographics 22
TABLE 3: Oklahoma Prevalence of Disability by Race, Ethnicity,
and Gender 23
TABLE 4: Oklahoma Disability by Type 23
TABLE 5: Oklahoma Population & Minority Prevalence in Two
Largest Cities 24
TABLE 6: Oklahoma Congressional District Disability Prevalence 25
ACS Labor Force Participation, Education, and Poverty Data 27
TABLE 7: Oklahoma Employment, Education, and Poverty Status Data 28
TABLE 8: Oklahoma Aged 18-64 Employment Status with Disability Type 29
TABLE 9: Oklahoma Employment Status by Race 30
TABLE 10: Oklahoma SSDI Recipients by Congressional District 2014 31
OKDRS 2014 Client Demographics 32
TABLE 11: OKDRS FFY 2014 Client Demographics 32
TABLE 12: OKDRS FFY 2014 Primary Disability Percentages 33
i
TABLE 13: OKDRS FFY 2014 Services Provided 34
OKDRS Historical Trends 35
TABLE 14: OKDRS Historical Service, Application, and Eligibility Trends 35
TABLE 15: OKDRS Priority Group Closure History 36
TABLE 16: OKDRS Historical Average Case Cost Per Closure 37
Economy and Forecasts for Jobs 38
TABLE 17: Oklahoma’s Top 10 Growth Industries, 2008-2018 39
TABLE 18: Top Five Available Job Categories (2014) 40
TABLE 19: Predicted Number of Jobs by 2024 41
TABLE 20: Largest Percentage of Growth – Prediction for 2024 42
TABLE 21: Highest Salary – 2014 Median Wage 42
TABLE 22: Oklahoma’s Top 30 In-Demand Occupations, 2008-2018 44-45
TABLE 23: Oklahoma Employment Projection by Education/
Training, 2008-2018 47
TABLE 24: Oklahoma Department of Commerce Counties
by Economic Region 49
TABLE 25: Central Oklahoma 50
TABLE 26: East Central 50
TABLE 27: Northeastern 51
TABLE 28: Northern 51
TABLE 29: Northwest 52
TABLE 30: Southeast Corridor 52
TABLE 31: Southeastern 53
TABLE 32: Southern 53
TABLE 33: Southwestern 54
TABLE 34: Tri-County Ports 54
TABLE 35: Tulsa 55
TABLE 36: Western 55
ii
The Findings 56Service Needs of those with the Most Significant Disabilities, including
Supported Employment 56
TABLE 37: Staff Responses to Services Most Needed for Individuals
with the Most Significant Disabilities 56
TABLE 38: Service – Supported Employment Clients 60
TABLE 39: Service – Priority Group 1 Clients 60
Service Needs of Minorities 61
TABLE 40: Oklahoma Tribal VR Programs and 2016 Reported Number
Of Cases Served 63
TABLE 41: Tribal Jurisdictions in Oklahoma Accessible Table 64
TABLE 42: Native Population by Congressional District 65
TABLE 43: Service – Caucasian Clients 66
TABLE 44: Service – Minority Clients 66
Service Needs of those who are Unserved or Underserved 67
TABLE 45: Estimated Percentage of the Working Aged Population
VR/VS Served per County during SFY2015 68
Service Needs Being Met by WIOA 72
TABLE 46: WIOA Service Data 72
Need to Establish, Develop, or Improve Community Rehabilitation Programs 76
TABLE 47: Employment Vendor and Location 78-79
Needs of Youth with Disabilities, and Students with Disabilities, including Their
Need for Pre-employment Transition Services or Other Transition Services 80
Transportation 90
Recommendations 92Exhibits 95
Extract from VR/VS Staff Survey 95
Extract from VR/VS Open Case Customer Satisfaction Survey 102
Extract from VR/VS Closed Case Successful Outcomes Survey 117
References 134
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services (OKDRS) expands opportunities
for employment, independent life, and economic self-sufficiency by helping Oklahomans
with disabilities bridge barriers to success in the workplace, school, and at home (DRS
About Us). Two divisions within the agency provide direct services to clients: Vocational
Rehabilitation (VR), the staff of which serve clients with a wide variety of
communicative, physical, and mental impairments; and Visual Services (VS), the staff of
which specialize in assisting clients with visual impairments. These divisions are
partially funded through the federal Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA).
Under the federal WIOA Act, a statewide needs assessment is required. The statewide
needs assessment focuses on the needs of individuals in Oklahoma with disabilities and
on six specific subpopulations and services, including:
Individuals with the Most Significant Disabilities, including Supported
Employment;
Minorities;
Unserved or Underserved Individuals;
Service Needs Being Met by WIOA;
Need to Establish, Develop, or Improve Community Rehabilitation Programs
(CRPs); and
Needs of Youth with Disabilities and Students with Disabilities, including
Their Need for Pre-employment Transition Services or Other Transition Services.
The current study was conducted between Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2014 and 2016.
This report is the result of various methodologies and analyses.
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview
There are 120,597 Oklahomans with a disability employed, 18,559 with a
disability unemployed, and 191,872 with a disability and not in the labor force
(neither employed nor sought employment in the four weeks prior to the survey)
(ACS 2014).
In Oklahoma, there is a significant gap in the employment status of individuals
with disabilities compared to individuals with no disability (only 25.1% of those
with a disability are employed, while 66.4% of those who have no disability are
employed). Likewise, only 29.1% of those with a disability are considered to be
in the labor force, compared to 71.4% of those with no disability (ACS 2014).
There is a large gap in the median annual earnings of Oklahomans with
disabilities when compared to Oklahomans with no disability (a difference of
$6,994) (ACS 2014).
For those for whom poverty status was determined in Oklahoma, 21.6% of those
with a disability were below 100% of the poverty level, compared to 13.3% of
those without a disability (ACS 2014).
In Oklahoma, there is a gap in educational attainment for those with disabilities
when compared to those with no disability. The greatest variances in educational
attainment for those individuals over the age of 25 exist in the ‘Less than high
school graduate’ category (21.5% with a disability compared to 10.7% with no
disability) and in the completion of a ‘Bachelor’s degree or higher’ category
(12.9% with a disability compared to 27.2% with no disability) (ACS 2014).
Oklahoma has an estimated disability rate of 15.6% (ACS 2014) and an SSDI
recipient rate of 5.6% (SSA). However, Congressional District 2, located in
predominantly rural Eastern Oklahoma, has an estimated disability rate of 20.5%
(ACS 2014) and also has the highest prevalence of SSDI recipients at 8.1%
(SSA).
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Service Needs of those with the Most Significant Disabilities, including Supported Employment
A survey of OKDRS VR/VS staff indicated “the top THREE DRS services that are
needed for individuals with the most significant disabilities” are transportation, job
skills training, and soft skills training.
The majority (70%) of OKDRS VR/VS staff believe the availability of supported
employment services for people with disabilities is not adequate to meet the
current need.
Research of OKDRS clients shows poorer outcomes for supported employment
clients.
Service Needs of Minorities
Because OKDRS does not provide services to every qualifying individual with a
disability, every racial, gender, and ethnic group is technically considered to be
underserved from a statistical point of view; however, when compared to the
2014 ACS estimates, two racial groups were identified as being
disproportionately underserved, including Whites and those identifying as
Multiracial. Females and those identifying as Hispanic or Latino were also
slightly underserved.
Employment status does not vary solely based on disability status. There are
also variances across racial/ethnic groups. Three racial/ethnic groups in
Oklahoma have higher than average unemployment rates, including those
identifying as African Americans, American Indian/Alaska Natives, and Multiracial
(ACS 2014). These racially associated variances are not as significant as those
associated with the disabled versus non-disabled employment rate. However,
they are important to note and show compounding issues in the search for
employment for individuals with disabilities who belong to the racial/ethnic groups
that also have higher unemployment rates.
Based on the results of an OKDRS WINGS (Wicked Innovations for Next
Generations Solutions leadership development program) Mental Health/Cognitive
Outcomes study, minority, female, and unmarried clients have lower wage
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
outcomes when a successful outcome was achieved. Counselors may need to
be cognizant of working closely with clients in these demographic groups to help
increase wage outcomes.
Counselors in Oklahoma City and Tulsa could expect to have a higher
percentage of African American and Hispanic clients based on the state’s racial
distribution.
Counselors in Congressional District 2 could expect to have a higher percentage
of American Indian/Alaska Native clients based on the state’s racial distribution.
Service Needs of those who are Unserved or Underserved
Using Geographic Information System mapping analysis, fifteen rural counties
across the state were identified as being underserved. Statistics show that in
those areas OKDRS is only serving between 0.74% and 2.19% of the working-
age disabled adult population. Counties with the highest ratio of service
provision to clients ranged from 6.7% to 11.18%.
Three additional categories of possibly underserved groups were identified.
These included offenders, veterans, and transition age youth.
As of 9/30/2014, there were 84,170 veterans receiving disability compensation in
Oklahoma. Of 7,691 cases closed in FFY 2014, only 413 clients indicated
veteran status.
According to the Oklahoma Office of Education Quality and Accountability,
30,017 students who qualified for special education programs attended public
high schools during the 2013-2014 school year. Most of these students may be
eligible for OKDRS services. Of 7,691 cases closed in FFY 2014, 2,004 were
identified as transitional youth.
Service Needs Being Met by WIOA
The service numbers provided by Workforce, and data gathered from public
meetings, indicate a possibility for continued increased collaboration between
DRS and Workforce under the new WIOA guidelines to provide additional
collaborative services to individuals in Oklahoma with disabilities.
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Feedback from public meetings indicated a need for OKDRS employees to
collaborate with Workforce staff to obtain in-demand occupation lists and
economic modeling data to better identify useful job training skills in particular
regions.
Need to Establish, Develop, or Improve Community Rehabilitation Programs (CRPs)
The results of an OKDRS VR/VS staff survey revealed that 75.67% of VR/VS
staff agreed with the statement: “Staff turnover at CRP agencies is an issue.”
Only 26.36% of OKDRS VR/VS staff agreed with the statement: “There are an
adequate number of CRPs to meet the needs of people with disabilities seeking
employment.”
Only 58.88% of OKDRS VR/VS staff agreed with the statement: “I am able to
provide effective vocational rehabilitation services to DRS consumers using the
existing CRPs.”
The 2016 OKDRS VR/VS Open Case Satisfaction Survey report indicates that
only 71.0% of clients are likely to agree with the statement: “I am satisfied with
the quality of services from my Job Coach.”
The data available indicate that OKDRS clients could benefit from improved CRP
availability statewide and an increase in CRP staff training and skills.
Needs of Youth with Disabilities, and Students with Disabilities, including Their Need for Pre-employment Transition Services or Other Transition Services
In the 2008 RSA monitoring report, successful employment of transitional youth
was cited as an area requiring additional study. Review of historical data has
revealed that OKDRS has improved in this area. Between 2002 and 2007, the
employment rate ranged from 27.87% to 44.80%. Since 2008, the employment
rate has increased significantly, reaching as high as 68.36% in FFY 2010. In
FFY 2014, the employment rate for transition age youth was 55.53.
A brief literature review, surveys of VR Counselors, and public focus group input
all indicated that the top two needs of transition age youth in Oklahoma are 1) an
8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
increased level of family involvement and support, including extended family;
and, 2) an increased need for community collaboration to provide services,
particularly in a rural setting.
Peer reviewed journal articles and practitioner publications highlight the
importance of self-determination in achieving successful outcomes for transition
age youth. A research project revealed that 80% of transition age youth who
scored highly on self-determination were employed in a paying job one year after
high school graduation. Only 43% of transitional youth who exhibited low self-
determination characteristics were likewise employed.
OKDRS VR/VS counselors believe that the most important services the agency
can provide to youth with disabilities are:
o School Work Study, 48.15%;
o Counseling and Guidance, 37.04%;
o Employment Experiences, 22.22%; and
o Job Club/Job Readiness, 22.22%.
Transportation
Research indicates that clients statewide need more transportation options.
Current issues identified include:
o Limited Schedules;
o Limited Service Hours;
o Limited Service Area;
o Affordability; and
o Specific Impairment Accessibility.
Currently, transportation options are more readily available in the metropolitan
areas than in rural Oklahoma.
9
OKLAHOMA 2014-2016 STATE PROFILE
On November 16, 1907, Oklahoma became the 46th state to join the Union. Nicknamed
the “Sooner” state and covering 69,919 square miles of area that is divided into 77
counties, Oklahoma is the 20th largest state by total area. Today, Oklahoma has an
estimated population of 3,737,426 making it the 28th largest state by population (U.S.
Census Bureau, “Population estimates, July 1, 2015, (V2015),” n.d.). Oklahoma has a
minimum wage of $7.25 and a median annual household income of $46,235 (ACS
2014). The high school graduation rate is 86.7% (age 25+) and 23.8% of persons age
25+ have a Bachelor’s degree or higher (ACS 2014). Oklahoma has 43 colleges and
universities, is the third-largest gas-producing state, and is home to Tinker Air Force
Base, the world’s largest air material center (Tourism & Recreation, 2016).
The Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services (OKDRS) is a state agency that
expands opportunities for employment, independent life, and economic self-sufficiency
by helping Oklahomans with disabilities bridge barriers to success in the workplace,
school, and at home. Formerly a part of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services,
OKDRS became an independent state agency in 1993. OKDRS is governed by the
Oklahoma Rehabilitation Services Commission, composed of three members, each of
which is appointed by the Governor, the President pro tempore of the Oklahoma
Senate, and the Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, respectively.
Two divisions within the agency provide direct services to clients: Vocational
Rehabilitation (VR), the staff of which serve clients with a wide variety of
communicative, physical, and mental impairments; and Visual Services (VS), the staff of
which specialize in assisting clients with visual impairments. The current agency
capacity is estimated at 14,550. OKDRS has 105 VR caseloads with an optimum
caseload size of 125 clients per caseload; there are 25 VS caseloads with an optimum
caseload size of 57. The agency capacity is outlined in the state plan and is based on
optimum counselor caseload as determined by the Division Administrators. While it is
possible that the agency could serve more than 14,550 clients, it could present a strain
on staffing resources.
10
Using the 2014 U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-year estimates
(ACS 2014), the research team determined the overall prevalence of disability within the
state of Oklahoma, as well as prevalence by race, ethnicity, and gender. According to
the 2014 ACS, 15.6% of Oklahomans are estimated to have a disability. Certain racial
groups have a higher reported incidence of disability, including Whites (16.2%), African
Americans (15.8%), and Native American/Alaska Natives (16.2%); while other racial
and ethnic groups have a much lower reported incidence of disability, including Asians
(6.1%), Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander (8.3%), those identifying as Other (7.8%), and
those identifying as Hispanic or Latino (7.8%). Because ACS estimates are based on
survey self-identification, it is possible that these variations in prevalence are due to a
response bias, since individuals in certain racial groups may be more or less likely to
report a disability or self-identify as having a disability. The result of this comparison is
included in Table 1 and Chart 1.
TABLE 1: Oklahoma Prevalence of Disability by Race and Ethnicity
ACS 2014 State
Demographics – Total
Population
ACS 2014 Population with
a Disability
Percentage within category with a
Disability
Total 3,737,426 583,194 15.6%
White 2,745,760 444,592 16.2%African American 262,710 41,630 15.8%Native American/ Alaska Native 269,908 43,701 16.2%
Asian 70,689 4,315 6.1%Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 4,289 354 8.3%
Other* 94,790 7,360 7.8%Multiracial 289,280 41,242 14.3%
Hispanic or Latino 350,781 27,368 7.8%*Other- Respondents providing write-in entries such as multiracial, mixed, interracial, or a Hispanic/Latino group (for example, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban) in the "Some other race" write-in space are included in this category.Source: ACS 2014 S1810
11
OKLAHOMA 2014-2016 STATE PROFILE
The ACS 2014 5-yr estimates for aged 18-64 population with a disability were compared
to the OKDRS FFY 2014 VR/VS total clients served population across racial/ethnic
groups and by gender to determine if VR/VS were underserving any minority groups in
a larger proportion than others. VR/VS served 12,721 clients during the FFY 2014
(RSA 113 Federal report). When compared to the 2014 ACS estimates, two racial
groups were indicated to be disproportionately underserved, including Whites and those
identifying as Multiracial. Females and those identifying as Hispanic or Latino were also
slightly underserved. Because OKDRS does not provide services to every qualifying
individual with a disability, every racial, gender, and ethnic group is technically
considered to be underserved from a statistical point of view. The results of this
comparison are included in Table 2, Chart 2, and Chart 3.
12
OKLAHOMA 2014-2016 STATE PROFILE
TABLE 2: VR/VS FFY 2014 All Clients Served Demographics vs. ACS 2014 5-Year Estimates of Disability by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender for Population Aged 18-64
VR/VS Consumers FFY
2014Percent
ACS 2014 Population 18-
64 with a disability
Percent
Total 12,721 100.0% 319,017 100.0%
White 8,260 64.9% 233,224 73.1%African American 2,373 18.7% 26,800 8.4%Native American/ Alaska Native 1,293 10.2% 27,501 8.6%
Asian 94 0.7% 2,238 0.7%Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 40 0.3% 261 0.1%
Other 4,730 1.5%Multiracial 661 5.2% 24,263 7.6%
Hispanic or Latino 621 4.9% 16,669 5.2%
Male 6,500 51.1% 160,495 50.3%Female 6,221 48.9% 158,522 49.7%Sources: ACS 2014 B18101 and RSA 113 Federal report
13
THE DEFINED RESEARCH GOALS
At the onset of the project, the research team set five goals to be addressed by the
conclusion of the Statewide Needs Assessment. These goals were based on
requirements set by the Rehabilitation Services Administration. Those goals were:
1. Determine the needs of individuals with disabilities through data collection and
analysis;
2. Determine any specific needs of minorities with disabilities;
3. Identify any underserved populations with disabilities and their specific needs;
4. Identify needs being met through other components of the statewide workforce
investment system; and
5. Identify any needs to establish, develop, or improve community rehabilitation
programs.
As the project advanced, a 6th goal was added based on requirements in the new WIOA
regulations. This goal was:
6. Identify the needs of youth with disabilities, and students with disabilities,
including their need for pre-employment transition services or other transition
services.
14
THE TEAM
The research team consisted of the staff of the Process Improvement Unit:
• Sandra Wright, Administrator – Master of Public Administration;
• Lyudmyla Polyun, Program Standards Manager – Master of Arts, Political
Science; Master of International Economics;
• Tiffany Davis, Senior Statistical Analyst – Master of Arts, Sociology; and
• Tina Calloway, Research Analyst.
Team advisors and stakeholders included:
• Mark Kinnison – Vocational Rehabilitation Administrator;
• Paul Adams – Interim Visual Services Administrator;
• Renee Samson – Oklahoma Rehabilitation Council Programs Manager;
• Melinda Fruendt – OKDRS Project Coordinator; and,
• Jody Harlan – OKDRS Public Information Administrator.
THE DISSIMENATION PLAN
The research team provided the final Statewide Needs Assessment report to the
stakeholder team and agency director. The report was uploaded in accessible formats
to the agency’s internal SharePoint site, iDRS, for review by agency leadership and
decisions on further actions to address the report findings and recommendations.
15
THE METHODOLOGY
The STATEWIDE NEEDS ASSESSMENT Plan and Execution
The FFY 2014-2016 Oklahoma Statewide Needs Assessment was based on the
Comprehensive Statewide Needs Assessment model developed by the University of
California at Berkley. The research team followed the project timeline outlined in the
Berkley model. In order to do this, the research team divided the project into three fiscal
years of work. To begin, in FFY 2014, the team defined and established the goals,
identified critical stakeholders, and developed a plan for gathering information and
dissemination. The project plan was presented to the Oklahoma Rehabilitation Council
(ORC) at the beginning of FFY 2015. At that time, the team created a preliminary state
profile using OKDRS client demographics for July 2014 and ACS 2012 5-year
estimates. A preliminary report on the state’s economic outlook derived from reports
published by the Oklahoma Department of Commerce, the Oklahoma Governor’s
Council for Workforce and Economic Development, and the Oklahoma Employment
Security Commission was also presented.
Over the remainder of FFY 2014 and FFY2015, the research team gathered available
pertinent information and data from the sources listed below:
The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS);
the OKDRS internal client management system (AWARE);
OKDRS Federal reports, including the RSA 911 and RSA 113;
the Oklahoma Department of Corrections;
the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs;
the Oklahoma Office of Accountability;
the Oklahoma Department of Education;
the U.S. Department of Health;
the Oklahoma Department of Commerce;
the Oklahoma Employment Securities Commission;
Oklahoma Workforce;
the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS);
16
OKDRS client surveys;
OKDRS staff surveys;
peer reviewed journal articles and practitioner publications; and,
Oklahoma economic reports published by various entities.
At the beginning of FFY 2016, the research team held six public meetings throughout
the state of Oklahoma to solicit public input and input from partner organizations. These
meetings were held in the two major metropolitan areas (Oklahoma City and Tulsa) and
in four rural areas identified as being underserved by OKDRS based on an analysis
utilizing ArcGIS (geographic information system data mapping) software. The rural
meetings were held in the towns of Guymon, Duncan, Pryor, and Poteau.
During the remainder of FFY 2016, the research team analyzed the data, developed the
findings and conclusions, and recommended potential action strategies. Upon
conclusion of the research team’s portion of the project, the Statewide Needs
Assessment report was forwarded to the stakeholder team and agency director as
specified in the dissemination plan, to be used in preparing the agency state plan.
