Order Code RL34017
Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to
States and Territories: Overview and
Analysis of the Allotment Formula
May 23, 2006
Scott Szymendera
Analyst in Social Security
Domestic Social Policy Division

---

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

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Individual Eligibility for Vocational Rehabilitation Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Definition of Disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Order of Selection to Receive Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Services Provided by Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Individualized Employment Plan (IEP)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Employment Outcomes and Case Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
State Vocational Rehabilitation Plans and Matching Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 6
State Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Matching Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authorization for Federal Funding of Vocational Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Extension of Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Effect of the Extension of Authorization on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . 8
Legislative Activity in the 108th, 109th and 110th Congresses to Extend
the Authorization for Vocational Rehabilitation Appropriations . . . . . 9
Activity in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Vocational Rehabilitation Allotment Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Step 1. Determine A State’s Allotment Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Step 2. Determine the Final Allotment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Reallotment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Analysis of the Vocational Rehabilitation Allotment Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The Formula Does Not Take Into Account a State or Territory’s
Ability to Pay its Share of the Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The Increase in the CPI-U is Not Always Passed Along to
the States and Territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The Formula Does Not Take Into Account a State’s or Territory’s
Caseload or Success at Returning Clients to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The Formula’s 1978 Baseline Negatively Affects States With
Population Growth Since the Mid-1970s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Issues for the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix I. Order of Selection Status for State and Territorial
Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix II. Vocational Rehabilitation Appropriations and State
Allotment Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix III. Vocational Rehabilitation Funds Returned for Reallotment,
FY1991-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

---

Appendix IV. State Vocational Rehabilitation Allotments, Modified
Allotments, and Population Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vocational Rehabilitation Appropriations, FY1999-FY2007 . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 2. Changes in Vocational Rehabilitation Appropriations and
the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), FY1999-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
List of Tables
Table 1. Order of Selection Status for States and Territories with
Combined Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies, FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 2. Order of Selection Status for General and Blind Vocational
Rehabilitation Agencies, by State, FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 3. Changes in Vocational Rehabilitation Appropriations and
the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), FY1999-FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 4. Vocational Rehabilitation State and Territorial Final Allotments,
FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 5. Vocational Rehabilitation Funds Returned for Reallotment,
FY1991-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 6. Vocational Rehabilitation State FY2007 Allotments,
FY2007 Modified Allotments, and 1976 to 2005 Population Growth . . . . 24

---

Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States
and Territories: Overview and Analysis of
the Allotment Formula
Introduction
Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, authorizes the federal
government to make grants available to states and territories for the purpose of
providing vocational rehabilitation services to persons with disabilities who are
seeking competitive employment.1 Grants may not be used to provide services
connected with non-competitive employment such as sheltered workshops or for jobs
that pay below the minimum wage.2 Vocational rehabilitation grants are
administered by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), an agency of the
Department of Education, and can be used by designated state or territorial agencies
to provide customized supports and services to persons with disabilities with the goal
of providing these persons increased opportunities to secure competitive employment
and self-sufficiency. States and territories may establish a single vocational
rehabilitation agency (referred to as a combined agency) or establish separate
agencies to handle persons with general disabilities and persons with blindness.
States and territories are required to match a portion of their federal grants and
contribute 21.3% of the total cost of providing vocational rehabilitation services.
In FY2005, states and territories spent over $1.7 billion on vocational
rehabilitation services.3 In 2005, state and territorial vocational rehabilitation
agencies worked with nearly 1.4 million clients and helped over 206,000 persons
with disabilities achieve employment.4
The authorization for vocational rehabilitation grants to states and territories
expired at the end of FY2003 and Congress has continued to make capped
appropriations to fund the program under the provisions of a extension clause in the
law. The House of Representatives and Senate each passed bills to reauthorize the
vocational rehabilitation program in both the 108th and 109th Congresses, however,
1 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was amended in 1974 (P.L. 93-651), 1978 (P.L. 95-602),
1984 (P.L. 98-221), 1986 (P.L. 99-506), 1992 (P.L. 102-569) and 1998 (P.L. 105-220).
2 Competitive employment is defined by regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 361.5(b)(11).
3 This amount excludes administrative costs and is less than the total appropriation for
FY2004.
4 Data taken from the RSA website at [http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/sta
tistics.html], Table 14. Client data includes all persons who had contact with a vocational
rehabilitation agency, from initial application through employment.