17
THE METHODOLOGY
The Survey Instruments and Individual Project Area Analysis Methodology
Through the following surveys and analyses, the research team was able to gather
information applicable to multiple goals of the Statewide Needs Assessment. The
results are presented under the applicable goals in the Findings section.
OKDRS Staff Surveys
To gather the opinions of VR and VS staff members, two unique surveys were
conducted. The methodology of each is outlined below.
The first survey, VR/VS Staff Survey, conducted beginning September 16, 2015, was
aimed at determining the services that are most needed for OKDRS clients with the
most significant disabilities, how to improve services to groups they believe are
underserved, and to obtain their opinions on the availability and quality of services
provided by community rehabilitation programs and supported employment vendors, the
research team conducted an online VR/VS staff survey using Survey Monkey. The
survey link was e-mailed to all VR and VS staff; at that time, there were 352 VR/VS staff
members, and at the close of the survey, 126 staff members had responded to the
survey. This resulted in a response rate of 35.8% and a respondent sample that is
representative at 95% +/- an 8% margin of error. The survey was comprised of 17
questions and included two demographic questions (job title and region of work), 14
questions which directly addressed service provision and employment barriers for
OKDRS clients, and concluded with an open-ended comment section. A redacted copy
of the survey results is included in the Exhibits section of the report.
The second staff opinion survey, the Management Staff Survey, was conducted
beginning January 26, 2016. This was an informal, qualitative survey of field
management staff regarding overall provider availability, deficiencies in services, and
lack of resources available in the respondent’s region of the state. The survey was
issued via e-mail and was sent statewide. Responses were received from across the
18
THE METHODOLOGY
state as well as from staff providing specialty services such as Employment Support
services and Services to the Deaf.
VR/VS Open-Case Customer Satisfaction Survey
The research team conducts annual customer satisfaction surveys of VR/VS clients 18
years of age or older with an active case for whom an Individual Plan for Employment
(IPE) has been completed. The most recent completed customer satisfaction survey
available for inclusion in the Statewide Needs Assessment was conducted in the spring
of 2016. Data was extracted from AWARE, the case management system used by
OKDRS, for the 9,418 clients that met the requirements. This group was designated as
the target population for the survey.
Using SPSS (IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences) software, a random selection
of 1,997 clients was made from the target population and designated as the sample
population. Survey packets were mailed to each member of the sample population on
March 21st. Packets included the survey (numbered for confidentiality and reliability),
and a postage paid return envelope. VS clients were sent a large print version of the
survey. Postcard reminders were sent to non-respondents on April 25th.
The survey consists primarily of 5-point Likert scale questions. The options for the Likert
scale are 5 (Strongly agree), 4 (Agree), 3 (Neither agree nor disagree), 2 (Disagree), 1
(Strongly disagree), and Not Applicable (N/A). Another two questions are about
response times. The three remaining questions are open-ended.
Surveys were returned by 428 clients, resulting in a response rate of 21.4% (another
166 surveys were returned by the US Postal Service due to bad addresses). This was
a sufficient response rate to allow application of the results to the target population at a
confidence level of 95%, plus or minus a 5% margin of error. Frequency distributions
and statistics were calculated based on data collected from the respondents. Only valid
responses were included in the calculations; missing and ‘Not Applicable’ responses
19
THE METHODOLOGY
were excluded. A redacted copy of the survey results is included in the Exhibits section
of the report.
VR/VS Client Closed Case Successful Outcomes Survey
During the summer of 2014 at the request of the VR and VS Division Administrators, the
research team began conducting annual surveys of successful case closures from the
previous calendar year (closures ranging from 6-18 months prior to the survey) to
determine if the former clients were still employed, satisfied with their employment,
and/or had encountered new challenges in the workplace related to their disability.
In preparation for the survey, data was extracted from AWARE. The data consisted of
all clients aged 18 or over, whose cases closed successfully in the previous calendar
year (2013 and 2014, respectively). Because they were small groups, no sample was
taken; instead, the survey was sent to all cases. Each survey was numbered, to
maintain reliability and confidentiality, and mailed with a postage paid return envelope.
Postcard reminders were sent to encourage participation by those who had not
responded within 3-4 weeks. The response rates were not high enough to allow for
inferences to be made about the population with a confidence level of 95%, plus or
minus a five percent margin of error during either year.
Statistics and percentages were calculated based on valid responses; missing and ‘Not
Applicable’ responses were excluded. A redacted copy of the final report for closures
from calendar years 2014 is included in the Exhibits section of the report.
WINGS Mental Health and Cognitive Disability Outcomes Study
During 2014, a special research study was conducted to determine the impact of
demographics, service provision, service lags, contact lags, and case cost on the
likelihood of a successful case closure and earnings. The study was requested by a
WINGS special project group and focused on clients with mental health and/or cognitive
20
THE METHODOLOGY
disabilities. This study was not conducted as a part of the Statewide Needs
Assessment, but the findings are still useful and appropriate for inclusion in the report.
ArcGIS Mapping
As specified in the state profile, Oklahoma covers 69,919 square miles which is divided
into 77 counties and has an estimated population of 3,737,426, the majority of which
reside in one of the two major metropolitan areas (the Oklahoma City metro or the Tulsa
metro). The remainder of Oklahoma is mostly rural. Because of the expanse of area
that Oklahoma encompasses, the economic market and services available to OKDRS
clients vary greatly across the regions of the state. For this reason, the research team
decided to map disability data for Oklahoma counties from the ACS and AWARE data
on clients served per county using ArcGIS software. By joining these data sets, the
research team was able to identify underserved counties within the state of Oklahoma.
The results of the ArcGIS mapping analysis are included in the Unserved/Underserved
portion of the Findings section of the report.
Two additional ArcGIS maps were created to visually identify the location of
employment vendors contracting with DRS and to show the distribution of the American
Indian/Alaska Native population in Oklahoma by Congressional District.
Public Meetings
The research team held six public meetings around the state of Oklahoma to solicit
public input and input from partner organizations. These meetings were held in the two
major metropolitan areas (Oklahoma City and Tulsa) and in four rural areas identified as
being underserved based on ArcGIS mapping analysis. The rural meetings were held
at the Guymon Public Library in Guymon on 10/13/2015, at the Red River Technology
Center in Duncan on 10/14/2015, at the Northeast Technology Center in Pryor on
11/04/2015, and at the Kiamichi Technology Center in Poteau on 11/05/2015. The
Oklahoma City meeting was held in the OKDRS state office conference room on
10/20/2015 and the Tulsa meeting was held in the VR conference room at the OKDRS
Tulsa Career Planning Center on 10/21/2015.
21
THE METHODOLOGY
The research team sent meeting announcements to OKDRS Field Coordinators and
Program Managers, Renee Samson (ORC Programs Manager), Melinda Fruendt
(OKDRS Project Coordinator), and Rob Gragg (OKDRS Business Partnership
Development Coordinator) and asked them to disseminate the information to
counselors, clients, and agency partners. Meeting announcements were published in
the newspapers in Guymon, Boise City, Duncan, and Walters; the research team
notified the Chamber of Commerce in both Pryor and Poteau of the upcoming meetings
in those cities and asked that the meetings be added to the calendar of events on the
Chamber websites; and the OKDRS Communications office created media releases
that were sent to media outlets in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Guymon, Duncan, Pryor, and
Poteau. The meetings were also advertised on the OKDRS website.
To entice members of the public to attend the meetings and provide feedback, OKDRS
provided lunch and refreshments to attendees. Despite the advertisements and the
offer of food and refreshments, public attendance at the meetings was low.
22
DATA LIMITATIONS
As with any research project involving pre-existing data or survey response, the team
encountered challenges regarding the quantity and quality of available information. The
following data limitations were identified:
U.S. Census Bureau, demographic data estimates: The American Community
Survey is conducted annually by the U.S. Census Bureau. Surveys are sent to a
random sample of the U.S. population; approximately 3.5 million homes, across
every county in the nation, are selected for inclusion. Once gathered, the data is
extrapolated to determine an estimate representing the responses of all U.S.
citizens had everyone been surveyed. As estimates, these are presented by
Census Bureau staff with a margin of error, plus or minus a statistically
calculated range. As a result, the ACS data presented in this report should be
considered as “estimated” or “approximate.”
U.S. Census Bureau, Response Bias: The reporting of data in regards to a
disability is often a sensitive and very personal issue for survey respondents. As
a result, survey responses may be biased for several reasons, including:
o Perception: The ACS does not directly request disability information, but
rather presents survey recipients with several questions regarding the
presence of a “difficulty” they may experience – a visual difficulty, an
ambulatory difficulty, or an independent living difficulty, for example. A
respondent to the survey may perceive a health issue as being a
“difficulty” and report it as such, but may not meet the eligibility
requirements to participate in the Vocational Rehabilitation program.
Conversely, another respondent may consider his “hearing difficulty” to be
minor and not self-report it even though he may actually be eligible for VR
services.
o Truthfulness: Some respondents may be less likely to respond truthfully to
sensitive questions, including: health, income, disability, etc.
23
Multiple Sources, Data Mismatch: Virtually all organizations collect data of some
type, but not all organizations collect data in the same manner. Disparate
measuring methods (average salary versus median salary), time frames (data
reported monthly versus weekly), or coding practices (5 available codes for
race/ethnicity versus 8 available codes) may limit the analysis of data from
multiple sources.
Multiple Sources, Sampling Bias: Certain individuals within the population are
less likely to respond to surveys, particularly those issued by government
entities.
24
BACKGROUND
State Population and Disability Demographics
According to the 2014 ACS, the total population of Oklahoma is estimated at 3,737,426.
At the time of the 2010 Decennial Census, the Oklahoma population was reported as
3,751,351. These figures represent a decline in population of approximately 3/10ths of
one percent since 2010.
Oklahoma has an estimated disability rate of 15.6% (ACS 2014). Certain racial groups
are reported to have a slightly higher incidence of disability, including Whites (16.2%),
African Americans (15.8%), and Native American/Alaska Natives (16.2%); while other
racial groups demonstrate a much lower reported incidence of disability, including
Asians (6.1%), Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander (8.3%), and those identifying as Other
(7.8%). Individuals who identify as Multiracial also are reported to have a slightly lower
reported incidence of disability (14.3%). Individuals who identify as Hispanic or Latino
also exhibit a much lower reported incidence of disability (7.8%). The variance among
males and females is negligible. Because ACS estimates are based on survey self-
identification into six disability categories, these variations in prevalence may be due to
a response bias, since individuals in certain racial or ethnic groups may be more or less
likely to report a disability or self-identify as having a disability. The 2014 ACS
estimates are included in Table 3.
The ACS includes six questions regarding disability, referred to by the ACS as a
“difficulty.” Data is available for individuals in all age groups who have a hearing
difficulty or a vision difficulty, for individuals age 5 and up who have a cognitive difficulty,
an ambulatory difficulty, or a self-care difficulty, and for individuals age 18 and over who
have an independent living difficulty. The percentage of individuals reporting a specific
disability type as determined by the total number of individuals reporting a disability
within the age groups discussed above is provided in Table 4. The most common
reported disability type in Oklahoma on the ACS is an ambulatory difficulty (55.33%).
25
TABLE 3: Oklahoma Prevalence of Disability by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender
ACS 2014 State Demographics – Total Population
ACS 2014 Population with
a Disability
Percentage within category with a
DisabilityTotal 3,737,426 583,194 15.6%
White 2,745,760 444,592 16.2%Black/ African American 262,710 41,630 15.8%Native American/ Alaska Native 269,908 43,701 16.2%
Asian 70,689 4,315 6.1%Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 4,289 354 8.3%
Other 94,790 7,360 7.8%Multiracial 289,280 41,242 14.3%
Hispanic or Latino 350,781 27,368 7.8%
Male 1,832,182 287,560 15.7%Female 1,905,244 295,634 15.5%Source: ACS 2014 S1810
TABLE 4: Oklahoma Disability by Type
ACS 2014 Disability by Type Number Percent*
With a hearing difficulty (all ages) 182,352 31.27% With a vision difficulty (all ages) 117,630 20.17% With a cognitive difficulty (age 5 and up) 206,125 35.53% With an ambulatory difficulty (age 5 and up) 320,925 55.33% With a self-care difficulty (age 5 and up) 106,083 18.29% With an independent living difficulty (age 18 and up) 184,800 34.41%
*Respondents may select more than one disability; therefore, column will not total to 100%.Source: ACS 2014 S1810
The two largest cities in Oklahoma are Oklahoma City and Tulsa and 26.3% of
Oklahomans reside within those city limits. However, two of Oklahoma’s minority
groups reside in Oklahoma City and Tulsa at a much higher rate. Of the 350,781
Oklahomans who identify as Hispanic or Latino, 47.2% reside in Oklahoma City or Tulsa
and of the 262,710 Oklahomans who identify as Black or African American, 55.1%
26
reside in Oklahoma City or Tulsa. In contrast, only 12.7% of the 269,908 Oklahomans
identifying as American Indian/Alaska Native reside in Oklahoma City or Tulsa (ACS
2014). It is also interesting to note that the prevalence of disability for those identifying
as Black/ African American or American Indian/ Alaska Native is higher in Tulsa than
the state averages and lower in Oklahoma City than the state averages. This data is
presented in Table 5.
TABLE 5: Oklahoma Population and Minority Prevalence in Two Largest Cities
Oklahoma Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Tulsa, Oklahoma
TotalPercent with a
disabilityTotal
Percent with a
disabilityTotal
Percent with a
disabilityTotal civilian noninstitutionalized population
3,737,426
15.60% 590,955 13.40% 391,837 14.30%
Black/ African American
262,710 15.80% 85,448 15.20% 59,238 16.60%
American Indian/ Alaska Native
269,908 16.20% 17,789 15.90% 16,516 17.80%
Hispanic or Latino 350,781 7.80% 107,347 6.70% 58,382 6.60%Source: ACS 2014 S1810
Oklahoma currently has five U.S. Congressional Districts. According to the ACS, the
prevalence of disability also varies across these Congressional Districts. Congressional
District 2 has the highest prevalence of disability. District 2 encompasses the majority
of 26 counties in rural Eastern Oklahoma (a small portion of Rogers County is in District
1). Also of note, the highest population of American Indian/Alaska Natives in Oklahoma
is present in District 2, where approximately 42% of the total Native population resides.
A breakdown of prevalence across Congressional Districts is provided in Table 6 and
Chart 4. A map of the current Oklahoma Congressional Districts from the Oklahoma
House of Representatives GIS office is provided on the next page.
27
TABLE 6: ACS 2014 Oklahoma Congressional District Disability Prevalence
Region Population
With a Disability
Percent with a Disability
Oklahoma 3,737,426 583,194 15.6%Congressional District 1 759,735 103,665 13.6%Congressional District 2 732,875 149,943 20.5%Congressional District 3 740,491 111,316 15.0%Congressional District 4 742,322 113,322 15.3%Congressional District 5 762,003 104,948 13.8%Source: ACS 2014 S1810
28
BACKGROUND
Oklahoma Congressional District County Lists for 2012 to 2020 Elections
Congressional District 1 counties: Tulsa, Washington, Wagoner, a small area in
the southwestern corner of Rogers county, and a small area in eastern Creek
county
Congressional District 2 counties: Nowata, Craig, Ottawa, Rogers (excepting
portion in District 1), Mayes, Delaware, Cherokee, Adair, Okfuskee, Okmulgee,
Muskogee, Sequoyah, Haskell, McIntosh, Hughes, Pittsburgh, Latimer, Le Flore,
Coal, Atoka, Pushmataha, McCurtain, Choctaw, Bryan, and Marshall
Congressional District 3 counties: Cimarron, Texas, Beaver, Harper, Woods,
Alfalfa, Grant, Kay, Osage, Pawnee, Noble, Garfield, Major, Woodward, Ellis,
Creek (excepting portion in District 1), Payne, Lincoln, Logan, Kingfisher,
Canadian (excepting a small area in the southeastern corner in District 4), Blaine,
Caddo, Dewey, Carter, Washita, Kiowa, Roger Mills, Beckham, Greer, Harmon,
and Jackson
Congressional District 4 counties: Tillman, Comanche, Cotton, Jefferson,
Stephens, Grady, a small area in the southeast corner of Canadian, a small area
in south central Oklahoma, Cleveland, McClain, Garvin, Murray, Carter, Love,
and Pontotoc
Congressional District 5 counties: Seminole, Pushmataha, and Oklahoma
(excepting the portion in District 4)
29
BACKGROUND
ACS Labor Force Participation, Education, and Poverty Data
According to the 2014 ACS, there are an estimated 2,897,161 civilian
noninstitutionalized Oklahomans aged 16 or over. Of this population, only 25.1% of
those with a disability are employed, while 66.4% of those who have no disability are
employed. Likewise, 71.4% of those with a disability are considered to not be in the
labor force compared to only 29.1% of those with no disability. Clearly, there is a
significant gap in the employment status of individuals with disabilities compared to
individuals with no disability.
There is also a gap in the median annual earnings and poverty status of those with
disabilities when compared to those with no disability. The median annual earnings for
individuals with a disability is $21,458 compared to $28,452 for individuals without a
disability, a difference of $6,994. For those for whom poverty status was determined,
21.6% of those with a disability were below 100% of the poverty level, compared to
13.3% for those without a disability. The greatest variances in educational attainment
for those individuals over the age of 25 exist in the ‘Less than high school graduate’
category (21.5% with a disability versus 10.7% with no disability) and in the completion
of a ‘Bachelor’s degree or higher’ category (12.9% with a disability compared to 27.2%
with no disability). Information on employment, education, and poverty status by
disability status can be found in Table 7.
30
BACKGROUND
TABLE 7: Oklahoma Employment, Education, and Poverty Status Data
OklahomaTotal Civilian
Noninstitutionalized Population
With a Disability
No Disability
Population Age 16 and Over 2,897,161 543,859 2,353,302EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Employed 58.7% 25.1% 66.4%Not in Labor Force 37.0% 71.4% 29.1%
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENTPopulation Age 25 and Over 2,422,695 511,364 1,911,331Less than high school graduate 13.0% 21.5% 10.7%High school graduate (includes equivalency)
31.6% 36.3% 30.3%
Some college or associate's degree 31.3% 29.3% 31.8%Bachelor's degree or higher 24.2% 12.9% 27.2%
Median Earnings $27,567 $21,458 $28,452
POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHSPopulation Age 16 and over for whom poverty status is determined
2,866,993 542,873 2,324,120
Below 100% of the poverty level 14.9% 21.6% 13.3%100% to 149% of the poverty level 10.3% 14.7% 9.3%At or above 150% of the poverty level
74.8% 63.7% 77.4%
Source: ACS 2014 S1811
According to the 2014 ACS 1-year estimates, there are 1,709,260 Oklahomans aged
18-64 in the labor force, and of that number, 1,612,725 are employed while 96,535 are
unemployed. There are an additional 595,784 Oklahomans who are not considered to
be in the labor force (neither employed nor sought employment in the four weeks prior
to the survey). There are 120,597 Oklahomans with a disability employed, 18,559 with
a disability unemployed, and 191,872 with a disability and not in the labor force. An
additional breakdown of employment status by disability type is provided in Table 8.
31
BACKGROUND
TABLE 8: Oklahoma Aged 18-64 Employment Status with Disability Type
Oklahoma Estimate
Total: 2,305,044 In the labor force: 1,709,260 Employed: 1,612,725 With a disability: 120,597 With a hearing difficulty 39,336 With a vision difficulty 30,168 With a cognitive difficulty 31,582 With an ambulatory difficulty 45,007 With a self-care difficulty 10,236 With an independent living difficulty 19,021 No disability 1,492,128 Unemployed: 96,535 With a disability: 18,559 With a hearing difficulty 2,830 With a vision difficulty 4,718 With a cognitive difficulty 8,197 With an ambulatory difficulty 7,292 With a self-care difficulty 2,123 With an independent living difficulty 5,058 No disability 77,976 Not in labor force: 595,784 With a disability: 191,872 With a hearing difficulty 33,759 With a vision difficulty 38,293 With a cognitive difficulty 84,496 With an ambulatory difficulty 122,008 With a self-care difficulty 41,072 With an independent living difficulty 82,327 No disability 403,912
Note: Respondents may select more than one disability; therefore, column will not total to 100%. Source: ACS 2014 B18120
32
BACKGROUND
Employment status does not just vary based on disability status; there are also
variances across racial/ethnic groups, and while these variances are not as significant
as the employment rate for those with disabilities versus those without, they are
important to note and show compounding issues in the search for employment for
individuals with disabilities who belong to racial/ethnic groups that also have higher
unemployment rates. The estimated statewide unemployment rate for the population
aged 16 years and over in 2014 was 6.8%. However, the unemployment rate was
estimated at 10.0% or higher for Blacks/African Americans, American Indian/Alaska
Natives, and those who are Multiracial (ACS 2014). Additional employment information
by racial/ethnic group can be found in Table 9.
TABLE 9: Oklahoma Employment Status by Race and Ethnicity
Oklahoma Total In labor force Employed Unemployment
rate
Population 16 years and over 2,977,835 61.9% 57.1% 6.8% White 2,263,447 61.6% 57.4% 5.9% Black/ African American 210,267 61.1% 52.8% 11.9% American Indian/ Alaska Native
196,440 61.0% 54.9% 10.0%
Asian 56,986 65.4% 61.5% 4.8% Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander
3,078 66.2% 57.8% 8.9%
Some other race 66,589 72.2% 66.6% 7.0% Two or more races 181,028 62.0% 55.1% 10.6%
Hispanic or Latino 226,671 70.8% 64.8% 7.1%Source: ACS 2014 S2301
33
BACKGROUND
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) pays monthly benefits to workers who are no
longer able to work due to a significant illness or impairment that is expected to last at
least a year or to result in death within a year. Benefits are based on the disabled
worker's past earnings and recipients are required to have a certain number of credits
based on their age to receive SSDI. When you work and pay Social Security taxes, you
earn up to a maximum of four "credits" for each year. Currently, you must earn $1,260
in covered earnings to get one Social Security work credit and $5,040 to get the
maximum four credits for the year (Social Security Administration, How You Earn
Credits). In Oklahoma, 5.6% of working age adults (18-64) received SSDI in 2014
(Congressional statistics, December 2014). Table 10 and Chart 5 include data from the
Social Security Administration on the number and percent of individuals in Oklahoma
receiving SSDI by U.S. Congressional District in 2014.
TABLE 10: Oklahoma SSDI Recipients by Congressional District 2014
Region Population 18-64 SSDI Recipients*
Percent Receiving SSDI
Oklahoma 2,282,703 127,712 5.6%Congressional District 1 468,264 22,400 4.8%Congressional District 2 431,613 34,871 8.1%Congressional District 3 449,104 23,262 5.2%Congressional District 4 461,493 23,865 5.2%Congressional District 5 472,229 23,314 4.9%*Source: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/factsheets/cong_stats/2014/ and
ACS 2014 S1810
34
BACKGROUND
OKDRS 2014 Client Demographics
During FFY 2014, the Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services provided
services to 12,721 clients (RSA 113 Federal report). The racial, ethnic, and gender
breakdown of clients in service status is provided in Table 11.
TABLE 11: OKDRS FFY 2014 Client Demographics
VR/VS Consumers FFY 2014 PercentTotal 12,721 100.0%White 8,260 64.9%African American 2,373 18.7%Native American/ Alaska Native 1,293 10.2%Asian 94 0.7%Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 40 0.3%Multiracial 661 5.2%
Hispanic or Latino 621 4.9%
Male 6,500 51.1%Female 6,221 48.9%Source: RSA 113 Federal report
OKDRS clients can and often do have multiple disabilities on record. Table 12 and
Chart 6 reflect only the primary disability of record for clients in service status in FFY
2014. Cognitive Impairments (30.2% of cases) are the largest primary disability
category, followed by Psychosocial Impairments (12.9%), Other Physical Impairments
(12.7%), and Other Mental Impairments (11.0%).
35
BACKGROUND
TABLE 12: VR/VS Consumers FFY 2014 by Primary Disability Percentages
Disability Type* Number Percent
Blindness 370 2.9%
Cognitive Impairments 3841 30.2%Communicative Impairments (Expressive/Receptive) 173 1.4%
Deaf-Blindness 23 0.2%
Deafness, Primary Communication Auditory 185 1.5%
Deafness, Primary Communication Visual 240 1.9%
General Physical Debilitation (fatigue, weakness) 355 2.8%
Hearing Loss, Primary Communication Auditory 294 2.3%
Hearing Loss, Primary Communication Visual 34 0.3%
Manipulation/Dexterity Orthopedic/Neurological 260 2.0%
Mobility and Manipulation/Dexterity 48 0.4%
Mobility Orthopedic/Neurological Impairments 889 7.0%
Other Hearing Impairments (Tinnitus, Meniere’s) 14 0.1%
Other Mental Impairments 1399 11.0%Other Orthopedic Impairments(limited range motion) 438 3.4%
Other Physical Impairments 1619 12.7%Other Visual Impairments 755 5.9%
Psychosocial Impairments 1642 12.9%Respiratory Impairments 142 1.1%
*Clients can have multiple disabilities; this table is reflective of only the primary disability in the case record.Source: AWARE
36
BACKGROUND
OKDRS provides a multitude of services to our clients to help them find and retain
employment outcomes. Table 13 lists 28 services provided to clients whose cases
closed in FFY 2014 in order from most to least authorized. It is important to note that
not all services are appropriate or necessary for all clients. Table 13 has been included
to show what services are deemed necessary for the largest percentage of cases.
TABLE 13: OKDRS FFY 2014 Services Provided
Services Provided ALL (7691) PercentageVR Counseling/Guidance 5014 65.19%Diagnosis and Treatment 3205 41.67%Transportation 3112 40.46%Assessment 2060 26.78%Maintenance 2019 26.25%Job Readiness Training 1800 23.40%Information and Referral Services 1778 23.12%Job Placement Assistance 1590 20.67%Other Services 1130 14.69%Four-Year College/University Training 847 11.01%On-the-job Supports - Short term 841 10.93%Miscellaneous Training 820 10.66%Job Search Assistance 681 8.85%Occupational or Vocational Training 638 8.30%Rehabilitation Technology 616 8.01%On-the-job Supports -- Supported Employment 581 7.55%Basic Academic Remedial or Literacy Training 251 3.26%Disability Related Skills Training 133 1.73%Benefits Counseling 75 0.98%Interpreter Services 75 0.98%On-the-Job Training 44 0.57%Personal Attendant Services 43 0.56%Technical Assistance Services 23 0.30%Customized Employment Services 17 0.22%Junior/Community College Training 15 0.20%Graduate University/College Training 6 0.08%Reader Services 4 0.05%Apprenticeship Training 1 0.01%
Source: RSA 911 Federal report
37
BACKGROUND
OKDRS Historical Trends
The number of clients OKDRS has served per FFY has varied historically based on
various factors. OKDRS maintains an order of selection system that includes three
priority groups. Client assignment in a priority group is based on the counselor’s
determination of the severity of the client’s disability(s) and the impact the disability(s)
has on the client’s ability to obtain or maintain employment. As state and federal
budgets become restricted, OKDRS has needed to close priority groups based on the
availability of funds. At other times, surplus Federal “stimulus” funds have allowed
OKDRS to serve higher numbers of clients. There are also years when fewer
applications have been received; these years typically coincide with the closing of
priority groups. Chart 7 and Tables 14 and 15 provide further information on the
historical number of clients OKDRS has been able to serve from FFY 2007 to FFY
2015.
TABLE 14: OKDRS Historical Service, Application, and Eligibility Trends
FFY Total Clients Served Applications Received
Applicants Declared Eligible
2007 16,890 7,123 4,1582008 12,500 4,369 1,4132009 12,431 6,332 4,2642010 15,211 10,297 6,6072011 18,137 10,358 6,8672012 16,560 7,580 3,3992013 13,184 5,786 3,6682014 12,869 6,646 4,5872015 13,070 7,181 4,731
Source: Oklahoma RSA113 Federal report
38
BACKGROUND
TABLE 15: OKDRS Priority Group Closure History
DATE PRIORITY GROUP I
PRIORITY GROUP 2
PRIORITY GROUP 3
10-24-14 Open Open Open08-06-14 Open Open Closed05-08-13 Open Closed (limited release) Closed02-21-12 Closed Closed Closed02-03-12 Open Closed Closed08-15-11 Open Open Closed05-18-09 Open Open Open03-27-09 Open Open Closed01-13-09 Open Limited Open –
Application date of November 1, 2008 or
before
Closed
09-15-08 Open Closed ClosedDATE (EFF 7-1-08)
PRIORITY GROUP I
(Title change)
PRIORITY GROUP 2
(Title change)
PRIORITY GROUP 3
(Title change)DATE MOST SEVERE SEVERE NOT SEVERE02-11-08 Closed Closed Closed01-19-07 Open Closed Closed04-11-06 Open Open OpenSource: OKDRS
39
BACKGROUND
Despite priority group closures, the average case cost per closure (successful or
unsuccessful per RSA 911 Federal report data) has remained relatively stable since
2007. Since 2007, the only year that has an average case cost per closure that is not
within $250 of $3,000, is 2008. During FFY 2008, the average case cost per closure
was $3,810. Table 16 documents the average case cost per closure from FFY 2007 to
2015.
TABLE 16: OKDRS Historical Average Case Cost Per Closure
FFY Average Cost per Closure
2007 $2,7722008 $3,8102009 $2,9832010 $3,0432011 $2,8442012 $3,2422013 $3,2152014 $2,9552015 $2,954
Source: RSA 911 Federal report
40
BACKGROUND
Economy and Forecasts for Jobs
Understanding the business side of job placement is important when identifying
consumer needs. Having the two perspectives meet means finding more job
opportunities for our clients. In this section we will look at different studies and data that
aim to pinpoint industries of growth, in-demand jobs and regional growth in the state of
Oklahoma, and the skills needed for job seekers. Evaluating in-demand occupations
and the workforce needs of employers can provide benefits for the counselors when
developing job goals and service plans.
Industries
According to the Workforce Oklahoma Employment Outlook 2018 report (McPherson,
2011), between 2008 and 2018 Oklahoma is expected to add more than 178,000 jobs
across all industries or 10.2% overall. This will amount to an average of more than
17,800 new jobs each year.
Like the rest of the USA, Oklahoma is changing from a goods-producing economy to a
service-providing economy. The job market will reflect this change; four out of five jobs
will be in the service-providing industry. The following growth industries are identified in
the report: health services, professional and business services, and educational sectors
are expected to contribute to more than half of all business growth. Other sectors of
projected growth are trade, transportation and utilities, government, leisure and
hospitality, construction, natural resources and mining, financial activities, and
manufacturing (except transportation equipment manufacturing which is expected to
see job loss). Two super sectors, professional & business services and educational &
health services, when combined, will account for 47.5% of all jobs added between 2008
and 2018.
41
BACKGROUND
TABLE 17: Oklahoma's Top 10 Growth Industries, 2008-2018 (Industries with Most Projected Growth)
INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT CHANGE*2008 2018 Jobs Pct.
Hospitals 68,170 86,820 18,640 27.35%Professional, scientific & technical services 65,010 82,030 17,020 26.18%Ambulatory health care services 65,690 82,120 16,440 25.02%Administrative & support services 102,350 117,330 14,980 14.64%Local government, excluding education & hospitals 83,120 97,890 14,760 17.76%Specialty trade contractors 46,990 61,670 14,680 31.23%Food services & drinking places 113,460 126,700 13,240 11.67%Educational services 162,550 175,030 12,480 7.68%General merchandise stores 46,300 52,790 6,490 14.02%Social assistance 25,430 30,810 5,380 21.16%
*The data is presented from the original source. Any discrepancies in calculations were present in the original publication.Source: (McPherson, 2011)
Industries that are projected to see job losses are Information, Publishing Industries,
Broadcasting (except internet), and Farming, Fishing, and Forestry occupations.
In-Demand Occupations
Analysis of in-demand occupations was conducted through examination of the following
potential data sources: AWARE, Oklahoma Department of Commerce, and the U.S.
Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Data limitations/mismatches did
not allow for an in-depth comparison across all of these different data sets. As a result,
only the following were selected for use in this analysis: OKDRS AWARE placement
data and the corresponding BLS data, each reported using Standard Occupational
Classification (SOC) codes. The SOC is a code system used by Federal agencies to
classify workers into occupational categories. This classification system results in
coding for 23 major categories, 97 minor groups, and 461 broad occupations (BLS).
For the purpose of this analysis, only the 23 major categories were utilized.
42
BACKGROUND
The analysis methodology was three-pronged. First, BLS data was examined to
determine the current (2014) in-demand job situation in Oklahoma. Next, predictive
BLS data was utilized to gain insight into Oklahoma’s anticipated job situation in 2024.
Finally, researchers studied OKDRS client placement data, both annually and trended
for the past five years, and compared those results to the findings of the first two
analyses. The results of each step of the study are provided below.
Oklahoma Current Situation (2014)
The U.S. Department of Labor reported nearly 1.58 million jobs in Oklahoma in 2014.
The top 5 SOC categories of jobs accounted for over 785,000 of those – nearly 50%;
the remaining 50% represents 17 job categories combined. Office and Administrative
Support jobs are the most prevalent positions currently found in Oklahoma, followed by
Sales-related jobs. The category of Production Occupations is ranked 4th in the top 5,
but it is interesting to note that regional analysis reveals that these positions are not
equally distributed throughout the state, but rather, are heavily centered in the east-
northeast region of Oklahoma. Table 18 highlights the top five job categories in number
of jobs located across the state.
TABLE 18: Top Five Available Job Categories (2014)
SOC Category Number of jobs (2014)
43 – Office and Administrative Support 254,22041 – Sales and Related 160,39035 – Food Preparation and Serving Related 147,72051 – Production Occupations 115,55053 – Transportation and Material Moving 107,620
Total 785,500Source: U.S. Department of Labor
Oklahoma Future Perspective (2024)
Overall, the number of jobs in Oklahoma is expected to rise from 1.58 million in 2014 to
1.68 million in 2024. This is an increase of 100,000 newly created jobs; a 6.3% growth
rate. There are three distinct ways to view the job market outlook for 2024:
43
BACKGROUND
Total number of jobs predicted to be available: While providing an overall
snapshot of the types of jobs Oklahomans hold, this figure includes positions that
are already filled. As a result, it is less useful for determining where potential
new job openings lie.
Growth rate in particular categories: This viewpoint serves to identify job
categories that will be adding new jobs and can be targeted for future
employment.
Anticipated earnings: While not pertinent to obtaining new employment, this
viewpoint is important to enhance informed choice for future labor market
participants.
These three perspectives for employment outlook in Oklahoma in 2024 are illustrated in
Tables 19, 20 and 21.
TABLE 19: Predicted Number of Jobs by 2024
SOC Category Predicted Number of jobs (2024)
43 – Office and Administrative Support 259,30441 – Sales and Related 168,41035 – Food Preparation and Serving Related 157,32253 – Transportation and Material Moving 112,78651 – Production Occupations 111,968
Total 809,790Source: U.S. Department of Labor
Office and Administrative Support is predicted to remain the top category in the overall
number of jobs in Oklahoma. A comparison between 2024 and 2014 in terms of the
number of jobs available reveals a drop in Production Occupations – from 4th place to
5th place in the rankings. Transportation and Material Moving rises from 5th to 4th
place. There is an anticipated increase of 24,790 total jobs in these five categories over
the ten year time frame.
44
BACKGROUND
TABLE 20: Largest Percentage of Growth – Prediction for 2024
SOC CategoryPercentage of
growth between 2014 and 2024
Number of Jobs Added
31 – Healthcare Support 23.0% 10,38029 – Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 16.4% 15,436
39 – Personal Care and Service 13.2% 5,48715 – Computer and Mathematical 13.1% 3,63421 – Community and Social Service 10.5% 2,573Source: U.S. Department of Labor
It is anticipated that Healthcare occupations (Healthcare Support and Healthcare
Practitioners and Technical jobs) will experience the largest growth rate, and are
predicted to account for nearly 26,000 new jobs in Oklahoma by 2024. Most
occupational categories are likely to experience a lesser level of growth; however, two
categories are expected to report job losses: Production Occupations (-3.10%) and
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations (-5.9%). The decrease in Production
Occupations may be due to increased use of improved automation and technology.
TABLE 21: Highest Salary – 2014 Median Wage
SOC Category 2014 Median Annual Wage
11 - Management $75,180.0017 - Architecture and Engineering $71,810.0023 - Legal $59,960.0015 - Computer and Mathematical $59,340.0013 - Business and Financial Operations $54,350.00Source: U.S. Department of Labor
Future salaries are difficult to predict; many economic factors are involved in any such
calculation. For this reason, the current salary levels for each SOC category are
examined. Management ranks first with a median annual salary of $75,180; with
Architecture and Engineering following closely at $71,810, and Legal professions
ranked third at $59,960. It must be noted that the median wage for Management
45
BACKGROUND
positions is somewhat skewed upward by the inclusion of highly-compensated
Executive Officers. Conversely, median wages for positions in the Legal category may
be skewed downward by the inclusion of non-attorney support personnel.
Current Placement of OKDRS Clients
For this analysis, the placement data pertaining to both transition age youth and adult
clients were extracted from AWARE. Data were examined both on an annual basis and
as a trend for five years with the following findings:
The most common SOC category code of placements for both youth and adults
was Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations.
For transition aged clients, placements in Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
positions averaged 35% of all placements across the five year trending cycle.
Placements in Production Occupations averaged 16.6%.
For adults, placements in the category of Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
averaged 15% of all placements across the five year trending cycle. Placements
in Production Occupations averaged 10.3%, while Office and Administrative
Support averaged 12%.
OKDRS is currently placing most of the transition and adult clients in positions
categorized as Installation, Maintenance, and Repair, and Production. Installation,
Maintenance, and Repair jobs have median annual earnings at $38,170. However, they
are expected to have a relatively level growth rate resulting in few newly-created jobs
(4,641 over ten years.) Production jobs have lower median annual salary at $31,920
(14th ranked) and the predicted growth/loss rate is -3.10%; a net loss of 3,582 jobs.
Consideration of these analyses findings may assist OKDRS staff in fully informing
clients in their choice of employment outcomes as the outlook for in-demand jobs in
Oklahoma evolves.
Alternative Job Growth Viewpoints
An alternative job growth analysis is presented in the Workforce Oklahoma Employment
Outlook 2018 (McPherson, 2011). Thirty in-demand occupations were identified with
the most projected job openings per year ranked highest. Not based on SOC
46
BACKGROUND
occupational codes, but rather on individual job titles, McPherson’s list represents 37%
of total employment and provides an average of just over two out of every five job
openings each year. The list of occupations is presented in Table 22.
TABLE 22: Oklahoma's Top 30 In-Demand Occupations, 2008-2018 (Occupations with the Largest Number of Openings per Year)
OCCUPATION EMPLOYMENT AVERAGE
ANNUAL OPENINGS2008 2018 Change
*Cashiers 41,370 45,160 3,800 2,240Retail Salespersons 54,270 60,770 6,500 2,160Waiters & Waitresses 28,180 30,990 2,810 1,840Customer Service Representatives 27,790 31,990 4,200 1,300Registered Nurses 27,920 35,600 7,670 1,260Combined Food Preparation & Serving Workers, Including Fast Food 24,890 29,500 4,610 990
Office Clerks, General 40,950 44,630 3,680 930Truck Drivers, Heavy & Tractor-Trailer 26,990 31,300 4,310 910Laborers & Freight, Stock & Material Movers, Hand 25,400 25,380 -20 820
General & Operations Managers 27,940 27,720 -220 810Bookkeeping, Accounting & Auditing Clerks 34,310 38,180 3,870 800
Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education 18,000 21,080 3,080 720
First-line Supervisors/Managers of Retail Sales Workers 21,720 23,920 2,200 690
Licensed Practical & Licensed Vocational Nurses 14,090 16,330 2,240 660
Accountants & Auditors 17,520 21,170 3,660 660First-line Supervisors/Managers of Office & Administrative Support Workers
17,480 19,440 1,960 590
Stock Clerks & Order Fillers 17,560 18,700 1,140 520Cooks, Fast Food 13,930 15,550 1,620 520Janitors & Cleaners, Except Maids & Housekeeping Cleaners
23,430 24,150 710 510
Team Assemblers 16,980 17,940 960 480Welders, Cutters, Solderers & Brazers 12,240 13,250 1,010 480Secondary School Teachers, Except Special & Vocational Education
11,860 13,060 1,190 460
Receptionists & Information Clerks 12,110 13,480 1,370 460Maintenance & Repair Workers, General 16,910 18,830 1,920 450
47
BACKGROUND
OCCUPATION EMPLOYMENT AVERAGE ANNUAL
OPENINGSChild Care Workers 13,180 13,710 530 440Farmworkers & Laborers, Crop, Nursery & Greenhouse 15,440 15,190 -260 420
Personal & Home Care Aides 9,180 12,110 2,920 410Home Health Aides 8,440 11,630 3,190 400Sales Representatives, Wholesale & Manufacturing, Except Technical & Scientific Products
13,240 14,170 930 400
Tellers 8,710 9,080 370 400*The data is presented from the original source. Any discrepancies in calculations were present in the original publication.Source: (McPherson, 2011)
Skills Needed for Job Seekers
Different studies initiated by the Oklahoma Governor’s council were aimed at identifying
skills that businesses are interested in when looking to hire.
In his study Creating a Proactive System to Help Oklahoma Businesses Stay Strong
and Grow, Thomas Miller identified the following business trends (Miller, 2012):
Existing businesses will generate 76% of all new jobs;
69% of businesses indicated they plan to hire new employees within the next
year;
Employers’ top challenges were identified as talent and workforce issues
including: attracting and recruiting talent, access to trained workers, and retaining
talent;
61% reported the availability of skilled workers as fair or poor; and
Businesses expressed a desire for a proactive workforce system.
Businesses are moving away from traditional recruitment methods, instead, focusing on
social media to attract potential job candidates (Craigslist, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter,
internet job boards, and internal sites). Businesses identified the following needs while
searching for potential employees (Miller, 2011):
They prefer skill certificates;
48
BACKGROUND
They need a clear menu of workforce services from workforce centers;
They are interested in industry-specific job sites;
They look for two year schools, career tech schools (i.e. healthcare,
manufacturing, aerospace);
They recognize the green jobs movement;
They were concerned that people receiving unemployment benefits are not
motivated to find jobs; and
Lack of work ethics and soft skills was identified as the biggest barrier to those
who cannot find jobs.