---

CRS-2
these efforts did not become law. It is likely then that the reauthorization of the
vocational rehabilitation program will be on the agenda of the 110th Congress.
This report provides an overview of the vocational rehabilitation program,
including discussions on the eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services, the
types of services provided by state and territorial vocational rehabilitation agencies,
and the requirements concerning state plans and funding matches that states and
territories must meet in order to qualify for federal grants.
This report also discusses the current authorization for vocational rehabilitation
grants and recent legislative attempts to extend this authorization. In addition, this
report describes the formula used to determine each state and territory’s allotment of
vocational rehabilitation funds. Several issues surrounding this formula, including
problems stemming from the use of FY1978 allotments as a baseline are analyzed.
This is the first in a series of three reports on vocational rehabilitation under
development by the Congressional Research Service during the first session of the
110th Congress. One future report is to examine the impact of regulations that
require state and territorial vocational rehabilitation agencies to give priority for
services to persons with the most significant disabilities, even though, these people,
by nature of the significance of their disabling conditions, may be the least likely
people to become employed after receiving services. Another future report is to look
at various measures of program success, including the overall caseload and number
and type of employment outcomes to assess the overall impact of the federal
commitment to vocational rehabilitation for persons with disabilities.
Individual Eligibility for
Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Section 102(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 establishes the requirements
a person must meet in order to be eligible to receive vocational rehabilitation services
from a state or territorial agency.5 The requirements state that a person must be
disabled and must also need vocational rehabilitation services to become employed,
stay employed or return to previous employment.
Definition of Disability
A person is considered disabled for the purposes of eligibility for vocational
rehabilitation services if he or she:
(i) has a physical or mental impairment which for such individual constitutes or
results in a substantial impediment to employment, and (ii) can benefit in terms
5 29 U.S.C. § 722(a).

---

CRS-3
of an employment outcome from vocational rehabilitation services pursuant to
Title I, III, or VI (of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973).6
The definition of disability used by the vocational rehabilitation program is
different from that used by the Social Security disability programs. In order to
receive vocational rehabilitation services a person does not need to be eligible for,
or have applied for, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental
Security Income (SSI).7 However, Section 102(a)(3) of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 specifies that any person receiving SSDI or SSI benefits shall be presumed to
be eligible for vocational rehabilitation services if he or she intends to pursue
employment.8 Each state or territorial agency has the responsibility for determining
the eligibility of applicants for vocational rehabilitation services consistent with
program rules specified in Section 102 of the act and in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR).9
Order of Selection to Receive Services
If a state or territorial vocational rehabilitation agency feels that it will not have
enough resources during a given fiscal year to provide services to all eligible persons
with disability, then it must notify the RSA that it will implement an “Order of
Selection” plan to determine which persons will have the first priority to receive
services. Regulations require that the order of selection plan must ensure that
persons with the “most significant disabilities” will be able to receive services before
other eligible persons.10 Other persons not placed in the priority group may be placed
on a waiting list but are not guaranteed services. A state or territorial agency is given
a certain degree of latitude in determining how it will set up its order of selection
system and neither the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 nor the CFR provide firm
requirements on how agencies should determine which persons have the most
significant disabilities.11
6 29 U.S.C. § 705(20). Title III of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 authorizes demonstration
projects, including projects for migrant farm workers. Title VI of the act authorizes
projects with industry and supported employment programs.
7 Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits are means tested and are available to adults
and children with disabilities and persons aged 65 or older with or without disabilities. In
this report, SSI benefits will only refer to benefits paid to adults and children with
disabilities. For additional information on the SSI program see CRS Report RL32279,
Primer on Disability Benefits: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), by Scott Szymendera.
8 29 U.S.C. § 722(a)(3).
9 34 C.F.R. §§ 361.41-361.44.
10 34 C.F.R. § 361.36(a)(3)(iv)(A).
11 For additional information on the procedures used to establish an order of selection system
see Ronald M. Hager, Order of Selection for Vocational Rehabilitation Services: An Option
for State VR Agencies Who Cannot Serve All Eligible Individuals, Cornell University Work
Incentives Support Center Policy and Practice Brief 23, November 2004; available on the
website of the Cornell University Employment and Disability Institute at
(continued...)