Educational requirements changed also. In 2008, more than 70% of jobs did not require
postsecondary education. These openings required only work experience in a related
field or on-the-job training. By 2018, this number is expected to drop just below the
70% mark (McPherson, 2011). Projected training categories are listed in Table 23.
49
BACKGROUND
TABLE 23: Oklahoma Employment Projection by Education/Training, 2008-2018
EDUCATION/TRAINING CATEGORY
EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION CHANGE* AVERAGE ANNUAL
OPENINGS2008 2018 2008 2018 Jobs Pct.
TOTAL, all occupations 1,750,130 1,928,790 100.00% 100.00% 178,670 10.21% 59,190
Short-term on-the-job training624,500 678,980 35.68% 35.20% 54,480 8.72% 23,000
Moderate-term on-the-job training
331,200 361,580 18.92% 18.75% 30,380 9.17% 9,740
Long-term on-the-job training 111,060 126,470 6.35% 6.56% 15,400 13.87% 3,990Work experience in a related occupation
158,960 172,760 9.08% 8.96% 13,800 8.68% 4,600
Postsecondary vocational training
121,700 135,660 6.95% 7.03% 13,960 11.47% 4,000
Associate degree 67,170 80,870 3.84% 4.19% 13,710 20.41% 2,690 Bachelor's degree 177,330 202,830 10.13% 10.52% 25,500 14.38% 6,430Bachelor's or higher degree, plus work experience
88,890 92,670 5.08% 4.80% 3,780 4.25% 2,620
Master's degree 21,730 24,930 1.24% 1.29% 3,200 14.72% 790 Doctoral degree 23,790 24,780 1.36% 1.28% 990 4.15% 550First professional degree 23,790 27,270 1.36% 1.41% 3,480 14.62% 820
*The data is presented from the original source. Any discrepancies in calculations were present in the original publication.Source: (McPherson, 2011)
BACKGROUND
Regional Growth
The Oklahoma Department of Commerce analyzed workforce data and provided reports
about geographic areas that have similar economic strengths (ecosystems). The data
includes:
Demographics;
Educational Assets;
Major Employers;
Occupations and Educational Level Needed;
Employment and Earnings Data as of 2013; and
Projection of Job Growth by 2020.
The following tables summarize the data to show how different industries are
represented in the Oklahoma ecosystems with the projected growth/loss for 2020. It
should be noted that it is possible for a county to be included in more than one
ecosystem.
BACKGROUND
TABLE 24: Oklahoma Department of Commerce Counties by Economic Region
Region CountiesCentral Oklahoma
Canadian, Cleveland, Grady, Kingfisher, Lincoln, Logan, McClain, Oklahoma, Payne and Pottawatomie
East Central Creek, Hughes, Lincoln, McIntosh, Okfuskee, Okmulgee, Pottawatomie, and Seminole
Eastern Adair, Cherokee, Haskell, Le Flore, and Sequoyah
Northeastern Craig, Delaware, Mayes, Nowata, and Ottawa.Northern Garfield, Grant, Kay, Noble, Pawnee, Osage, and Washington
Northwest Alfalfa, Beaver, Cimarron, Dewey, Ellis, Garfield, Grant, Harper, Major, Texas, Woods and Woodward
Southeast Corridor Atoka, Bryan, Coal, Hughes, McIntosh, and Pittsburg
Southeastern Atoka, Bryan, Choctaw, Latimer, Le Flore, McCurtain, Pittsburg, and Pushmataha
Southern Carter, Garvin, Jefferson, Johnston, Love, Marshall, Murray, Pontotoc, and Stephens
Southwestern Caddo, Comanche, Cotton, Greer, Harmon, Jackson, Kiowa, and Tillman
Tri-County Ports Muskogee, Rogers, and Wagoner
Tulsa Creek, Muskogee, Okmulgee, Osage, Pawnee, Rogers, Tulsa, Wagoner, and Washington
Western Beckham, Blaine, Caddo, Custer, Roger Mills and WashitaSource: OK Department of Commerce, http://okcommerce.gov/data/workforce-data
BACKGROUND
TABLE 25: Central Oklahoma (Canadian, Cleveland, Grady, Kingfisher, Lincoln, Logan, McClain, Oklahoma, Payne, and Pottawatomie)
IndustryJobs at
the end of 2013
Average earnings
2013
Projection of
demand by 2020
2020 Projected
growth
Transportation & Distribution 14,174 $58,500 43,994 210.4%Health Care(Regional Complementary) 79,412 $53,200 95,549 20.3%
Energy 41,345 $106,300 49,014 18.5%Construction(Regional Complementary) 40,424 $46,400 43,167 6.8%
Agriculture & Bioscience 25,391 $56,800 26,835 5.7%Information & Financial Services 46,944 $72,500 49,472 5.4%
Aerospace and Defense ecosystem 28,322 $62,800 29,557 4.4%
Source: OK Department of Commerce, http://okcommerce.gov/data/workforce-data
TABLE 26: East Central (Creek, Hughes, Lincoln, McIntosh, Okfuskee, Okmulgee, Pottawatomie, and Seminole)
IndustryJobs at
the end of 2013
Average earnings
2013
Projection of demand
by 2020
2020 Projected
growthHealth Care (Regional Complementary) 7,830 $39,400 9,150 16.9%
Energy 5,950 $70,050 6,800 14.3%Construction (Regional Complementary) 12,560 $46,920 13,730 9.3%
Aerospace & Defense 2,380 $44,260 2,600 9.2%Manufacturing (Regional Complementary) 10,300 $61,050 11,170 8.4%
Transportation & Distribution 4,670 $52,790 5,010 7.3%Agriculture & Bioscience 2,520 $47,270 2,640 4.8%Information & Financial Services 3,350 $48,730 3,480 3.9%
Source: OK Department of Commerce, http://okcommerce.gov/data/workforce-data
Eastern (Adair, Cherokee, Haskell, Le Flore, and Sequoyah). No data was provided for the Eastern region.
53
BACKGROUND
TABLE 27: Northeastern (Craig, Delaware, Mayes, Nowata, and Ottawa)
IndustryJobs at the end of 2013
Average earnings
2013
Projection of
demand by 2020
2020 Projected
growth
Energy 1,100 $64,700 1,330 20.9%Health Care (Regional Complementary) 4,320 $40,650 5,000 15.7%
Construction (Regional Complementary) 5,890 $41,800 6,340 7.6%
Transportation & Distribution 2,100 $49,000 2,200 4.8%Information & Financial Services 1,500 $51,000 1,550 3.3%Manufacturing (Regional Complementary) 5,120 $55,500 5,140 0.4%
Aerospace & Defense 940 $43,000 920 -2.1%Agriculture & Bioscience 3,700 $42,800 3,580 -3.2%Source: OK Department of Commerce, http://okcommerce.gov/data/workforce-data
TABLE 28: Northern (Garfield, Grant, Kay, Noble, Pawnee, Osage, and Washington)
IndustryJobs at the end of 2013
Average earnings
2013
Projection of
demand by 2020
2020 Projected
growth
Agriculture & Bioscience 5,390 $54,990 6,120 13.5%Information & Financial Services 4,670 $71,600 5,260 12.6%Energy 11,950 $103,015 13,240 10.8%Health Care (Regional Complementary) 8,280 $49,420 9,170 10.7%
Construction (Regional Complementary) 11,980 $52,090 13,240 10.5%
Manufacturing (Regional Complementary) 10,300 $61,050 11,170 8.4%
Transportation & Distribution 5,800 $58,360 6,140 5.9%Aerospace & Defense 4,760 $59,370 4,950 4.0%Source: OK Department of Commerce, http://okcommerce.gov/data/workforce-data
TABLE 29: Northwest (Alfalfa, Beaver, Cimarron, Dewey, Ellis, Garfield, Grant, Harper, Major, Texas, Woods, and Woodward)
Industry Jobs at Average Projection 2020
54
BACKGROUND
the end of 2013
earnings 2013
of demand by 2020
Projected growth
Aerospace & Defense 3,474 $59,600
data unavailable
Agriculture & Bioscience 14,837 $37,700Energy 7,788 $87,900Information & Financial Services 3,240 $53,400Transportation & Distribution 5,073 $62,000Construction (Regional Complementary) 7,152 $52,000
Healthcare (Regional Complementary) 7,296 $44,600
Source: OK Department of Commerce, http://okcommerce.gov/data/workforce-data
TABLE 30: Southeast Corridor (Atoka, Bryan, Coal, Hughes, McIntosh, and Pittsburg)
IndustryJobs at the end of 2013
Average earnings
2013
Projection of
demand by 2020
2020 Projected
growth
Energy 2,800 $69,500 3,620 29.3%Health Care(Regional Complementary) 5,370 $38,400 6,420 19.6%
Transportation & Distribution 2,640 $45,300 3,070 16.3%Information & Financial Services 2,170 $54,200 2,450 12.9%Construction(Regional Complementary) 2,620 $35,400 2,950 12.6%
Aerospace & Defense 2,740 $37,500 2,620 -4.4%Manufacturing(Regional Complementary) 3,010 $52,900 2,830 -6.0%
Agriculture & Bioscience 1,550 $37,400 1,380 -11.0%Source: OK Department of Commerce, http://okcommerce.gov/data/workforce-data
TABLE 31: Southeastern (Atoka, Bryan, Choctaw, Latimer, Le Flore, McCurtain, Pittsburg, and Pushmataha)
Industry Jobs at the end
Average earnings
Projection of
2020 Projected
55
BACKGROUND
of 2013 2013 demand by 2020 growth
Health Care (Regional Complementary) 6,400 $38,600 7,750 21.1%
Energy 5,100 $72,800 5,900 15.7%Aerospace & Defense 2,350 $49,500 2,650 12.8%Transportation & Distribution 4,500 $47,600 5,000 11.1%Information & Financial Services 3,120 $47,520 3,330 6.7%Construction (Regional Complementary) 8,550 $42,250 8,900 4.1%
Manufacturing (Regional Complementary) 7,100 $46,000 7,250 2.1%
Agriculture & Bioscience 5,750 $39,300 5,650 -1.7%Source: OK Department of Commerce, http://okcommerce.gov/data/workforce-data
TABLE 32: Southern (Carter, Gavin, Jefferson, Johnston, Love, Marshall, Murray, Pontotoc, and Stephens)
IndustryJobs at the end of 2013
Average earnings
2013
Projection of
demand by 2020
2020 Projected
growth
Health Care (Regional Complementary) 9,000 $45,100 10,750 19.4%
Construction (Regional Complementary) 9,730 $45,350 11,170 14.8%
Energy 10,000 $80,000 10,900 9.0%Information & Financial Services 3,200 $48,800 3,450 7.8%Aerospace & Defense 2,000 $48,800 2,150 7.5%Transportation & Distribution 9,950 $52,000 10,700 7.5%Manufacturing (Regional Complementary) 10,390 $63,570 11,000 5.9%
Agriculture & Bioscience 3,000 $40,500 3,000 0.0%Source: OK Department of Commerce, http://okcommerce.gov/data/workforce-data
TABLE 33: Southwestern (Caddo, Comanche, Cotton, Greer, Harmon, Jackson, Kiowa, and Tillman)
Industry Jobs at the end
Average earnings
Projection of
2020 Projected
56
BACKGROUND
of 2013 2013 demand by 2020 growth
Energy 1,590 $76,425 1,840 15.7%Health Care (Regional Complementary) 9,470 $45,220 10,780 13.8%
Construction (Regional Complementary) 5,490 $40,240 6,090 10.9%
Information & Financial Services 3,450 $47,900 3,650 5.8%Aerospace & Defense 15,500 $56,250 15,430 -0.5%Manufacturing (Regional Complementary) 5,090 $69,310 4,850 -4.7%
Transportation & Distribution 5,070 $64,310 4,820 -4.9%Agriculture & Bioscience 3,530 $40,625 3,190 -9.6%Source: OK Department of Commerce, http://okcommerce.gov/data/workforce-data
TABLE 34: Tri-County Ports (Muskogee, Rogers, and Wagoner)
IndustryJobs at the end of 2013
Average earnings
2013
Projection of
demand by 2020
2020 Projected
growth
Health Care(Regional Complementary) 8,005 $39,900 10,117 26.4%
Manufacturing(Regional Complementary) 10,618 $65,500 12,459 17.3%
Agriculture & Bioscience 3,325 $58,400 3,694 11.1%Transportation & Distribution 4,234 $53,000 4,673 10.4%Construction(Regional Complementary) 5,846 $43,500 6,312 8.0%
Energy 5,775 $75,000 6,071 5.1%Information & Financial Services 2,579 $50,800 2,670 3.5%Aerospace & Defense 1,775 $43,100 1,808 1.9%Source: OK Department of Commerce, http://okcommerce.gov/data/workforce-data
TABLE 35: Tulsa (Creek, Muskogee, Okmulgee, Osage, Pawnee, Rogers, Tulsa, Wagoner, and Washington)
Industry Jobs at the end of 2013
Average earnings
2013
Projection of
demand
2020 Projected
growth
57
BACKGROUND
by 2020Health Care (Regional Complementary) 55,690 $58,300 64,700 16.2%
Energy 38,110 $105,200 41,680 9.4%Agriculture & Bioscience 20,290 $71,550 21,910 8.0%Manufacturing (Regional Complementary) 55,700 $69,000 59,100 6.1%
Aerospace & Defense 26,640 $74,300 28,250 6.0%Construction (Regional Complementary) 52,660 $45,500 55,250 4.9%
Transportation & Distribution 38,540 $72,000 38,590 0.1%Information & Financial Services 35,800 $80,200 35,500 -0.8%Source: OK Department of Commerce, http://okcommerce.gov/data/workforce-data
TABLE 36: Western (Beckham, Blaine, Caddo, Custer, Roger Mills, and Washita)
IndustryJobs at the end of 2013
Average earnings
2013
Projection of
demand by 2020
2020 Projected
growth
Energy 7,030 $86,430 8,740 24.3%Construction (Regional Complementary) 5,000 $49,990 6,010 20.2%
Transportation & Distribution 3,800 $63,570 4,420 16.3%Health Care (Regional Complementary) 4,430 $38,740 5,100 15.1%
Manufacturing (Regional Complementary) 2,100 $58,210 2,380 13.3%
Information & Financial Services 1,760 $54,290 1,870 6.3%Agriculture & Bioscience 2,720 $49,700 2,850 4.8%Aerospace & Defense 670 $37,750 700 4.5%Source: OK Department of Commerce, http://okcommerce.gov/data/workforce-data
58
THE FINDINGS
THE FINDINGS
Service Needs of those with the Most Significant Disabilities, including Supported Employment
The OKDRS VR/VS staff survey included a question to determine the top OKDRS
services needed for individuals with the most significant disabilities. The survey asked
the question, “Based on your experience, please indicate the top THREE DRS services
that are needed for individuals with the most significant disabilities,” with instructions to
select no more than 3 items from the following: job skills training, soft skills training,
post-secondary education, case management, accessibility and accommodations,
assistive technology, transportation, and other (please specify). The top three responses included the need for transportation, job skills training, and soft skills training. The responses are presented in Chart 8 and Table 37 in order of percentage:
TABLE 37: Staff Responses to Services Most Needed for Individuals with the Most Significant Disabilities
Services Percentage
Transportation 70.40%Job skills training 68.80%Soft skills training 55.20%Accessibility and accommodations 37.60%
Assistive technology 24.00%
Post-secondary education 13.60%
Case management 12.80% Source: OKDRS VR/VS staff survey
59
THE FINDINGS
Other needed services mentioned by staff in the comment section included but were not
limited to:
Behavioral health counseling;
Housing;
Support Groups;
Clothing and Hygiene Products;
Increased Employment Opportunities; and
Diagnosis and Treatment of Impairments.
Another portion of the VR/VS staff survey was used to determine if the Supported
Employment providers currently working with OKDRS are sufficient to meet the needs
of VR/VS clients. The staff survey included three questions regarding the availability,
effectiveness, and quality of Supported Employment in the state of Oklahoma. The
results of the survey questions revealed the following:
Only 30.0% of VR/VS staff agreed with the statement, “The availability of
supported employment services for people with disabilities is adequate.”
Only 37.27% of VR/VS staff agreed with the statement, “The quality of supported
employment services is adequate.”
In response to a third question, “Based on your experience, what barriers to
supported employment still exist for individuals with the most significant
disabilities? (Select all that apply),” VR/VS staff selected the following responses
in order:
o Lack of Accessibility to Services (i.e., services are limited to those with
certain disabilities) – 58.33%;o Lack of Time – 24.07%; and,
o Lack of Funding – 20.37%.
In addition, there were 41 write-in responses. They focused on issues such as lack of
supported employment vendor availability in rural areas, staffing issues and training at
supported employment vendors, efficiency and expense of supported employment
vendors, the stigma of disability from possible employers and communities, lack of
60
THE FINDINGS
communication with clients, lack of community resources, lack of employment
opportunities, a lack of understanding by counselors and supported employment staff of
disability-specific issues, low client expectations, conflict or lack of communication
between OKDRS staff and supported employment staff, reluctance to spend extra time
helping those with the most significant disabilities, and transportation.
In another survey (the Management Staff Survey), OKDRS field managers across
Oklahoma were asked to help identify deficiencies in their region with regard to provider
availability, provider quality, and access to necessary resources. Responses were
received from across the state, including from staff providing specialty services such as
Employment Support services and Services to the Deaf. Several problem areas were
identified by these staff members and included:
Shortage of Providers. There is limited Supported Employment provider
coverage in certain areas of the state, particularly in the Panhandle, Southwest
and Southeast regions. There is also an increased need for specialized
providers, i.e. specialized surgeons, dentists, and psychologists/psychiatrists.
Delays in Services to Clients. Providers in some areas of the state are delayed
in delivering services to clients. One staff member indicated that local neuro-
psychologists are scheduling appointments approximately 12 weeks out from the
request.
Need for Providers with Specialized Skills. OKDRS needs job placement
vendors (employment & retention, supported employment, job coaches) that
have knowledge of deafness and can sign.
Provider Staffing Issues. High turnover with job coach vendors is a problem.
During 2014, a special research study was conducted for the WINGS group which
focused on the outcomes of mental health and cognitive impairment cases. This
analysis revealed that clients who received supported employment services were less
likely to close successfully. Counselors and vendors working with supported
employment clients may need to take extra steps to help ensure successful outcomes
for supported employment clients.
61
THE FINDINGS
In FFY 2014, OKDRS closed 7,691 cases; of those, 619 clients were reported as having
a supported employment goal and 2,527 were classified as Priority Group 1 (most
significantly disabled) according to the OKDRS order of selection (RSA 911 Federal
report). Of the 28 available types of services, the top fifteen most authorized for
supported employment clients are included in Table 38. For comparison, the same data
analysis is presented in Table 39 for Priority Group 1 clients. There is some variation in
the most authorized services depending on the group being analyzed. Counseling and
Guidance is the most frequently provided service to both groups. The second ranked
service for Supported Employment clients is Assessment, which falls in fourth place for
Priority Group 1 clients. Conversely, the second ranked service for those clients
classified as Priority Group 1 was Transportation – a service that ranks fourth in the
most frequently provided services for Supported Employment clients. It is important to
note that these groups overlap; while clients receiving supported employment services
are most often classified as Priority Group 1, not all clients in Priority Group 1 have a
supported employment goal.
62
THE FINDINGS
TABLE 38: Service -- Supported Employment Clients
Service Percentage
VR Counseling/Guidance 99.03%Assessment 70.92%On-the-job Supports -- Supported Employment 70.92%Transportation 59.77%Job Readiness Training 50.24%Diagnosis and Treatment 44.91%Maintenance 40.23%Miscellaneous Training 33.44%Other Services 22.29%Information and Referral Services 19.55%Job Placement Assistance 15.51%Job Search Assistance 15.51%On-the-job Supports - Short term 8.24%Rehabilitation Technology 7.11%Occupational or Vocational Training 4.85%
Source: RSA 911 Federal report
TABLE 39: Service -- Priority Group 1 Clients
Service Percentage
VR Counseling/Guidance 82.55%Transportation 53.42%Diagnosis and Treatment 52.20%Assessment 39.45%Maintenance 35.81%Job Readiness Training 33.60%Information and Referral Services 26.20%On-the-job Supports -- Supported Employment 22.40%Job Placement Assistance 21.57%Other Services 20.62%Miscellaneous Training 18.92%Rehabilitation Technology 12.98%Job Search Assistance 12.66%On-the-job Supports - Short term 11.40%Four-Year College/University Training 10.80%
Source: RSA 911 Federal report
Service Needs of Minorities
63
THE FINDINGS
Based on the ACS 2014/OKDRS client comparisons included in the State Profile and
Background sections of this report, only two racial or ethnic minority groups were
identified as disproportionately underserved. These included individuals who self-
identified as Multiracial (7.6% of the working-age population versus 5.2% of OKDRS
clients) and, to a much lesser degree, those of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, who represent
5.2% of the working-age population in the state and 4.9% of OKDRS clients. The full
comparison of the ACS 2014 population data versus OKDRS client data based on race,
ethnicity and gender is available in the State Profile section of this report in Table 2,
page 10.