---

CRS-4
While SSDI and SSI beneficiaries are presumed to be eligible for vocational
rehabilitation services, they may not be deemed to have the most significant
disabilities by their state or territorial vocational rehabilitation agency. In such a
case, it would be possible for a state to deny vocational rehabilitation benefits to
persons receiving benefits from a Social Security disability program. If a SSDI or
SSI recipient is a participant in the Ticket to Work program, but deemed not eligible
for vocational rehabilitation services because of an order of selection rule, he or she
would not be able to use a Ticket to Work voucher to pay for vocational
rehabilitation services from a state or territorial agency and would be required to
obtain services from a private sector employment network.12
States and territories may implement order of selection plans at the beginning
of a fiscal year or during a fiscal year if it becomes likely that they will not be able
to provide services to all eligible persons. For FY2007, 41 of the 80 state and
territorial vocational rehabilitation agencies are operating under order of selection
procedures. The longest continuous order of selection is in Georgia, which first
established its procedure in 1979. Tables 1 and 2, in Appendix I, provide the order
of selection status for each of the 80 state and territorial vocational rehabilitation
agencies for FY2007. Of the 32 states and territories with combined vocational
rehabilitation agencies, 21, or 66%, are operating under an order of selection
procedure. In addition, 15 of the 24 general vocational rehabilitation agencies (63%)
and five of the 24 agencies serving the blind (21%) have orders of selection in
place.13
At the end of FY2005, 38,315 individuals were on waiting lists for vocational
rehabilitation services because of state and territorial orders of selection.14 There is
wide variance in the size of state and territorial waiting lists. At the end of FY2005,
10 agencies operating under orders of selection had no waiting lists while the waiting
list in Tennessee had over 9,000 persons on it and there were 11,729 persons on the
waiting list for services from the Washington general vocational rehabilitation
agency.
11 (...continued)
[http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=edicoll
ect].
12 For additional information on the Ticket to Work program see CRS Report RL31157, The
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999: Implementation Status, by
Jennifer Hess and Karen Tritz (out of print; available upon request from Scott Szymendera).
13 Data provided to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) by the Department of
Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services.
14 Data is taken from annual state reports provided to the Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA) as part of its Management Information System (MIS). The RSA MIS
is available on the Department of Education website at [http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/
CFAPPS/RSAMIS/choose.cfm].

---

CRS-5
Services Provided by
Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies
Vocational rehabilitation agencies provide a wide range of customized services
to their clients. Agency staff work with each client individually to design a package
of services that are intended to help the client achieve his or her employment goal.
There is no master list of services that can or cannot be provided by vocational
rehabilitation agencies and no package of services that are provided to every client.
Individualized Employment Plan (IEP)
The core of the vocational rehabilitation service model is the Individualized
Employment Plan (IEP). Every client who receives services from a vocational
rehabilitation agency prepares an IEP with the assistance of agency staff. The IEP
states the employment goal of the client as well as the specific services that the
agency will provide to help the client reach his or her goal.
Before an IEP can be created, staff of the vocational rehabilitation agency
perform an assessment of the client. This assessment looks at the factors that may
affect the client’s prospects for employment, including factors related to the client’s
disability, work history, and educational background. The assessment also identifies
the client’s specific needs that can be met by the vocational rehabilitation agency.
While the staff of the vocational rehabilitation agency provides assistance to the
client in the preparation of the IEP, it is the client that has the final say on his or her
employment goal and the services that he or she would like to be provided with. The
staff member has the responsibility of providing the client with enough information
about available jobs and services to assist the client in making an informed choice
about his or her employment goal and service package. Clients may develop their
own IEPs with the assistance of persons outside of the vocational rehabilitation
agency. However, the agency must approve all IEPs before services can be provided.
The IEP is reviewed by the staff and the client at least once per year and changes are
made if necessary.
Section 102(b)(3) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 specifies that an IEP must
include the following items:
! the specific employment outcome chosen by the client;
! the specific vocational rehabilitation services that will be provided
to the client;
! the time line for starting services and achieving the employment
outcome;
! the specific entity, selected by the client, from which services will be
obtained;
! the criteria that will be used to evaluate the progress made by the
client;
! the responsibilities of the client, the vocational rehabilitation agency,
and other entities included in the IEP;

---

CRS-6
! the extended services that will be needed if the client is expected to
need supported employment; and
! the projected need for post-employment services.15
Employment Outcomes and Case Closure
Vocational rehabilitation agencies are to work with clients until their selected
employment goals are met. Regulations specify that a vocational rehabilitation case
can not be considered closed until all of the following conditions have been met:
! the client has achieved the employment outcome specified in his or
her IEP;
! the client has maintained the employment outcome for a period of at
least 90 days;
! the client and the vocational rehabilitation counselor meet after 90
days of employment and agree that the employment outcome is
satisfactory; and
! the client is informed of the availability of post-employment
services.16
For cases that resulted in employment outcomes in 2005, clients received
vocational rehabilitation services for an average of 26.3 months.17
State Vocational Rehabilitation Plans
and Matching Requirements
State Plans
In order to qualify for funding under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a state or
territory must file a state plan with the Department of Education. This plan must
designate the state or territorial agency that will provide vocational rehabilitation
services and must specify if a separate state agency will provide services to blind
clients. A state or territory’s order of selection plan must also be included as part of
the state plan. The state plan must demonstrate how the state or territory will meet
the specific requirements of Section 101 of the act, including requirements
concerning program goals and evaluation, cooperation with other agencies, the IEP
process, and the provision of vocational rehabilitation services to qualified
individuals.18 A state plan does not have to be submitted each year, but must be
amended to reflect any changes in state vocational rehabilitation policy.
15 29 U.S.C. § 722(b)(3).
16 34 C.F.R. § 361.56.
17 Data taken from the RSA website at [http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/sta
tistics.html], Table 14.
18 29 U.S.C. § 721.

---

CRS-7
Matching Requirement
Section 104 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 includes a requirement that states
and territories that receive vocational rehabilitation grants match a portion of their
federal allotment with state or territorial funds.19 Section 7(14) of the act sets the
federal share of vocational rehabilitation funding at 78.7% and requires that states
and territories provide the remaining 21.3% of vocational rehabilitation funding.20
Authorization for Federal Funding
of Vocational Rehabilitation
Section 100(b)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 authorizes Congress to
make appropriations to the Department of Education for the purposes of providing
vocational rehabilitation grants to states and territories.21 For each year authorized,
the appropriation for vocational rehabilitation must be no lower than the previous
year’s appropriation increased by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index
for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).22 This authorization expired at the end of
FY2003.
The mandatory minimum increase in appropriations is based on the change in
the CPI-U reported in October of each year. Because this CPI-U report comes out
in November, after the beginning of the next federal fiscal year, the appropriation for
a given fiscal year is based on the appropriation for the previous fiscal year increased
by the change in the CPI-U reported in October of the second previous fiscal year.
For example, the mandatory minimum appropriation for FY2003 was based on the
appropriation for FY2002 increased by the change in the CPI-U between October
2000 and October 2001.
Extension of Authorization
Although the authorization for vocational rehabilitation appropriations expired
at the end of FY2003, Section 100(d) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 includes a
provision to automatically extend this authorization for years after the final
authorized fiscal year if Congress has not amended the act to extend the
authorization.23 Under the provisions of this extension, the appropriations for
vocational rehabilitation are capped at the amount appropriated in the previous fiscal
year increased by the percentage change in the CPI-U using the same formula
outlined above. For example, the maximum appropriation for FY2007 is the
19 29 U.S.C. § 724.
20 29 U.S.C. § 705(14).
21 29 U.S.C. § 720(b)(1).
22 Section 100(c)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 720(c)(1)) requires the
Department of Labor to publish, before November 15, the change in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) from the previous fiscal year.
23 29 U.S.C. § 720(d).