Also as discussed in the Background section of this report, the population of individuals
with disabilities has a much lower employment rate than the population of individuals
with no disabilities, 25.1% and 66.4%, respectively (ACS 2014). In addition to this,
three racial groups in Oklahoma have an estimated unemployment rate above 10.0%,
African Americans, Native American/Alaska Natives, and those who are Multiracial
(ACS 2014). The variations in unemployment rate across racial groups are important
because they could result in compounding issues in the search for employment for
individuals with disabilities in the racial/ethnic groups with higher unemployment.
In 2014, the WINGS research study was conducted to determine the impact of
demographics, service provision, service lags, contact lags, and case cost on the
likelihood of a successful case closure and earnings. The study focused on clients with
mental health and/or cognitive disabilities. While not performed as part of the Statewide
Needs Assessment, the findings are relevant to this report. Minorities, as well as
female clients and unmarried clients, were shown to earn lower wages when a
successful outcome was achieved. For individuals of a minority race working full time
(30 or more hours per week), the difference was a decrease of $18.87 per week as
compared to their white counterparts. Women working full time experienced a decrease
of $38.76 in weekly earnings compared to the wages of men and unmarried clients
earned $37.21 less per week than married individuals. While not classified as
minorities, these findings regarding women and unmarried individuals are important as,
64
THE FINDINGS
like the variations in unemployment rates cited above, they may compound the negative
effect in earnings on minority clients. Counselors may need to be cognizant of working
closer with clients in these demographic groups to improve wage outcomes.
Native American/Alaska Natives
Oklahoma has one of the highest populations of Native American/Alaska Natives in the
United States; as a percentage of the population, Oklahoma also ranks among the
highest in the nation. The 2014 5-year ACS estimates indicate there are 269,908
Native American or Alaska Natives residing in Oklahoma. It is estimated that 43,701 of
those individuals have a disability (16.2%). There are 38 federally recognized Native
American tribes and nine tribal vocational rehabilitation programs in Oklahoma.
Information regarding the tribal programs and their number of cases served in 2016 is
included in Table 40.
A map of Oklahoma’s tribal jurisdictions from the Oklahoma Department of
Transportation is included below along with an accessible table. It is important to note
that tribal jurisdictions do not follow standard state or federal government boundaries.
A map and table of Oklahoma’s tribal population distribution by Congressional District
are also provided. As previously noted, the highest population of Native
American/Alaska Natives in Oklahoma is present in Congressional District 2, where
approximately 42% of the total Native population resides (ACS 2014). Congressional
District 2 also has the highest prevalence of disability (ACS 2014) and the largest
percentage of residents receiving SSDI in Oklahoma (SSA).
While not underserved by OKDRS (8.6% of the working-age population versus 10.2% of
OKDRS clients), the significant numbers of Oklahoma citizens of Native
American/Alaska Native descent, combined with the high incidence of disability for this
minority (16.2%), make it an important group to monitor in future research.
65
THE FINDINGS
At the public meetings, several individuals discussed the provision of services to this
population. Cultural differences may inhibit communication or interaction between
Native American/Alaska Natives and OKDRS staff. Meeting participants indicated that
some tribal members are more comfortable when working with the tribal VR programs
and are not always open to state assistance. Additionally, when individuals of this
minority do apply for services with OKDRS, some may be more comfortable interacting
with a counselor who is also Native American. To the extent possible, these
considerations should be taken into account when working with this population.
OKDRS should also continue outreach to this population and collaboration with tribal
VR programs.
TABLE 40: Oklahoma Tribal VR Programs and 2016 Reported Number of Cases Served
Tribal Program Location Case Data ProvidedApache Tribe of Oklahoma Vocational Rehabilitation Program
Anadarko, OK 73005 248 cases
Cherokee Nation Vocational Rehabilitation Program
Tahlequah, OK 74465 78 Clients under an IPE
Cheyenne and Arapaho Vocational Rehabilitation Program
Concho, OK 73022 62 Active cases
Chickasaw Nation Vocational Rehabilitation Program
Ada, OK 74820 233 cases
Choctaw Nation Vocational Rehabilitation Program
Hugo, OK 74743 135 with an IPE – 30 closed last period- 180 in interrupted status
Comanche Nation Vocational Rehabilitation Program
Lawton OK 73502 42 cases
Delaware Nation Vocational Rehabilitation Program
Oklahoma City, OK 73139 34 cases w/ 19 co-served with the state
Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Vocational Rehabilitation Program
Perkins, OK 74059 126 Clients
Muscogee Creek Nation Vocational Rehabilitation Program
Okemah OK 74859 No Count Provided
Sources: The Tribal VR Programs
66
THE FINDINGS
TABLE 41: Tribal Jurisdictions in Oklahoma
Tribe Region of the StateAbsentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians CentralAlabama-Quassarte Tribal Town SoutheastApache Tribe of Oklahoma SouthwestCaddo Nation of Oklahoma NorthwestCherokee Nation NortheastCheyenne and Arapaho Tribes NorthwestCitizen Potawatomi Nation CentralComanche Nation SouthwestDelaware Nation NorthwestDelaware Tribe of Indians NortheastEastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma NortheastFort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma SouthwestIowa Tribe of Oklahoma CentralKaw Nation NorthcentralKialegee Tribal Town SoutheastKickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma CentralKiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma SouthwestMiami Tribe of Oklahoma NortheastModoc Tribe of Oklahoma NortheastMuscogee (Creek) Nation Northeast and CentralOttawa Tribe of Oklahoma NortheastOtoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians NorthcentralPawnee Nation of Oklahoma NorthcentralPeoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma NortheastPonca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma NorthcentralQuapaw Tribe of Indians NortheastSac & Fox Nation CentralSeminole Nation of Oklahoma CentralSeneca-Cayuga Nation NortheastShawnee Tribe NortheastThe Chickasaw Nation SouthcentralThe Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma SoutheastThe Osage Nation NorthcentralThlopthlocco Tribal Town SoutheastTonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma NorthcentralUnited Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma NortheastWichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco and Tawakonie) Northwest
Wyandotte Nation Northeast
THE FINDINGS
TABLE 42: Native Population by Congressional District
Congressional District American Indian/ Alaska Native Population Count
Congressional District 1 42,653Congressional District 2 114,629Congressional District 3 43,905Congressional District 4 39,295Congressional District 5 33,617
Source: ACS 2014 S1810
OKDRS Services Provided to Clients Whose Cases Closed in FFY 2014 based on
Minority Status
For informational purposes only, Tables 43 and 44 show the most often authorized
services for OKDRS clients whose cases were closed in FFY 2014 based on racial
composition. Of the 28 available types of services, the top fifteen most authorized for
Caucasian only clients are included in Table 43, while the top fifteen services most
authorized for minority clients is included in Table 44.
68
THE FINDINGS
TABLE 43: Service – Caucasian Clients
Service Percentage
VR Counseling/Guidance 67.68%Diagnosis and Treatment 43.88%Transportation 39.71%Assessment 25.88%Maintenance 25.74%Information and Referral Services 25.04%Job Readiness Training 23.66%Job Placement Assistance 21.31%Other Services 15.25%Four-Year College/University Training 12.02%Miscellaneous Training 10.59%On-the-job Supports - Short term 9.57%Rehabilitation Technology 9.39%Occupational or Vocational Training 8.75%Job Search Assistance 8.45%
Source: RSA 911 Federal report
TABLE 44: Service – Minority Clients
Service – Minority Clients Percentage
VR Counseling/Guidance 60.62%Transportation 41.85%Diagnosis and Treatment 37.61%Assessment 28.44%Maintenance 27.19%Job Readiness Training 22.94%Information and Referral Services 19.58%Job Placement Assistance 19.50%Other Services 13.67%On-the-job Supports - Short term 13.45%Miscellaneous Training 10.79%Job Search Assistance 9.60%Four-Year College/University Training 9.16%Occupational or Vocational Training 7.46%On-the-job Supports -- Supported Employment 7.46%
Source: RSA 911 Federal report
69
THE FINDINGS
Service Needs of those who are Unserved or Underserved
Research staff examined a variety of data in an attempt to identify unserved or
underserved populations. The greatest level of disproportionality in service provision
was found not in race/ethnicity comparisons, but across all individuals with disabilities in
specific counties within the state. The research team used ArcGIS mapping analysis to
compare the number of clients being served by OKDRS to ACS disability estimates for
counties in the state of Oklahoma. The resulting map was used to determine if any
areas of the state were being underserved by OKDRS. A copy of the map is included
on the following page, as well as an accessible Table 45 containing the same county
percentage-served data.
Overall, fifteen counties, all in rural areas of the state, were identified as being
underserved. Statistics show that in those counties, OKDRS is only serving between
0.74% and 2.19% of the working-age disabled adult population. In comparison,
counties with the highest ratio of service provision to clients ranged from 6.7% to
11.18%. The individuals with disabilities in these areas were designated as the target
population for four of six public meetings.
70
THE FINDINGS
TABLE 45: Estimated Percentage of the Working Aged Population VR/S Served per County during SFY 2015 (JAWS Accessible Table of Mapped Data)
0.74 - 2.19% 2.20 - 3.16% 3.17 - 4.56% 4.57 - 6.69% 6.70 - 11.18%
Adair Beaver Jackson Woodward CoalBlaine Beckham Caddo Alfalfa Greer
Cimarron Carter Canadian Atoka WoodsCotton Cherokee Choctaw Bryan
Delaware Cleveland Comanche EllisDewey Craig Creek Garvin
Johnston Custer Garfield HarmonLincoln Grant Grady HarperMcClain Jefferson Hughes Haskell
McCurtain Kingfisher Kay KiowaOttawa Le Flore Latimer Muskogee
Roger Mills Logan Major OklahomaStephens Love Marshall PittsburgTillman McIntosh Murray Pontotoc
Wagoner Mayes Okmulgee TulsaNoble Pawnee
Nowata PottawatomieOkfuskee Pushmataha
Osage RogersPayne Sequoyah
Seminole WashingtonTexas
Washita Sources: AWARE and ACS 2014
THE FINDINGS
Public Meetings in Underserved Regions
As indicated previously, based on the ArcGIS mapping analysis, the research team
conducted six public meetings around the state during October and November of 2015.
Four of these took place in cities in those rural areas identified as being underserved,
including Guymon, Duncan, Pryor, and Poteau. These cities were chosen based on
their size, the proximity to underserved counties, and the availability of a government-
owned facility with an accessible meeting space.
A summary of the feedback from the rural area meetings identified the following service
issues:
There is confusion amongst the public regarding the agency’s functions and
services. Some individuals believe OKDRS to be a drug recovery or prison
rehabilitation agency, instead of an employment agency for individuals with
disabilities. Some individuals also believe the agency divisions (VR/VS) are
separate entities and not a part of OKDRS.
In rural areas, it is hard to fill OKDRS staff positions. This results in vacant
caseloads and diminished services to clients.
Transportation is a problem statewide. Clients need more transportation
options that are affordable and available at all times during the day/week. Also,
most transportation is currently reliant on grants, so routes and services are not
steady.
Some business owners have a fear of increased liability if they employ an
individual with a disability. The employers feel the individual with a disability is
more likely to be injured in the workplace.
There is a fear of an increased possibility of fraud if businesses employ ex-
offenders with disabilities.
Businesses and clients fail to understand that OKDRS can provide equipment to
assist clients with performing job functions that is beyond what is considered
reasonable under the ADA.
Some tribal members are more comfortable when working with tribal VR and
are not always open to state assistance. They are more likely to seek
72
THE FINDINGS
assistance within family. Some are more comfortable with a counselor who is
also Native American.
The following suggestions were made:
The OKDRS agency should undertake the challenge of rebranding in order to
clarify the purpose and mission of the agency as well as eligibility requirements.
More public service announcements to promote agency services.
More outreach regarding our services (booths at city events or regional
festivals) including events that are not specific to individuals with disabilities.
OKDRS should investigate alternative transportation options.
Provide information to employers to help reduce their fear of employing
individuals with disabilities.
Provide information regarding the Federal bonding program for business
protection from employee fraud.
Permit staff to use technology more to allow more personal contact with clients.
For example, counselors could use their state assigned mobile phones and
tablets to spend less time in the office and more time in the field. It was noted
that very few clients come in without appointments and walk-ins are very rare in
most field offices in rural areas. Counselor/client meetings could be modeled
after the current VA system and incorporate having a counselor in a local
Workforce office at least part-time.
Offices with locked doors need awnings or if awnings cannot be installed,
counselors/techs need to operate by appointment on rainy days.
73
THE FINDINGS
Offenders with Disabilities, Veterans, and Transition Age Youth
Based on further analyses, three additional categories of possibly underserved groups
were identified. These included offenders with disabilities, veterans, and transition age
youth. The research staff sought additional information on these three populations.
According to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections 2014 annual report, there were
28,161 incarcerated offenders, of which 16,092 (57%) have a history of or were
experiencing current symptoms of a mental illness. There were 9,432 (33%) offenders
with current symptoms of a mental illness, and 6,343 offenders who were receiving
psychotropic medications. While exact numbers are unavailable, a large majority of
these offenders with mental illnesses may be eligible for OKDRS services once they are
approved for release from confinement.
According to the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs State Summaries - Oklahoma, as
of 9/30/2014, there were 84,170 veterans receiving disability compensation in
Oklahoma. This is a significant increase from the 63,741 veterans receiving disability
compensation in 2010. Of the 7,691 cases closed during FFY 2014, only 413 clients
indicated a veteran status. Given the large number of veterans receiving disability
compensation in the state, there is clearly an opportunity for OKDRS to serve, or co-
serve in conjunction with the Veteran’s Administration, a greater number of veterans.
Research shows that transition aged youth may also be underserved. Further
information on Transition Age Youth is provided in the “Needs of Transition Aged Youth”
section of this report.
74
THE FINDINGS
Service Needs Being Met by WIOA
Data was provided from Workforce regarding how many individuals with disabilities
were served statewide during program year 2015 by types of service and closure types.
This information is provided in Table 46.
TABLE 46: WIOA Service Data
Service Disabled Not Disclosed
Program Services 1471 6617.50% 3.30%
Staff-Assisted Core Services 1466 6597.50% 3.40%
Self-Service Core Services 0 0NA NA
Intensive Services 194 836.30% 2.70%
Training Services 95 325.10% 1.70%
Individual Training Accounts 91 315.10% 1.70%
Youth Services 197 4114.30% 3.00%
Supportive Services 80 258.70% 2.70%
Follow-Up Services 19 57.60% 2.00%
Exiters 1004 4208.00% 3.40%
Exiters Entering Employment 256 1086.30% 2.70%
Exiters Attending School at Exit (Youth) 0 0NA NA
Exiters Attending Post-Secondary Education, Military Service, Apprenticeship (Youth)
12 135.30% 2.90%
Source: Oklahoma Workforce
75
THE FINDINGS
Available definitions of WIOA services cited in Table 46 are provided below.
PROGRAM SERVICES - Definition was not provided or available in
documentation.
CORE SERVICES - Services are available to all persons who seek assistance at
any One-Stop Center or affiliate employment service provider. This may include:
job search and placement assistance, labor market information, training
information, information about filing for unemployment, food stamps or public
benefits, child care or transportation assistance.
INTENSIVE SERVICES - Services available to adults and dislocated workers
who have completed one or more Core Services and are still unable to gain
employment OR who are employed and have been determined in need of
services to get a better job in order to gain self-sufficiency. Intensive Services
include individual career planning, resume preparation, job clubs, career
counseling, internships, and comprehensive assessments. Basic education, ESL,
and basic computer literacy are also sometimes considered Intensive Services.
TRAINING SERVICES - The education and employment training services to be
offered at no cost to One-Stop system customers who have been unable to get a
job after having received one or more Core Services and one or more intensive
services (see also Individual Training Account --ITA).
INDIVIDUAL TRAINING ACCOUNT (ITA) - An expenditure account established
on behalf of a participant that provides for vocational training.
YOUTH PROGRAM ELEMENTS / SERVICES - Local youth programs must
make the following elements available to youth participants: Tutoring, study skills
training, instruction and evidence based dropout prevention and recovery
strategies that lead to completion of the requirements for a secondary school
diploma or its recognized equivalent; Alternative secondary school services of
dropout prevention strategies; Paid and unpaid work experience that have as a
component academic and occupational education. This may include summer
employment opportunities, pre-apprenticeship programs, internships, job
shadowing and on the job training opportunities; Occupational skills training;
76
THE FINDINGS
Education offered concurrently with and in the same context as workforce
preparation activities and training for a specific occupation or occupational
cluster; Leadership development opportunities; Supportive services; Adult
mentoring; Follow-up services for not less than 12 months; Comprehensive
guidance and counseling; Financial Literacy Education; Entrepreneurial skills
training; Service that provide labor market and employment information; Activities
that help youth prepare for and transition to postsecondary education. Note:
Local programs have the discretion to determine what specific program services
will be provided to a youth participant, based on each participant’s objective
assessment and individual service strategy.
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES - Services that are needed to help a person to
participate in job training or job search. Supportive services may include
transportation, health care, financial assistance, drug and alcohol abuse
counseling and referral, individual and family counseling, special services and
materials for individuals with disabilities, job coaches, child care and dependent
care, temporary shelter, financial counseling, and other reasonable expenses
required for participation in the program and may be provided in-kind or through
cash assistance.
FOLLOW-UP - The tracking of what happens to participants when they leave the
WIA program for a period of 180 days after first job placement. The reporting
requirements include the following information: employment status (number of
Entered Employments/Placements at 180 days after program has ended),
average hourly wage (earnings change at 180 days after program has ended),
and job retention (of those enrolled in training, provide number of those still
employed in trained occupation at 180 days after program has ended.
EXIT - To separate a participant who is no longer receiving any WIA funded
enrollment training or services (except follow-up services) or non-WIA funded
services included in the service plan.
HARD EXIT - The exiting of a WIA youth participant who has a date case
closure, completion or known exit from WIA funded or non-WIA funded partner
services. This must be initiated by the caseworker in two places:
77
THE FINDINGS
o In the case detail under "exit", and
o In the case detail under "programs of enrollment."
SOFT EXIT - When a participant has not received any WIA funded or non-WIA
funded partner service for 90 days and is not scheduled to receive any future
service except follow up services. This is done by Service Link automatically
following the 90-day period.
In addition to the WIOA data provided by Workforce above, multiple representatives of
OKDRS partner organizations attended the public meetings and provided feedback.
The following concerns and suggestions were made regarding OKDRS collaboration
with Workforce centers and their clients:
OKDRS counselors are not always readily available to assist clients from
Workforce referrals. Workforce staff would like an increased partnership with
OKDRS to better serve mutual clients and believe having an OKDRS counselor
located in the Workforce office, at least part-time, would be helpful.
Counselor/client meetings could be modeled after the current VA system.
OKDRS employees should work with Workforce staff to obtain in-demand
occupation lists and economic modeling data to better identify useful job training
skills in particular regions.
The service numbers provided by Workforce and the public meeting information indicate
a possibility for increased collaboration between DRS and Workforce under the new
WIOA guidelines to provide additional collaborative services to individuals in Oklahoma
with disabilities.
78
THE FINDINGS
Need to Establish, Develop, or Improve Community Rehabilitation Programs
A portion of the VR/VS staff survey was used to determine if OKDRS VR and VS staff
believe the Community Rehabilitation Programs (CRPs) currently operating in the state
are sufficient to meet the needs of VR/VS clients. The staff survey included six
questions regarding the availability, effectiveness, and quality of CRPs in the state of
Oklahoma. The results of the survey questions are provided below:
75.67% of VR/VS staff agreed with the statement: “Staff turnover at CRP
agencies is an issue.”
Only 26.36% of VR/VS staff agreed with the statement: “There are an adequate
number of CRPs to meet the needs of people with disabilities seeking
employment.”
Only 58.71% of VR/VS staff agreed with the statement: “CRPs understand the
vocational/employment services provided by DRS.”
Only 58.88% of VR/VS staff agreed with the statement: “I am able to provide
effective vocational rehabilitation services to DRS consumers using the existing
CRPs.”
Only 59.26% of VR/VS staff agreed with the statement: “CRPs are
knowledgeable about providing appropriate services for DRS consumers.”
Only 62.50% of VR/VS staff agreed with the statement: “CRPs hire and train
qualified staff to serve DRS consumers.”
In addition, the 2016 VR/VS Open Case Satisfaction Survey report indicates that only
71.0% of clients are likely to agree with the statement: “I am satisfied with the quality of
services from my Job Coach.”
The majority of employment vendor locations are concentrated in the OKC and Tulsa
metropolitan areas and there are limited vendors in western or southeastern Oklahoma.
A few vendors do provide services statewide, but the actual vendor location is important
to note.
79
THE FINDINGS
Taken together, the data available indicate that OKDRS clients could benefit from
improved CRP availability statewide and an increase in CRP staff training and skills.
Increased monitoring or analysis of current employment vendors could also be
beneficial.
A map and accessible table of the current OKDRS employment vendors’ locations is
included on the following pages.