---

CRS-8
appropriation for FY2006 increased by the change in the CPI-U from October 2004
to October 2005.
Effect of the Extension of Authorization on Appropriations. The
extension of authorization provision sets a cap on the amount Congress can
appropriate to the Department of Education for vocational rehabilitation state grants
until the act is reauthorized. Appropriations under this provision are capped at the
previous year’s level increased by the change in the CPI-U. This funding cap went
into effect with the expiration of the vocational rehabilitation authorization at the end
of FY2003 and was first part of the appropriations process for FY2004.
Figures 1 and 2, show the appropriations and change from the previous fiscal
year for the period FY1999 through FY2007. Because the authorization is under
extension beginning in FY2004, appropriations after FY2003 are capped at the rate
of the increase in the CPI-U. However, even before FY2004, annual vocational
rehabilitation appropriations exceeded the growth in the CPI-U only in FY1999.
Because the funding in years prior to the extension of budget authority was at the
minimum level of increase, the cap placed on appropriations by the expiration of the
funding authority at the end of FY2003 has not had any practical impact on the
overall funding level of the vocational rehabilitation program.
Figure 1. Vocational Rehabilitation Appropriations, FY1999-FY2007
2,900
s
llar
2,800
o
2,700
f D
o
s
2,600
n
io
2,500
ill
M
2,400
2,300
2,200
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fiscal Years
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) figure with data on appropriations taken from the
conference reports accompanying each FY’s appropriations bill.
Notes: Data to accompany this figure can be found in Table 3 in Appendix II. Appropriations data
includes money appropriated to Native American Indian Tribes under the provisions of Section 121
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 741).

---

CRS-9
Figure 2. Changes in Vocational Rehabilitation
Appropriations and the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U),
FY1999-FY2007
Change in
5.0%
Appropriations From
4.0%
Previous FY
Change in CPI-U
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0
2
4
1999
200
2001
200
2003
200
2005
2006
2007
Fiscal Years
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) figure with data on appropriations taken
from the conference reports accompanying each FY’s appropriations bill and data on the
CPI-U taken from the website of the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics
at [ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt].
Notes: Data to accompany this figure can be found in Table 3 in Appendix II.
Appropriations data includes money appropriated to Native American Indian Tribes under
the provisions of Section 121 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 741).
Legislative Activity in the 108th, 109th and 110th Congresses
to Extend the Authorization for Vocational Rehabilitation
Appropriations
Both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed bills in the 108th and
109th Congresses that would have, if enacted, extended the authorization for
appropriations for vocational rehabilitation state grants.24 These bills were part of
larger packages of legislation that would have made technical changes to the
vocational rehabilitation program and re-authorized the Workforce Investment Act
of 1998.25
In the 108th Congress, H.R. 1261, the Workforce Investment Act Amendments
of 2003 would have extended the authorization for vocational rehabilitation state and
territorial grants until the end of FY2009. This bill was passed by the House on May
8, 2003 and by the Senate on November 14, 2003 with the bills differing in areas not
24 For additional information on legislation related to vocational rehabilitation in the 109th
Congress, see CRS Report RL33249, Rehabilitation Act of 1973: 109th Congress
Legislation, FY2006 Budget Request, and FY2006 Appropriations, by Scott Szymendera.
25 For additional information on the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and its re-
authorization, see CRS Report RL32778, The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA):
Reauthorization of Job Training Programs in the 109th Congress, by Blake Alan Naughton
and Ann Lordeman.

---

CRS-10
related to vocational rehabilitation.26 A conference committee was appointed to
resolve the differences in the two versions of the bill but no conference report was
issued and the bill was not considered for final passage into law.
In the 109th Congress, H.R. 27, the Job Training Act of 2005, would have
extended the authorization for the vocational rehabilitation program until the end of
FY2011 and was passed by the House on March 2, 2005. S. 1021, the Workforce
Investment Act Amendments of 2005, was incorporated into H.R. 27 as an
amendment in the nature of a substitute and the amended version of H.R. 27 was
passed by the Senate on June 29, 2006 and would have extended the authorization
for appropriations for vocational rehabilitation until the end of FY2011.
The Senate bills in the 108th and 109th Congresses included provisions requiring
the Comptroller General to conduct a study on the current state allotment formula to
determine the impact of this formula on the ability of states and territories to
adequately provide vocational rehabilitation services in accordance with their state
plans. In its report on S. 1021, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions expressed its concerns with the current allotment formula, stating
The committee recognizes that in States where caseloads are constant or
increasing, but where the State is losing general population, the State typically
does not receive a percentage increase in funding that equals the percentage
increase for the amount appropriated for the entire vocational rehabilitation
system. Additionally, the committee recognizes that the factors used to determine
per capita income provide significantly more funds, on a per capita basis, to
States with lower per capita incomes.27
The House and Senate bills in the 109th Congress largely differed on matters
unrelated to vocational rehabilitation and no conference committee was formed. A
final version of these bills was not passed by the 109th Congress.
Activity in the 110th Congress. To date no bills that would extend the
authorization for vocational rehabilitation appropriations have been introduced in the
110th Congress. Both chambers may consider vocational rehabilitation
reauthorization during this Congress as part of larger efforts to reauthorize the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
26 The Senate’s version of this bill was S. 1627 and did not differ significantly on issues
related to vocational rehabilitation from the House version. The Senate incorporated S.
1627 into H.R. 1261 as an amendment in the nature of a substitute and passed this amended
version of H.R. 1261.
27 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Workforce
Investment Act Amendments of 2005, report to accompany S. 1021, 109th Cong. 1st sess.,
S.Rept. 109-134, (Washington: GPO 2005), pp. 54-55.

---

CRS-11
Vocational Rehabilitation Allotment Formula
Sections 8 and 110 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provide a formula to be
used by the RSA in determining each state and territory’s allotment of appropriated
vocational rehabilitation funds.28 This allotment formula does not take into account
a state or territory’s vocational rehabilitation caseload, or the employment rate of a
state or territory’s vocational rehabilitation clients. Rather, the formula is based on
the following three factors:
! the state or territory’s vocational rehabilitation allotment in
FY1978;29
! the state’s per capita income as a compared to the national per capita
income;30 and
! the state or territory’s population.31
A state or territory’s vocational rehabilitation allotment in FY1978 and its
population both have a direct relationship to its current final allotment. States and
territories that received larger allotments in FY1978 and states or territories with
larger populations will receive larger allotments of vocational rehabilitation funding.
A state’s per capita income as compared to the national per capita income has
an inverse relationship to the final allotment. The higher a state’s per capita income
is as compared to the national per capita income, the lower its final allotment of
vocational rehabilitation funds.
A two-step process is used to determine each state and territory’s vocational
rehabilitation allotment. In the first step, the Allotment Percentage is determined
using the formula specified in Section 8 of the act. In the second step, this allotment
percentage is used in a formula specified in Section 110 of the act.
Step 1. Determine A State’s Allotment Percentage
Each state is assigned an allotment percentage which is used in Step 2 of the
allotment formula. In general, the larger a state’s allotment percentage, the larger its
final allotment of vocational rehabilitation funds will be. A state with a larger per
capita income relative to other states will have a smaller allotment percentage.
28 29 U.S.C. §§ 706, 730.
29 A state or territory’s allotment in FY1978 was based on a state’s population and its
allotment percentage determined using the same formula currently used in Step 1.
30 This factor does not apply to the District of Columbia or the territories. A state’s per
capita and the national per capita income is determined by taking the average of the per
capita income for the most recent three consecutive years as determined by the Department
of Commerce.
31 A state or territory’s population is determined by taking the most recent data published
by the Department of Commerce before October 1 of the year preceding the fiscal year of
the appropriation.