80
THE FINDINGS
TABLE 47: Employment Vendor and Location
Name City State Zip Code
A Step Ahead Counseling, LLC Oklahoma City OK 73103ABLE - Council for Developmental Disabilities Norman OK 73071Achieve With Us Staffing Tulsa OK 74103Apex, Inc. Anadarko OK 73005Bridges Foundation Tulsa OK 74110Building Futures for Tomorrow Independence KS 67301Career Solutions Services, LLC Oklahoma City OK 73149Career Strategies, Inc. Oklahoma City OK 73106Central Technology Center Sapulpa OK 74066Cherish Unlimited Peru KS 67360Community Development Support Assoc. (CDSA) Enid OK 73701Community Enterprises, Inc. Enid OK 73701Competitive Edge Learning Center Oklahoma City OK 73170CREOKS Behavioral Health Services Okmulgee OK 74447Dale Rogers Training Center Oklahoma City OK 73107Dynasty Care Services, LLC Dell City OK 73115Employment Resources Tulsa OK 74136Engage Life Institute Jenks OK 74037Gatesway Foundation, Inc. Broken Arrow OK 74012Golden Rule Industries of Muskogee, Inc. Muskogee OK 74401Goodwill Industries of Central Oklahoma Oklahoma City OK 73108Goodwill Industries of Tulsa, Inc. Tulsa OK 74107Grand Lake Mental Health Center, Inc. Nowata OK 74048Hope Community Services, Inc. Oklahoma City OK 73134Independent Career Consultants Oklahoma City OK 73139Job Connection Independence KS 67301LifeGate Freedom Recovery Ministries Sapulpa OK 74066
THE FINDINGS
Name City State Zip Code
LifePath Career and Life Coaching, LLC Oklahoma City OK 73127Major Group LLC Tulsa OK 74135Monarch, Inc. Muskogee OK 74401MPower Stillwater OK 74074MTB Management, LLC dba Responsive Individual and Family Services Midwest City OK 73130
NorthCare Oklahoma City OK 73112Not Just Jobs Sulphur OK 73086Oklahoma Center of Empowerment LLC Tulsa OK 74119Oklahoma Southeast Jurisdiction Cogic (OKSE Urban Initiatives Jobs) Oklahoma City OK 73117
O'Neal Vocational Consulting Oklahoma City OK 73142Pathways of Oklahoma Durant OK 74701Premier Behavioral Health & Therapeutic Services Oklahoma City OK 73118Red-Rock Behavioral Health Service Oklahoma City OK 73105ResCare Workforce Services-Employment First Oklahoma City OK 73127Resume Solutions LLC OKC OK 73113S & S Career Services, LLC Midwest City OK 73110Sassin and Associates, Inc. Tulsa OK 74104Sight Hearing Encouragement Program (SHEP) Bethany OK 73008Success Links Tulsa OK 74136Sunshine Industries Ardmore OK 73401Ultra Link Employment Drumright OK 74030Vinita Public Schools Vinita OK 74301Your Key to Change Oklahoma City OK 73112
Source: OKDRS
82
THE FINDINGS
Needs of Youth with Disabilities, and Students with Disabilities, including Their Need for Pre-employment Transition Services or Other Transition Services
Target versus Served Population
Each year, the Oklahoma Office of Educational Quality and Accountability releases a
profile state report for the Oklahoma Educational Indicators Program. According to the
2010 and 2014 reports, the percentage of students with an IEP in public schools has
increased slightly from 14.5% in 2009-2010 to 15.1% in 2013-2014. This is up from the
approximate 12% rate documented in the 1990’s and equivalent to a growth rate of
0.41% in four years. For the 2013-2014 school year, this equates to 101,340 Oklahoma
students qualified for the special education program, 30,017 of whom attend public high
schools and may be eligible for OKDRS services. This figure does not include high
school students at the state’s specialty schools, the Oklahoma School for the Blind or
the Oklahoma School for the Deaf. Conversely, 2,004 transition students whose cases
were closed in FFY 2014 were provided with paid services. Clearly, there is significant
opportunity to expand services to meet the needs of a greater number of students with
disabilities statewide.
Historical Perspective
In the 2008 RSA monitoring report, successful employment of transitional youth was
cited as an area requiring additional study. Between 2002 and 2007, the OKDRS
employment rate for transitional youth ranged from 27.87% to 44.80% and had been
steadily declining from 2002 forward. Since 2008, the employment rate has increased
significantly, reaching as high as 68.36% in FFY 2010. In FFY 2014, the latest period
for which data is provided, the employment rate for transition age youth was 55.53%,
just slightly below the national average of 57.39%.
Between 2008 and 2014, OKDRS initiated numerous proactive steps to meet the needs
of and increase the likelihood of employment outcomes for transition students. These
steps included the hiring of a statewide transition coordinator who significantly improved
the uniformity of policies and practices for agency staff, initiated the development of
THE FINDINGS
extended partnerships to increase employment experience opportunities for transition
clients, and spearheaded the creation of many innovative programs and summer camps
to develop job readiness and employability skills in this population. Continued attention
to these factors would enhance the agency’s success in meeting the needs of transition
students for competitive employment.
Identification of Needs of Oklahoma Transition Age Youth
To comply with new requirements cited in the recently-passed WIOA, an examination of
the outcomes and needs of transition age youth was incorporated late in the overall
study strategy. The methodological approach to obtaining information on this
population was three pronged: 1) public meetings to obtain feedback from the public,
including potential clients, providers, and educational partners; 2) a review of recently
published literature; and 3) surveys of counselors who serve transition age youth
clients.
Public Meetings
At the public meetings held statewide in October and November 2015, attendance of
individuals interested specifically in the topic of transitional age youth was low; however,
representatives of public education were present to express the concerns and needs on
behalf of their students at the meeting held in Tulsa. Feedback indicated that increased
communication between public schools and OKDRS would enhance the partners’
relationship and cooperation in order to serve transition clients. There was some
confusion voiced by several meeting participants regarding the availability, types, and
extent of services offered by the agency to this population. The expression of these
concerns indicates a need for greater OKDRS outreach to public educational facilities
and increased communication between the partners to achieve successful outcomes on
the part of these students.
84
THE FINDINGS
Literature Review
A brief review was conducted of recently published literature, both in peer reviewed
journals and practitioner-authored articles. It is still debated whether or not there is
sufficient data available to accurately identify the service needs of transition students
(National Council on Disability, 2008); however, within the sources examined three
identifiable trends emerge: the need for family support (Wehman et al, 2014; Parker et
al, 2000), self-determination (Field et al, 1998; Parker et al, 2000; Wehmeyer, M. I.,
2003), and an increased collaboration between Vocational Rehabilitation professionals
and community partners (Gould & Bellamy, 1985; National Council on Disability, 2008;
Office of Disability Employment Policy, 2013).
Family Support
For at least three decades, researchers have focused on the positive impact of family
support on the success of individuals with disabilities to achieve their goals, both
personal and with regards to employment. Of course, it should be noted that during
those 30 years, the definition and dynamics of the term “family” have drastically
morphed; no longer is a family limited to the immediate blood relations such as parent
or sibling. Rather, extended relationships are now equally often the norm, with
grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and even friends with no hereditary tie to the
individual forming the family nucleus. RSA administrators acknowledged this
terminology evolvement when drafting federal regulations, altering the definition of
family to include anyone “who has a substantial interest in the well-being of the
individual” (34 CRF 361.5, Parker et al, 2000).
The role of these “family” members is unique within the VR setting. There should be no
intent to dictate, control, or manipulate the actions or decisions of a VR client. Rather,
the purpose of this support net is to advise, to challenge, to provide insight and new
ideas to the client, based upon their more developed knowledge and life experiences.
Adhering to these parameters may prove a challenge for some family members who
feel they know what is “best” for, who have low expectations of, or who themselves may
85
THE FINDINGS
lack the knowledge and experience to assist, the client (Stewart, et al, 2006). Other
clients may have no family members or support from individuals they feel they can trust.
As a result, the best estimates available indicate that only 25% of all transition age
youth have familial support in reaching their goals (Parker et al, 2000).
Self-Determination
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended is clear that clients should enjoy the right to
self-determination. In the broadest sense, self-determination refers to a client’s ability to
make choices regarding the direction of their lives (Field et al, 1998; Wehmeyer, M. L.,
2003). Within the context of Vocational Rehabilitation, this construct is closely linked
with the concept of informed choice – ensuring the client has all of the information
necessary to make an informed decision regarding opportunities, services, and goals.
As discussed previously, while family support is clearly necessary to the transitional
youth’s success, self-determination is somewhat different; shifting the locus of control to
the client and allowing them the ultimate power to determine their future.
Wehmeyer (2003) conducted a study involving 80 transition age youth with mild
intellectual disabilities, measured during their senior year of high school and again one
year later. Results showed a direct correlation between self-determination scores and
youth-reported preferences to be more independent – to live independently, to manage
a bank account, and to hold employment for pay. Eighty percent of the transition age
youth involved in the study who scored highly on self-determination were employed in a
paying job one year after high school graduation. Only 43% of transitional youth who
exhibited low self-determination characteristics were likewise employed. Additionally,
youth exhibiting high levels of self-determination earned significantly higher wages –
$4.26 per hour median versus $1.93 per hour median. A later study by Wehmeyer
replicated the results. Clearly, these studies demonstrate the value of self-
determination skills for transitional age youth.
Unfortunately, VR clients may lack these vital abilities. Cometo (2005) examined data
from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 and found that only 58% of transition
86
THE FINDINGS
age youth reported providing some level of input in the development of his or her IEP
and only 12% indicated he or she took a leadership role in that process. Based upon
these data, challenges exist in building the necessary skills to leverage this need into
successful outcomes for transitional youth.
Increased Collaboration with Community Partners
One of the primary challenges identified by researchers in obtaining successful
outcomes for transitional age youth is a lack of effective collaboration with partner
organizations (Office of Disability Employment Policy, 2013). Dysfunction in
relationships may occur at any point in the chain of service providers – between
education and rehabilitation, between rehabilitation and contract or community service
providers, or between contract/community providers and clients. No single partner is at
fault for or immune from these collaborative breakdowns. The Office of Disability
Employment Policy (2013) points out that factors contributing to these issues often
include, “differing agency cultures, lack of interagency agreements, differing
perspectives on the correct and appropriate ways to treat youth populations…and a lack
of funding for collaboration and coordination.”
The National Council on Disability (2008) cites additional factors contributing to these
dysfunctional professional relationships, such as “lack of personnel, service unit credit
policies, and dedicated transition units in local rehabilitation agencies.” Benz, Lindstrom
and Latta (1999) indicate that collaboration between schools and VR agencies is often
limited to referral of students to the VR program. Cimera and Rusch (2000) cite the
compounded challenges for collaboration for transitional youth who live in rural areas
where agency representation may be small and community partnership availability
limited.
As a result of all of these issues, services to the transitional youth population may
become fragmented. Duplication of services, gaps in services, or the provision of
inappropriate services may result from these ineffectual relationships; all factors
87
THE FINDINGS
counter-productive in positioning VR transitional clients to achieve their desired
outcomes.
Counselor Survey
OKDRS counselors were surveyed to obtain their perspective on the most
valuable/effective services provided by the agency to transition age youth as well as
needs of students for services not provided by the agency. The survey was distributed
electronically utilizing SurveyMonkey.com. Records indicate the agency currently
employs counselors on 105 caseloads; however, not all caseloads serve transition age
youth. Counselors were instructed to ignore the survey if 1) they had no current
transition age youth on their caseload OR 2) they had not had a transition age youth on
their caseload within the past year. Twenty nine responses were received. The results
of the survey are provided below:
1) In your experience, what are the most important services DRS can provide to transition students to obtain a successful outcome?
Counselor Response Percentage
School Work Study 48.15%Counseling/Guidance 37.04%Employment Experiences 22.22%Job Club/Job Readiness Training 22.22%Training/Post-Secondary Preparation 18.52%Work Adjustment 14.81%Vocational Assessment 14.81%Benefits Planning 7.41%Self-Efficacy 7.41%Information/Referral Services 3.70%Driver’s Training 3.70%Collaboration with Transition Team Members 3.70%
88
THE FINDINGS
2) In your experience, what are the greatest needs of transition students to obtain a successful outcome that DRS is currently not providing or is unable to provide?
Counselor Response Percentage
Greater Parental Involvement/Support 29.17%More Employment Experiences 25.00%Transportation 16.67%More intensive Job Club/Job Readiness Training 8.33%Better cooperation among partners 8.33%Monthly discussions/modules with students 4.16%Development of Independent Living skills 4.16%Phones for students 4.16%Increased translation services 4.16%Soft skills 4.16%Development of Self-determinism 4.16%Increased disability awareness 4.16%Housing 4.16%
3) Rate your agreement with the following statement: Transition students are aware of the expectations of an eventual employment outcome from the program:
Answer Choices Percentage
Always 27.59%Often 34.48%Sometimes 27.59%Rarely 10.34%Never 0.00%
89
THE FINDINGS
4) Rate your agreement with the following statement: Families of transition students are supportive of them obtaining competitive employment.
Answer Choices Percentage
Always 0.00%Often 20.69%Sometimes 65.52%Rarely 13.79%Never 0.00%
5) Rate your agreement with the following statement: Current opportunities for work-related experiences are adequate to meet the needs of transition students.
Answer Choices Percentage
Agree 10.34%Somewhat Agree 34.48%Somewhat Disagree 24.14%Disagree 31.03%
6) Open comments section:
Counselor Responses – redacted samples
Need increased collaborationCommunities differ in acceptance of the program. Education of community leaders/employers is lacking in many communities.It is difficult to find work-related experiences in small towns/communities.More programs for small communities.Need more work opportunities in the communities.This is a difficult situation for families. Parents want to protect their child and we attempt to show them the possibilities of success.
90
THE FINDINGS
There are clear parallels in the responses received from all three research
methodologies. First, the involvement and support of the transition age youth’s family,
even extended family, in the transition and employment process appears to be a key
factor in the student’s success. That goal, however, is more easily identified than
rectified. As one of the survey respondents indicated, basic human nature of parents
leads them to protect their children, a worthy attitude but one which may naturally
conflict with the need to allow those children to grow independently and assume greater
responsibility, including obtaining and maintaining competitive employment, as they
age. Only 20% of counselors indicated that the families of transition students were
“often” supportive of the youth in obtaining employment; 65% indicated this condition
only existed “sometimes” and nearly 14% felt their clients “rarely” received the benefit of
this vital success factor.
Second, multiple research results highlight the need for greater collaboration and
communication among the partners supporting the transition from student to
employment. This enhanced partnership must include not only the parents, the
vocational rehabilitation agency, and the secondary educational school, if the youth is
still enrolled during the transition phase, but also social service agencies, community
rehabilitation programs, tribal services, independent living service providers, technology
centers, and public, private, and online post-secondary education institutions.
According to the research, all of these partners must work closely together to support,
inform, educate, and ensure that the transitional age youth and their families receive
every benefit necessary to achieve and maintain ongoing success in the employment
realm.
Finally, the research underscores an apparent shortage of appropriate employment
experiences and opportunities in Oklahoma. Over 55% of counselors indicated that
they “disagree” or “strongly disagree” that opportunities for transition students to
experience real-life working situations are adequate to meet the needs of those youth.
Several counselors cited the unique challenges faced by “small rural communities,”
including a lack of understanding on the part of community leaders and businesses
91
THE FINDINGS
regarding OKDRS’s transition program and the needs of this client population, few or no
community providers of employment services to assist with job development and
placement, little or no public transportation infrastructure, and a limited number of
employers and/or job opportunities available to their clients. While these concerns were
linked specifically to community size and location, statistical data shows that they are
applicable to most of the state of Oklahoma. The U.S. Census Bureau recognizes three
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) in the state: Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Lawton.
These MSAs account for 60% of the overall population, but only 16 of Oklahoma’s 77
counties and 20% of the state’s land area. The remaining 40% of the state population,
1.45 million Oklahomans, reside in 61 counties stretching across over 56,000 square
miles. These realities regarding population density and location, in conjunction with the
identified “small, rural community” challenges, magnify the issues the agency faces in
meeting the needs of its transitional youth clients.
92
THE FINDINGS
Transportation
The need for additional transportation options for individuals with disabilities is
highlighted by the results of multiple analyses conducted during the course of the
Statewide Needs Assessment.
During the public meetings, it was noted that transportation is a problem statewide.
Clients need more transportation options that are affordable and available at all times
during the day/week, and that most transportation is currently reliant on grants, so
routes and services are not steady. Suggestions made for ways to expand
transportation options included van pooling to job sites and tax incentives for
businesses. A service called V-Ride was discussed in the Tulsa meeting as a potential
model program.
The VR/VS staff survey revealed that applicable OKDRS staff named transportation as
the top DRS service that is needed for individuals with the most significant disabilities.
It should be noted that in of all VR/VS cases closed in FFY 2014, 40.46% of clients
received transportation services from OKDRS. The staff survey findings also indicate
that providing more transportation training/options is considered the most important
action DRS can take to improve services to underserved populations of individuals with
disabilities. Two additional questions were included on the VR/VS staff survey
specifically addressing transportation barriers and recommended actions OKDRS can
take to improve transportation options for clients. The questions and results are
included below:
93
THE FINDINGS
Q15. What are the top THREE transportation barriers that exist for individuals with disabilities in Oklahoma? (select no more than 3)
Barrier Percentage
Public transit is not available in certain locations 92.73%
Public transit is not available after hours/late night 87.27%
Lack of knowledge about transit services, including schedules 31.82%
Public transit is unreliable 30.91%
Public transit is not accessible 27.27%
Public transit is unaffordable 11.82%
Other (please specify) 10.00%Total Respondents: 110
Q16. What are the THREE most important actions DRS should take to improve transportation options for the individuals we serve?
Action Percentage
Advocate for increased services and coverage 67.27%
Work with communities to expand transportation services 66.36%
Increase collaboration with transit providers 61.82%
Increase public awareness of transportation needs 41.82%
Apply for more grants/funding 29.09%
Work with clients to increase knowledge of transit services 17.27%
Other (please specify) 1.82%Total Respondents: 110
94
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Through the use of multiple research methodologies, the Process Improvement staff
sought to identify service needs of Oklahomans with disabilities. The following
recommendations were derived from the analyses.
OKDRS should place an emphasis on the importance of family support for
transition aged youth. Support of the youth’s goals by those the youth trusts is
important for successful outcomes. There are opportunities to develop
informational or participatory programs to increase family involvement.
o Literature Review for Transition Aged Youth – Pg. 92-93
o Counselor Transition Aged Youth Survey – Pg. 95-99
Opportunities exist for OKDRS to enhance communication between the agency,
parents, public schools, and other partners. Increased communication would
strengthen the partners’ relationships and cooperation in order to better serve
transition clients.
o Data from Public Meetings – Pg. 91
o Transition Aged Youth Research Highlights – Pg. 98
OKDRS should work to develop new sources of employment and job training
opportunities.
o Data from OKDRS VR/VS Staff Survey – Pg. 64
o Counselor Transition Aged Youth Survey – Pg. 97-99
OKDRS should focus resources on improving CRP availability statewide,
including supported employment. Additional efforts should target improvement in
existing CRP staff training and skills to enhance the quality of services available
to agency clients.
o Service Needs of those with the Most Significant Disabilities, including
Supported Employment – Pg. 63-65
o OKDRS VR/VS Staff Survey – Pg. 85
o 2016 VR/VS Open Case Satisfaction Survey report – Pg. 85
o Employment Vendor location mapping – Pg. 87
95
RECOMMENDATIONS
OKDRS should increase the monitoring and analysis of current employment
vendors, including Supported Employment. (Please note, the OKDRS Process
Improvement Unit is currently collaborating with the Employment Support
Services Unit to develop an employment vendor study.)
o Service Needs of those with the Most Significant Disabilities, including
Supported Employment – Pg. 63-65
o OKDRS VR/VS staff survey – Pg. 85
o 2016 VR/VS Open Case Satisfaction Survey – Pg.85
Within financial and staffing limitations, OKDRS should investigate opportunities
to expand services to underserved areas of the state and to underserved
populations, including former offenders, veterans, and transition age youth.
o Underserved Regions of the State – Pg. 76-77
o Service Needs of Offenders and Veterans – Pg. 80
o Service Needs of Transition Age Youth – Pg. 90
Research indicates that cultural differences may be a factor in services provided
to Native American/Alaska Natives populations. Information obtained during the
public meetings indicated that some tribal members are more comfortable when
working with tribal VR and also more comfortable with a counselor who is also
Native American. To the extent possible, these considerations should be taken
into account when working with this population. OKDRS should also continue
outreach to this population and collaboration with tribal VR programs.
o Service Needs of Minorities – Pg. 67-73
o Data from Public Meetings – Pg. 79
Counselors in Congressional District 2 should be made aware that 42% of
Oklahoma’s Native American/Alaskan Native population resides in their area.
While all counselors need to be familiar with the availability of tribal vocational
rehabilitation services, counselors serving clients in Congressional District 2 may
need to develop a closer working relationship with the local tribes and their
representatives.
o ACS 2014 Data – Pg. 25
96
RECOMMENDATIONS
o Service Needs of Minorities – Pg. 67-73
The OKDRS agency should undertake the challenge of rebranding in order to
clarify the purpose and mission of the agency as well as eligibility requirements.
o Public Meeting Data – Pg. 78-79
Opportunities exist for OKDRS to increase outreach regarding services by 1)
having staff available to provide information at city events or regional festivals,
including events that are not specific to individuals with disabilities, and 2) more
public service announcements to provide information regarding agency services
and those who might be eligible for OKDRS assistance.
o Public Meeting Data – Pg. 79
OKDRS should advocate for increased transportation services and coverage
and increase collaboration with transportation providers and communities to help
expand the transportation services that are available to clients. This should
include investigating alternative transportation options: for example, van pooling
to job sites and tax incentives for businesses including areas not served by
traditional transit and after-hours service.
o Service Needs of those with the Most Significant Disabilities, including
Supported Employment with data from the OKDRS VR/VS Staff survey
Pg. 62-64
o Public Meeting Data – Pg. 78-79
o Transportation Finding with additional data from the OKDRS VR/VS Staff
survey Pg. 100-101
OKDRS should provide more information to possible employers to help reduce
their fear of employing individuals with disabilities, including information
regarding the Federal bonding program for business protection from employee
fraud.
o Public Meeting Data – Pg. 78-79
OKDRS should continue increasing collaboration with Workforce staff under the
new WIOA guidelines.
o WIOA Data – Pg. 84
97
EXHIBITS
Extract from VR/VS Staff Survey from Survey Monkey
Q1. What is your job title?
Counselor 33.33% 42
Tech 26.98% 34
Program Manager, Field Coordinator, or Division Administrator 9.52% 12
Other 30.16% 38
Total Respondents: 126
Q2. In what region do you primarily work?
OKC metro 25.20% 31
Tulsa metro 13.82% 17
Western Oklahoma (west of I-35) excluding OKC metro 15.45% 19
Eastern Oklahoma (east of I-35) excluding OKC or Tulsa metro 25.20% 31
Multi-region or Statewide 20.33% 25
Total Respondents: 123
EXHIBITS
Q3. Based on your experience, please indicate the top THREE DRS services that are needed for individuals with the most significant disabilities. (select no more than 3 items)
Job skills training 68.80% 86
Soft skills training 55.20% 69
Post-secondary education 13.60% 17
Case management 12.80% 16
Accessibility and accommodations 37.60% 47
Assistive technology 24.00% 30
Transportation 70.40% 88
Other (please specify) 17.60% 22
Total Respondents: 125
Q4. Based on your experience, which populations of individuals with disabilities do you believe to be underserved by DRS? (select all that apply)
Individuals with developmental disabilities 23.33% 28
Individuals with physical disabilities 17.50% 21
Individuals with psychiatric disabilities 43.33% 52
Transition-aged youth 14.17% 17
Non-English speakers 21.67% 26
Veterans 24.17% 29
Substance abusers 20.83% 25
Ex-offenders 31.67% 38
Other (please specify) 18.33% 22
Total Respondents: 120
99
EXHIBITS
Q5. What are the THREE most important actions DRS can take to improve services to underserved populations of individuals with disabilities? (select no more than 3 items)
Increase staff outreach to consumers 19.35% 24Increase agency outreach to community organizations 29.84% 37Increase interagency collaboration 38.71% 48Increase counselor skills/training for serving individuals
with specific disabilities 36.29% 45
Increase agency outreach to employers 38.71% 48Offer more job skills training 28.23% 35Offer more soft skills training 19.35% 24Employ more multilingual staff 11.29% 14Provide more transportation training/options 44.35% 55Other (please specify) 16.13% 20
Total Respondents: 124
Q6. CRPs hire and train qualified staff to serve DRS consumers.
Strongly Agree 11.61% 13
Agree 50.89% 57
Disagree 31.25% 35
Strongly Disagree 6.25% 7
Total Respondents: 112
Q7. Staff turnover at CRP agencies is an issue.
Strongly Agree 20.72% 23
Agree 54.95% 61
Disagree 22.52% 25
Strongly Disagree 1.80% 2
Total Respondents: 111
100
EXHIBITS
Q8. CRPs understand the vocational/employment services provided by DRS.
Strongly Agree 6.42% 7
Agree 52.29% 57
Disagree 36.70% 40
Strongly Disagree 4.59% 5
Total Respondents: 109
Q9. I am able to provide effective vocational rehabilitation services to DRS consumers using the existing CRPs.
Strongly Agree 1.87% 2
Agree 57.01% 61
Disagree 39.25% 42
Strongly Disagree 1.87% 2
Total Respondents: 107
Q10. CRPs are knowledgeable about providing appropriate services for DRS consumers.
Strongly Agree 3.70% 4
Agree 55.56% 60
Disagree 36.11% 39
Strongly Disagree 4.63% 5
Total Respondents: 108
101
EXHIBITS
Q11. There are an adequate number of CRPs to meet the needs of people with disabilities seeking employment.
Strongly Agree 1.82% 2
Agree 24.55% 27
Disagree 60.00% 66
Strongly Disagree 13.64% 15
Total Respondents: 110
Q12. The availability of supported employment services for people with disabilities is adequate.
Strongly Agree 4.55% 5
Agree 25.45% 28
Disagree 55.45% 61
Strongly Disagree 14.55% 16
Total Respondents: 110
Q13. The quality of supported employment services is adequate.
Strongly Agree 2.73% 3
Agree 34.55% 38
Disagree 52.73% 58
Strongly Disagree 10.00% 11
Total Respondents: 110
102
EXHIBITS
Q14. Based on your experience, what barriers to supported employment still exist for individuals with the most significant disabilities? (Select all that apply)
Lack of funding 20.37% 22Lack of accessibility to services (i.e., services are limited to those
with certain disabilities) 58.33% 63
Lack of time 24.07% 26Other (please specify) 37.96% 41
Total Respondents: 108
Q15. What are the top THREE transportation barriers that exist for individuals with disabilities in Oklahoma? (select no more than 3)
Public transit is not available in certain locations 92.73% 102Public transit is not accessible 27.27% 30
Public transit is unreliable 30.91% 34
Public transit is unaffordable 11.82% 13
Public transit is not available after hours/late night 87.27% 96
Lack of knowledge about transit services, including schedules 31.82% 35
Other (please specify) 10.00% 11
Total Respondents: 110
103
EXHIBITS
Q16. What are the THREE most important actions DRS should take to improve transportation options for the individuals we serve?
Apply for more grants/funding 29.09% 32
Advocate for increased services and coverage 67.27% 74
Increase public awareness of transportation needs 41.82% 46
Work with communities to expand transportation services 66.36% 73
Work with clients to increase knowledge of transit services 17.27% 19
Increase collaboration with transit providers 61.82% 68
Other (please specify) 1.82% 2
Total Respondents: 110
104
EXHIBITS
Extract from VR/VS Open-Case Customer Satisfaction Survey
Key Findings
The 2016 VR/VS Client Satisfaction Survey was returned by 428 out of 1,997 clients, for a response rate of 21.4%. This is enough for a confidence level of 95%, plus or minus a 5% margin of error, indicating a representative sample.
The overall valid satisfaction rate for VR and VS is 84.8%, a slight increase from the overall satisfaction rate reported in the 2015 survey (82.4%) and a 5-year high.
The overall valid satisfaction rate for VR (84.2%) rose slightly from last year’s satisfaction rate of 83.1%.
The overall valid satisfaction rate for VS (89.1%) rose 8.6 percentage points from last year’s satisfaction rate of 80.5%.
The highest agreement rates were for statements regarding whether clients felt their counselor treated them with respect (95.5%) and whether their counselor helps them clearly understand what the program is about (89.9%).
The lowest agreement rate was for Statement 12: I understand the availability and the role of CAP (66.4%). In addition, 56 clients did not respond or answered NA to this statement (13.1% of the total respondent population).
Only 71.0% of respondents agreed with the statement: I am satisfied with the quality of services from my Job Coach. In addition, only 72.8% of respondents agreed with the statement: When my employment plan was developed, I took the lead in its development.
An open ended question regarding unmet needs was included in the survey. The largest categories of responses (in order) focused on clients needing more information/communication from their counselor, equipment, additional medical care, cognitive impairment assistance, employment assistance, training/education, transportation, mental health supports, and clothing. All responses are included in Appendix 3.
Comments about other DRS staff and former counselors are included in Appendix 2. Additional comments are included in Appendix 4 and are classified as positive, neutral, or negative.
105
EXHIBITS
Methodology
The 2016 Client Satisfaction Survey is a survey of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) and Visual Services (VS) clients age 18 or over in an active case status for whom an Individual Plan for Employment (IPE) has been completed. Clients without an IPE are excluded because most services do not begin until an IPE is signed. In the spring of 2016 data was extracted from Aware, the case management system used by the Department of Rehabilitation Services (DRS), for the 9,418 clients that met the requirements. This group was designated the target population for the survey.
Using SPSS software, a random selection of 1,997 clients was made from the target population and designated as the sample population. Survey packets were mailed to each member of the sample population during the week of March 21st. Packets included the survey (numbered for confidentiality and reliability), and a postage paid return envelope. VS clients were sent a large print version of the survey. Postcard reminders were sent to non-respondents on April 25th.
The survey consists primarily of 5-point Likert scale questions. The options for the Likert scale are 5 (Strongly agree), 4 (Agree), 3 (Neither agree nor disagree), 2 (Disagree), 1 (Strongly disagree), and N/A. Another two questions are about response times. The three remaining questions are open-ended. The survey was amended this year, so trending data is not included for any statement other than overall satisfaction. The survey is included as Appendix 1.
Surveys were returned by 428 clients, resulting in a response rate of 21.4% (Another 166 surveys were returned by the US Postal Service due to bad addresses). This is a sufficient response rate to allow application of the results to the target population at a confidence level of 95%, plus or minus a 5% margin of error. Frequency distributions and statistics were calculated based on data collected from the respondents. Only valid responses were included in the calculations; missing and ‘Not Applicable’ responses were excluded.
106
EXHIBITS
Overall Satisfaction
The overall satisfaction rate for VR and VS services for the respondents to this survey is 84.8%. This is calculated based on the number of clients who responded ‘Strongly Agree’ or ‘Agree’ to the statement “Overall, I am satisfied with the services I receive from DRS”, excluding ‘Not Applicable’ or missing responses. Also calculated was the overall satisfaction by division.
Statement #13: Overall, I am satisfied with the services I receive from DRS.Total # Valid Percent Statistics
5) Strongly Agree 255 60.9 Total % Agree 84.8%4) Agree 100 23.9 Mean 4.333) Neither Agree nor Disagree 30 7.2 Median 5.002) Disagree 15 3.6 Standard
Deviation1.061
1) Strongly Disagree 19 4.5No Response or N/A 9
VR: Overall, I am satisfied with the services I receive from DRS.Total # Valid Percent Statistics
5) Strongly Agree 230 61.7 Total % Agree 84.2%4) Agree 84 22.5 Mean 4.333) Neither Agree nor Disagree 28 7.5 Median 5.002) Disagree 13 3.5 Standard
Deviation1.078
1) Strongly Disagree 18 4.8No Response or N/A 5
VS: Overall, I am satisfied with the services I receive from DRS.Total # Valid Percent Statistics
5) Strongly Agree 25 54.3 Total % Agree 89.1%4) Agree 16 34.8 Mean 4.353) Neither Agree nor Disagree 2 4.3 Median 5.002) Disagree 2 4.3 Standard
Deviation0.924
1) Strongly Disagree 1 2.2No Response or N/A 4
107
EXHIBITS
Survey Statement Results
Statement #1: My counselor helps me clearly understand what the program is about.
Total # Valid Percent Statistics5) Strongly Agree 237 57.0 Total % Agree 89.9
%4) Agree 137 32.9 Mean 4.413) Neither Agree nor Disagree 24 5.8 Median 5.002) Disagree 10 2.4 Standard
Deviation0.8561) Strongly Disagree 8 1.9
No Response or N/A 12
Statement #2: My counselor is knowledgeable about my disability.Total # Valid Percent Statistics
5) Strongly Agree 243 58.1 Total % Agree 86.1%4) Agree 117 28.0 Mean 4.373) Neither Agree nor Disagree 37 8.9 Median 5.002) Disagree 12 2.9 Standard
Deviation0.9181) Strongly Disagree 9 2.2
No Response or N/A 10
Statement #3: My counselor treats me with respect.Total # Valid Percent Statistics
5) Strongly Agree 316 75.1 Total % Agree 95.5%4) Agree 86 20.4 Mean 4.673) Neither Agree nor Disagree 9 2.1 Median 5.002) Disagree 5 1.2 Standard
Deviation0.6921) Strongly Disagree 5 1.2
No Response or N/A 7
108
EXHIBITS
Statement #4: My counselor clearly explains to me the services that are needed to assist me with employment.
Total # Valid Percent Statistics5) Strongly Agree 234 56.8 Total % Agree 83.5%4) Agree 110 26.7 Mean 4.323) Neither Agree nor Disagree 44 10.7 Median 5.002) Disagree 15 3.6 Standard
Deviation0.9571) Strongly Disagree 9 2.2
No Response or N/A 16
Statement #5: If I had concerns or complaints with my services, I am satisfied with how my counselor responded.
Total # Valid Percent Statistics5) Strongly Agree 228 57.1 Total % Agree 80.9%4) Agree 95 23.8 Mean 4.243) Neither Agree nor Disagree 40 10.0 Median 5.002) Disagree 17 4.3 Standard
Deviation1.1021) Strongly Disagree 19 4.8
No Response or N/A 29
Statement #6: My counselor refers me to other agencies or organizations that might provide additional services.
Total # Valid Percent Statistics5) Strongly Agree 190 49.2 Total % Agree 77.2%4) Agree 108 28.0 Mean 4.103) Neither Agree nor Disagree 46 11.9 Median 4.002) Disagree 21 5.4 Standard
Deviation1.1451) Strongly Disagree 21 5.4
No Response or N/A 42
109
EXHIBITS
Statement #7: When my employment plan was developed, I took the lead in its development.
Total # Valid Percent Statistics5) Strongly Agree 145 39.8 Total % Agree 72.8%4) Agree 120 33.0 Mean 4.043) Neither Agree nor Disagree 79 21.7 Median 4.002) Disagree 10 2.7 Standard
Deviation0.9871) Strongly Disagree 10 2.7
No Response or N/A 64
Statement #8: I was informed that my Individual Plan for Employment (IPE) could be modified at any time.
Total # Valid Percent Statistics5) Strongly Agree 195 50.9 Total % Agree 83.5%4) Agree 125 32.6 Mean 4.243) Neither Agree nor Disagree 34 8.9 Median 5.002) Disagree 19 5.0 Standard
Deviation0.9871) Strongly Disagree 10 2.6
No Response or N/A 45
Statement #9: Services I receive through DRS are appropriate to meet my needs for employment.
Total # Valid Percent Statistics5) Strongly Agree 220 55.3 Total % Agree 80.7%4) Agree 101 25.4 Mean 4.243) Neither Agree nor Disagree 49 12.3 Median 5.002) Disagree 10 2.5 Standard
Deviation1.0621) Strongly Disagree 18 4.5
No Response or N/A 30
110
EXHIBITS
Statement #10: If there were delays in my services, I was told why.Total # Valid Percent Statistics
5) Strongly Agree 181 47.1 Total % Agree 77.6%4) Agree 117 30.5 Mean 4.103) Neither Agree nor Disagree 49 12.8 Median 4.002) Disagree 16 4.2 Standard
Deviation1.1191) Strongly Disagree 21 5.5
No Response or N/A 44
Statement #11: I was offered materials in a format I could independently access.Total # Valid Percent Statistics
5) Strongly Agree 197 49.9 Total % Agree 80.3%4) Agree 120 30.4 Mean 4.193) Neither Agree nor Disagree 48 12.2 Median 4.002) Disagree 16 4.1 Standard
Deviation1.0331) Strongly Disagree 14 3.5
No Response or N/A 33
Statement #12: I understand the availability and the role of CAP.Total # Valid Percent Statistics
5) Strongly Agree 138 37.1 Total % Agree 66.4%4) Agree 109 29.3 Mean 3.833) Neither Agree nor Disagree 66 17.7 Median 4.002) Disagree 41 11.0 Standard
Deviation1.1831) Strongly Disagree 18 4.8
No Response or N/A 56
111
EXHIBITS
#14: I am satisfied with the quality of services from my Medical Providers.Total # Valid Percent Statistics
5) Strongly Agree 104 56.2 Total % Agree 85.4%4) Agree 54 29.2 Mean 4.303) Neither Agree nor Disagree 13 7.0 Median 5.002) Disagree 7 3.8 Standard
Deviation
1.0191) Strongly Disagree 7 3.8No Response or N/A 243
#14: I am satisfied with the quality of services from my Academic or Training Institutions.
Total # Valid Percent Statistics5) Strongly Agree 110 54.5 Total % Agree 82.7%4) Agree 57 28.2 Mean 4.233) Neither Agree nor Disagree 15 7.4 Median 5.002) Disagree 12 5.9 Standard
Deviation1.0791) Strongly Disagree 8 4.0
No Response or N/A 226
#14: I am satisfied with the quality of services from my Job Coach.Total # Valid Percent Statistics
5) Strongly Agree 83 43.0 Total % Agree 71.0%4) Agree 54 28.0 Mean 3.913) Neither Agree nor Disagree 27 14.0 Median 4.002) Disagree 13 6.7 Standard
Deviation1.2591) Strongly Disagree 16 8.3
No Response or N/A 235
#14: I am satisfied with the quality of services from my Equipment Provider.Total # Valid Percent Statistics
5) Strongly Agree 80 50.0 Total % Agree 81.9%4) Agree 51 31.9 Mean 4.203) Neither Agree nor Disagree 17 10.6 Median 4.502) Disagree 5 3.1 Standard
Deviation1.0451) Strongly Disagree 7 4.4
No Response or N/A 268#15: On average, after first contacting your local office, how long did it take to receive an appointment? Check one:
112
EXHIBITS
Total # Valid PercentLess than 1 week 138 35.51-2 weeks 152 39.13-4 weeks 62 15.9Over 4 weeks 37 9.5No Response or N/A 39
#16: On average, how long did it take staff to return telephone calls or e-mails? Check one:
Total # Valid Percent1 business day 178 44.72-3 business days 150 37.74-5 business days 25 6.3More than a week 45 11.3No Response or N/A 30
113
EXHIBITS
Overall Satisfaction Trend
This graph shows the trend for Overall Satisfaction from the last six Client Satisfaction Surveys. It should be noted that there was a change in the distribution of this survey during 2014-2015, so that the surveys from 2014 and 2015 were conducted closer together in time than the other surveys trended. The 2016 Overall Satisfaction Rate of 84.8% is a 5-year high.
Survey Year Satisfaction RateFall 2011 74.1%Fall 2012 79.7%Fall 2013 77.2%Fall 2014 83.2%Spring 2015 82.4%Spring 2016 84.8%
114
EXHIBITS
Statement Agreement by Division
Statement: VR VSStatement #1: My counselor helps me clearly understand what the program is about. 89.6% 91.8%
Statement #2: My counselor is knowledgeable about my disability. 85.6% 89.8%
Statement #3: My counselor treats me with respect. 95.4% 96.0%
Statement #4: My counselor clearly explains to me the services that are needed to assist me with employment. 83.6% 83.0%
Statement #5: If I had concerns or complaints with my services, I am satisfied with how my counselor responded. 80.5% 84.0%
Statement #6: My counselor refers me to other agencies or organizations that might provide additional services. 77.4% 76.1%
Statement #7: When my employment plan was developed, I took the lead in its development. 72.5% 75.0%
Statement #8: I was informed that my Individual Plan for Employment (IPE) could be modified at any time. 82.9% 89.5%
Statement #9: Services I receive through DRS are appropriate to meet my needs for employment. 81.4% 75.0%
Statement #10: If there were delays in my services, I was told why. 77.9% 75.6%
Statement #11: I was offered materials in a format I could independently access. 79.4% 86.7%
Statement #12: I understand the availability and the role of CAP. 66.3% 67.4%
Statement #14A: I am satisfied with the quality of services from my Medical Provider(s). 85.0% 88.0%
Statement #14B: I am satisfied with the quality of services from my Academic/Training Institutions. 83.9% 72.7%
Statement #14C: I am satisfied with the quality of services from my Job Coach. 71.2% 69.6%
Statement #14D: I am satisfied with the quality of services from my Equipment Provider(s). 81.6% 83.3%
115
EXHIBITS
VR
On average, after first contacting your local office, how long does it take to receive an appointment?
Less than 1 week 1-2 weeks Combined
35.9% 37.9% 73.8%VS
Less than 1 week 1-2 weeks Combined
32.6% 47.8% 80.4%
VR
On average, how long does it take staff to return telephone calls or e-mails?
1 business day
2-3 business days
Combined
45.0% 37.0% 82.1%VS
1 business day
2-3 business days
Combined
42.6% 42.6% 85.1%
116
EXHIBITS
Conclusions
The overall valid satisfaction rate for VR and VS is 84.8%, a slight increase from the overall satisfaction rate reported in the 2015 survey (82.4%).
The highest agreement rates were for statements regarding whether clients felt their counselor treated them with respect (95.5%) and whether their counselor helps them clearly understand what the program is about (89.9%).
The lowest agreement rate was for Statement 12: I understand the availability and the role of CAP (66.4%). In addition, 56 clients did not respond or answered NA to this statement (13.1% of the total respondent population). This seems to indicate that staff could provide additional information regarding CAP to clients.
Only 71.0% of respondents agreed with the statement: I am satisfied with the quality of services from my Job Coach. Further analysis is recommended regarding the quality of employment vendors.
Only 72.8% of respondents agreed with the statement: When my employment plan was developed, I took the lead in its development. This seems to indicate an opportunity to improve client participation in the development of the employment plan of future cases.
An open ended question regarding unmet needs was included in the survey. The largest categories of responses (in order) focused on clients needing more information/communication from their counselor, equipment, additional medical care, cognitive impairment assistance, employment assistance, training/education, transportation, mental health supports, and clothing. All responses are included in Appendix 3.
117
EXHIBITS
Appendix 1: Survey Instrument
2016 Client Satisfaction Survey - #******For statements 1 through 14, please use the following rating scale:5 Strongly Agree4 Agree3 Neither Agree nor Disagree2 Disagree1 Strongly DisagreeN/A Not Applicable 1. My counselor helps me clearly understand what the program is about……………..…..._____
2. My counselor is knowledgeable about my disability……………………….………………._____
3. My counselor treats me with respect………………………………………..…………..……_____
4. My counselor clearly explains to me the services that are needed to assist me with
employment………………………………………………………………………..……….…..._____
5. If I had concerns or complaints with my services, I am satisfied with how my counselor
responded……………………………………………………………………...…...…….…....._____
6. My counselor refers me to other agencies or organizations that might provide
additional services………………………………………………………………………….…_____
Do you have comments about previous counselors or other staff?
7. When my employment plan was developed, I took the lead in its development………..._____
8. I was informed that my Individual Plan for Employment (IPE) could be modified at any
time………………………………………………………………………………………..…..…_____
9. Services I receive through DRS are appropriate to meet my needs for employment..…_____
10. If there were delays in my services, I was told why……………..…………………...…….._____
11. I was offered materials in a format I could independently access………………...……...._____
12. I understand the availability and the role of CAP………………….……………………….._____
13. Overall, I am satisfied with the services I receive from DRS……………………….…_____
118
EXHIBITS
Question 14 helps us rate your satisfaction with service providers not employed by DRS. If you did not receive services from the type of provider specified, please do not rate that type of provider.
14. I am satisfied with the quality of services from my:
Medical Provider(s)………………..…._____
Academic/Training
Institutions……....._____
Job Coach………………………....….._____
Equipment Provider(s)
……………….._____
15. After first contacting your local office, how long did it take to receive an appointment? Check
one:
___ Less than a week ___1-2 weeks ___3-4 weeks ___Over 4 weeks
16. On average, how long did it take staff to return telephone calls or e-mails? Check one:
___1 business day ___2-3 business days ___4-5 business days ___More than a week
Please specify any disability related needs not being met by DRS:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Additional Comments?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for participating in our survey!
119
EXHIBITS
120
EXHIBITS
Extract from VR/VS Closed Case Successful Outcomes Survey
Executive Summary
First, it should be noted that the response rates were not high enough to allow inferences to be made about the total population based on the responses received. To allow inferences to be made, VR needed a response rate of 16.9% but had a rate of 14.6%. VS needed a 55.9% response rate, but had a rate of 21.2%. Therefore, this analysis ought not to be construed as applying to the whole population, but interpreted as the opinions of the respondents.
For CY 2014, 82.3% of VR respondents agreed with the statement “11. Overall, I am satisfied with the services I received from DRS.” This is a decrease from the 84.0% agreement rate for CY 2013 successful closures.
For CY 2014, 87.1% of VS respondents agreed with the statement “11. Overall, I am satisfied with the services I received from DRS.” This is a decrease from the 91.4% agreement rate for CY 2013 successful closures.
The statements with the lowest agreement rates for both groups were “5. A Job Coach assisted me with obtaining employment” (66.5% VR, 33.3% VS) and “6. DRS staff assisted me with obtaining employment” (71.0% VR, 60.0% VS). Both of these statements have shown a slight increase over CY 2013 for VR clients. Statement 5 has shown a significant decrease for VS clients.
The highest agreement rate for both VR and VS was “1. When my employment plan was developed, I took the lead in its development” (83.7% VR, 94.1% VS).
Although some were no longer employed, 74.6% of the VR respondents and 54.4% from VS were employed at the time they responded to the survey. For both VR and VS, this is a decrease from CY 2013.
VR respondents gave 123 general comments: 77 (62.6%) positive, 19 (15.4%) neutral, and 27 (22.0%) negative. VS had 32 general comments: 18 (56.3%) positive, 9 (28.1%) neutral, and 5 (15.6%) negative. Both positive and negative comments frequently referenced specific people as being either especially helpful or otherwise. Negative comments also tended to point out communication as a problem, as well as a general feeling that counselors were hard to reach or did not return calls. All comments, general and question-specific, are included in the appendices (Appendix 2 for VR, Appendix 3 for VS).
121
EXHIBITS
Methodology
The CY2014 Vocational Rehabilitation and Visual Services Rehabilitated Closed Case Outcomes Survey was initiated in July of 2015. In preparation for the survey, data was extracted from AWARE, the case management database system used by Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) and Visual Services (VS). The data consisted of all clients aged 18 or over, whose cases closed successfully in the calendar year 2014. The data for VR consisted of 1896 cases, while VS consisted of 306. Because they were small groups, no sample was taken; instead, the survey was sent to all cases. The VR and VS surveys (in accessible large print format) were mailed July 2015.
Each survey was numbered, to maintain reliability and confidentiality, and mailed with a postage paid return envelope. Postcard reminders were sent August 2015, to encourage participation by those who had not yet responded. Completed surveys were returned by 276 VR cases, for a response rate of 14.6%, and 65 from VS, for a response rate of 21.2%. The response rates were not high enough to allow for inferences to be made about the population with a confidence level of 95%, plus or minus a five percent margin of error. To allow for inferences to be made with 95% confidence, VR required 320 responses (16.9%) and VS required 171 (55.9%).Statistics and percentages were calculated based on valid responses; missing and ‘Not Applicable’ responses were excluded. For the Likert scale, 4 was the most positive response (‘strongly agree’), and 1 was the most negative (‘strongly disagree’), so a mean of 3 is relatively positive, while a mean of 2 is relatively negative.
The survey consisted of eight Likert scale questions, two yes/no questions with space for comments, one question which allowed for multiple choices, and a free-response comments section. The Likert scale questions offer the following response options: 4 (strongly agree), 3 (agree), 2 (disagree), 1 (strongly disagree), and Not Applicable. The question which allowed for multiple choices asked about other services the respondent would have liked to receive while a client, and gave the options of job search skills, interviewing skills, vocation-specific training, assistance with college tuition, and other, with space for explanation.
122
EXHIBITS
Survey Statement Results – Vocational Rehabilitation – Likert scale
Statement 1: When my employment plan was developed, I took the lead in its development.
Total # Valid Percentage Statistics
4) Strongly Agree 87 36.4 Total %
Agree 83.7
3) Agree 113 47.3 Mean 3.15
2) Disagree 27 11.3 Median 3
1) Strongly Disagree 12 5.0 Standard
Deviation .811
Statement 2: I was informed that my Individual Plan for Employment could be modified at any time.
Total # Valid Percentage Statistics
4) Strongly Agree 102 41.5 Total %
Agree 79.3
3) Agree 93 37.8 Mean 3.11
2) Disagree 28 11.4 Median 3
1) Strongly Disagree 23 9.3 Standard
Deviation .945
123
EXHIBITS
Statement 3: Services I received through DRS were appropriate to meet my needs for employment.
Total # Valid Percentage Statistics
4) Strongly Agree 129 49.8 Total %
Agree 77.6
3) Agree 72 27.8 Mean 3.17
2) Disagree 30 11.6 Median 3
1) Strongly Disagree 28 10.8 Standard
Deviation 1.011
Statement 4: DRS Staff assisted me with obtaining employment.
Total # Valid Percentage Statistics
4) Strongly Agree 91 39.9 Total %
Agree 71.0
3) Agree 71 31.1 Mean 2.94
2) Disagree 28 12.3 Median 3
1) Strongly Disagree 38 16.7 Standard
Deviation 1.091
124
EXHIBITS
Statement 5: A Job Coach assisted me with obtaining employment.
Total #Valid
Percentage Statistics4) Strongly Agree 86 38.9 Total %
Agree 66.5
3) Agree 61 27.6 Mean 2.86
2) Disagree 32 14.5 Median 3
1) Strongly Disagree 42 19.0 Standard
Deviation 1.132
Statement 6: I am satisfied with my employment outcome.
Total # Valid Percentage Statistics
4) Strongly Agree 128 51.4 Total %
Agree 77.5
3) Agree 65 26.1 Mean 3.16
2) Disagree 24 9.6 Median 4
1) Strongly Disagree 32 12.9 Standard
Deviation 1.050
125
EXHIBITS
Statement 7: I was informed that DRS offers post-employment services.
Total # Valid Percentage Statistics
4) Strongly Agree 79 33.4 Total %
Agree 67.3
3) Agree 81 33.9 Mean 2.83
2) Disagree 38 15.9 Median 3
1) Strongly Disagree 41 17.2 Standard
Deviation 1.073
Statement 11: Overall, I am satisfied with the services I received from DRS.
Total # Valid Percentage Statistics
4) Strongly Agree 134 53.8 Total %
Agree 82.3
3) Agree 71 28.5 Mean 3.28
2) Disagree 23 9.2 Median 4
1) Strongly Disagree 21 8.4 Standard
Deviation .946
126
EXHIBITS
Survey Statement Results – Vocational Rehabilitation – Other Questions
Question 8: Are you still employed?
Total # Valid PercentageStill Employed 200 74.6Unemployed 68 25.4
Question 9: Have you experienced new challenges in the workforce since your case was closed?
Total # Valid PercentageNew Challenges 90 36.1No New Challenges 159 63.9
Statement 10: While I was a client, I would like to have received more instruction in or assistance with (Check all that apply):
# of times checked (276 possible)Job Search 85 (30.8%)Interviewing Skills 82 (29.7%)Vocation-Specific Training 82 (29.7%)Assistance with College Tuition 58 (21.0%)
127
EXHIBITS
Survey Statement Trends– Vocational Rehabilitation
Statement 2014 2015 Change1. When my employment plan was developed, I took the lead in its development. 84.5 83.7 -0.8
2. I was informed that my Individual Plan for Employment (IPE) could be modified at any time. 85.4 79.3 -6.1
3. Services I received through DRS were appropriate to meet my needs for employment. 86.0 77.6 -8.4
4. DRS staff assisted me with obtaining employment. 62.5 71.0 8.55. A Job Coach assisted me with obtaining employment. 58.0 66.5 8.56. I am satisfied with my employment outcome. 77.1 77.5 0.47. I was informed DRS offers post-employment services. 66.2 67.3 1.18. Are you still employed? (% answering yes) 79.1 74.6 -4.59. Have you experienced new challenges in the workforce since your case was closed? (% answering no)
70.9 63.9 -7.0
11. Overall, I am satisfied with the services I received from DRS. 84.0 82.3 -1.7
128
EXHIBITS
Survey Statement Results – Visual Services – Likert scale
Total # Valid Percentage Statistics
4) Strongly Agree 20 58.8 Total %
Agree 94.1
3) Agree 12 35.3 Mean 3.47
2) Disagree 0 0.0 Median 4
1) Strongly Disagree 2 3.6 Standard
Deviation .788
Statement 1: When my employment plan was developed, I took the lead in its development.
Statement 2: I was informed that my Individual Plan for Employment (IPE) could be modified at any time.
Total # Valid Percentage Statistics
4) Strongly Agree 15 35.7 Total %
Agree 83.3
3) Agree 20 47.6 Mean 3.07
2) Disagree 2 4.8 Median 3
1) Strongly Disagree 5 11.9 Standard
Deviation .947
129
EXHIBITS
Statement 3: Services received through DRS were appropriate to meet my needs for employment.
Total # Valid Percentage Statistics
4) Strongly Agree 22 51.2 Total %
Agree 86.1
3) Agree 15 34.9 Mean 3.23
2) Disagree 0 0.0 Median 4
1) Strongly Disagree 6 14.0 Standard
Deviation 1.020
Statement 4: DRS staff assisted me with obtaining employment.
Total # Valid Percentage Statistics
4) Strongly Agree 6 24.0 Total %
Agree 60.0
3) Agree 9 36.0 Mean 2.46
2) Disagree 5 24.0 Median 3
1) Strongly Disagree 8 16.0 Standard
Deviation 1.138
130
EXHIBITS
Statement 5: A Job Coach assisted me with obtaining employment.
Total # Valid Percentage Statistics
4) Strongly Agree 4 14.8 Total %
Agree 33.3
3) Agree 5 18.5 Mean 2.04
2) Disagree 6 22.2 Median 2
1) Strongly Disagree 12 44.4 Standard
Deviation 1.126
Statement 6: I am satisfied with my employment outcome.
Total # Valid Percentage Statistics
4) Strongly Agree 20 52.6 Total %
Agree 78.9
3) Agree 10 26.3 Mean 3.16
2) Disagree 2 5.3 Median 4
1) Strongly Disagree 6 15.8 Standard
Deviation 1.103
131
EXHIBITS
Statement 7: I was informed DRS offers post-employment services.
Total # Valid Percentage Statistics
4) Strongly Agree 18 41.9 Total %
Agree 79.1
3) Agree 16 37.2 Mean 3.48
2) Disagree 4 9.3 Median 4
1) Strongly Disagree 5 11.6 Standard
Deviation .863
Statement 11: Overall, I am satisfied with the services I received from DRS.
Total # Valid Percentage Statistics
4) Strongly Agree 36 66.7 Total %
Agree 87.1
3) Agree 11 20.4 Mean 3.48
2) Disagree 4 7.4 Median 4
1) Strongly Disagree 3 5.6 Standard
Deviation .863
132
EXHIBITS
Survey Statement Results – Visual Services – Other Questions
Question 8: Are you still employed?
Total # Valid PercentageStill Employed 31 54.4Unemployed 26 45.6
Question 9: Have you experienced new challenges in the workforce since your case was closed?
Total # Valid PercentageNew Challenges 17 33.3No New Challenges 34 66.7
Statement 10: While I was a client, I would like to have received more instruction in or assistance with (Check all that apply):
# of times checked (65 possible)Job Search 14 (21.5%)Interviewing Skills 10 (15.4%)Vocation-Specific Training 12 (18.5%)Assistance with College Tuition 8 (12.3%)
133
EXHIBITS
Survey Statement Trends– Visual ServicesStatement 2014 2015 Change1. When my employment plan was developed, I took the lead in its development. 82.2 94.1 11.9
2. I was informed that my Individual Plan for Employment (IPE) could be modified at any time. 83.8 83.3 -0.5
3. Services I received through DRS were appropriate to meet my needs for employment. 86.1 86.1 0
4. DRS staff assisted me with obtaining employment. 60.0 60.0 05. A Job Coach assisted me with obtaining employment. 54.2 33.3 -20.96. I am satisfied with my employment outcome. 87.5 78.9 -8.67. I was informed DRS offers post-employment services. 76.4 79.1 2.78. Are you still employed? (% answering yes) 65.1 54.4 -10.79. Have you experienced new challenges in the workforce since your case was closed? (% answering no)
65.1 66.7 1.6
11. Overall, I am satisfied with the services I received from DRS. 91.4 87.1 -4.3
134
EXHIBITS
Conclusions
Keeping in mind that assumptions cannot be confidently made about the total population because of the low survey response rates, the results which should be of most concern are the low agreement rates with the statements “A Job Coach assisted me with obtaining employment” (66.5% VR, 33.3% VS) and “DRS staff assisted me with obtaining employment” (71.0% VR, 60.0% VS).
It is also important to note the employment retention rates for both VR and VS: 74.6% of VR respondents were still employed at the time of the survey, while only 54.4% of VS respondents reported they were still employed.
135
EXHIBITS
Appendix 1: Sample Survey Instrument
Closed Case Client Outcomes Survey
For statements 1 through 7, please use the following rating scale.
1 Strongly Disagree
2 Disagree 3 Agree 4 Strongly Agree
N/A Not Applicable
1. When my employment plan was developed, I took the lead in its development……………….____
2. I was informed that my Individual Plan for Employment (IPE) could be modified at any time..____
3. Services I received through DRS were appropriate to meet my needs for employment……...____
4. DRS staff assisted me with obtaining employment……………………………………………….____
5. A Job Coach assisted me with obtaining employment……………………………………………____
6. I am satisfied with my employment outcome………………………………………………………____
7. I was informed DRS offers post-employment services……………………………………………____
8. Are you still employed?
___ Yes
___ No - please explain reason for leaving position below:
____________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
9. Have you experienced new challenges in the workforce since your case was closed?___ No
___ Yes - please specify:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
136
EXHIBITS
10. While I was a client, I would like to have received more instruction in or assistance with (Check all that apply):
___ Job Search Skills
___ Interviewing Skills
___ Vocation-specific Training
___ Assistance with College Tuition
___ Other:
____________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
For statement 11, please use the following rating scale.
1 Strongly Disagree
2 Disagree 3 Agree 4 Strongly Agree
11. Overall, I am satisfied with the services I received from DRS…..………….
Comments? Attach a blank sheet if necessary.____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your participation in our survey!!
137
REFERENCES
Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., Latta, T. (1999). Improving collaboration between schools and vocational rehabilitation: The youth transition program model. Journal of Rehabilitation, 13, 55-63.
Cameto, R. (2005). The transition planning process. National Longitudinal Transition Study-2, 4(1). Minneapolis: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, University of Minnesota.
Cimera, R., Rusch, F. (2000). Transition and youth with mental retardation: Past, present and future. In M. Wehmeyer and J. Patton (Eds.), Mental retardation in the 21st century (pp. 59-89). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Congressional statistics, December 2014. Retrieved August 1, 2016, from http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/factsheets/cong_stats/2014/ .
DRS About Us. Retrieved May 30, 2016, from http://www.okdrs.gov/info/home.
Field, S. S., Martin, J. E., Miller, R. J., Ward, M., Wehmeyer, M. L. (1998). Self-determination for persons with disabilities; A position statement of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21, 113-128.
Gould, M. S., Bellamy, G. T. (1985). Transition of Youth from School to Work and Adult Life: Reports from the Consortium for Youth with Disability (Monograph no. 1). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Institute on Rehabilitation Issues. (2000). The Family as a Critical Partner in the Achievement of a Successful Employment Outcome. Twenty-Sixth Institute on Rehabilitation Issues 2000.
McPherson, R. G. (2011). Workforce Oklahoma Employment Outlook 2018. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, Economic Research & Analysis Division.
Miller, T. P. (2011). The Governor’s Council on Workforce and Economic Development, Building Blocks for an Employer – Responsive Workforce System.
Miller, T. P. (2012). Creating a Proactive System to Help Oklahoma Businesses Stay Strong and Grow. Indianapolis, IN: Thomas p. Miller and Associates.
National Council on Disability. (2008). The Rehabilitation Act: Outcomes for Transition Age Youth. Washington, DC: National Council on Disability.
REFERENCES
Office of Disability Employment Policy. (2013). Literature Review of Five Federal Systems Serving Transition Age Youth with Disabilities; Final Report. Washington, DC: Office of Disability Employment Policy.
Oklahoma Department of Commerce/Workforce Data. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://okcommerce.gov/data/workforce-data/
Oklahoma Department of Corrections Annual Report 2014, Retrieved February 22, 2016, from https://www.ok.gov/doc/documents/annual%20report%202014.final %20copy.website.pdf
Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Tribal Jurisdictions in Oklahoma, Retrieved April 1, 2016, from http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/hqdiv/p-r-div/maps/tribal/index.htm
Oklahoma Educational Indicators Program, Profiles 2014 State Report Retrieved November 3, 2015, from http://www.edprofiles.info/state-report
Oklahoma Educational Indicators Program, Profiles 2010 State Report Retrieved April 5, 2012, from http://www.edprofiles.info/state-report
Oklahoma House of Representative, GIS office, Map of Oklahoma Congressional Districts for Elections 2012-2020, Retrieved April 1, 2016, from http://www.okhouse.gov/Documents/Districts/Congressional%20Delegation.pdf
Social Security Administration, How You Earn Credits, Retrieved March 1, 2016, from https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10072.pdf
Stewart, D., Freeman, M., Law, M., Healy, H., Burke-Gaffney, J., Forhan, M., Young, N., Guenther, S. (2006). Transition to adulthood for youth with disabilities: Evidence from the literature. Retrieved from http://ccirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/110/
Tourism, O., & Recreation. (2016). Oklahoma’s official travel & tourism site. Retrieved August 1, 2016, from http://www.travelok.com/about_us
U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B18101; generated by Tiffany Davis; using American FactFinder; <http://factfinder2.census.gov>; (7 January 2016).
U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B18120; generated by Tiffany Davis; using American FactFinder; <http://factfinder2.census.gov>; (7 January 2016).
U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1810; generated by Tiffany Davis; using American FactFinder; <http://factfinder2.census.gov>; (7 January 2016).
139
REFERENCES
U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1811; generated by Tiffany Davis; using American FactFinder; <http://factfinder2.census.gov>; (7 January 2016).
U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/40,00Population estimates, July 1, 2015, (V2015). Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/40,00
VA State Summaries – Oklahoma, Retrieved February 22, 2016, from http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/SpecialReports/State_Summaries_Oklahoma.pdf
Wehman, P., Sima, A. P., Ketchum, J., West, M. D., Chan, F., Luecking, R. (2014). Predictors of successful transition from school to employment for youth with disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, (n.p.). DOI 10.1007/s10926-014-9541-6.
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Self-determination, vocational rehabilitation, and workplace supports. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 10, 67-69.
140