---

CRS-12
⎡ StatePerCapitaIncome
⎤
AllotmentPercentage = 100% − ⎢
× 50%⎥
⎣ NationalPerCapitaIncome
⎦
This formula is not used for territories or the District of Columbia. The
allotment percentage for these jurisdictions is set at 75%. No state may have an
Allotment Percentage less than 33% or greater than 75%. If a state’s allotment
percentage falls outside of these boundaries, it is automatically increased to 33% or
decreased to 75% as necessary. Each state’s allotment percentage is calculated only
in even numbered years and is current for that year and the following year.
Step 2. Determine the Final Allotment
FinalAllotment = State' sFY1978 Allotment +
⎡
(StatePopulation× AllotmentPercentage2)
⎤
ExcessAmount
⎢
×
⎥ +
⎢ ∑
×
⎣
2
2
⎥
AllStates (StatePopulation
AllotmentPercentage )
⎦
⎡
(StatePopulation × AllotmentPercentage)
⎤
ExcessAmount
⎢
×
⎥
⎢ ∑
(StatePopulation × AllotmentPercentage
⎣
)
2
⎥
AllStates
⎦
This formula uses the allotment percentage calculated in Step 1. The excess
amount is the difference between the total appropriation for a given FY and the total
appropriation for FY1978.
No state’s final allotment can be less than 1/3 of 1% of the total amount
appropriated or $3,000,000, whichever is greater.32 If a state falls below this
amount, its final allotment is increased to this level and the final allotments of all
other states are decreased in proportion to their share of the total appropriation.
The vocational rehabilitation allotment formula does not contain a hold
harmless provision and it is possible that a state or territory could receive less in a
given fiscal year than it did in a previous fiscal year. This occurred in FY2000, when
the District of Columbia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, saw
their final allotments decrease from FY1999. That year, the reduction in funding for
the District of Columbia was due to a drop in population while the other states saw
their per capita incomes grow faster than the national average.
The vocational rehabilitation allotments for each state and territory for FY2007
can be found in Table 4 in Appendix II.
Reallotment
Section 110(b) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that the RSA
commissioner determine each year if any state or territory will not be able to fully
spend its vocational rehabilitation allotment and then reallot this money to states that
32 This provision does not apply to the territories but does apply to the District of Columbia.

---

CRS-13
will be able to fully utilize these funds.33 This determination must be made no later
than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year with the reallotment taking place as
soon as is practical but not after the end of the fiscal year.
There is no law or regulation governing how the RSA must reallot these funds.
However, current RSA policy is to first make reallotments to those states and
territories that did not see their original allotment increase by at least the increase in
the CPI-U and then make any additional reallotments in accordance with the standard
vocational rehabilitation allotment formula.34 States must request a reallotment and
must provide matching state funds according to the standard vocational rehabilitation
matching requirements that set the federal share at 78.7% and the state share at
21.3%. Money realloted to states and territories or money not expended after the
reallotment period can be carried over into the next fiscal year.
Analysis of the Vocational Rehabilitation
Allotment Formula
Rehabilitation advocates and Congress have raised several issues of concern
with the current vocational rehabilitation allotment formula. Advocacy groups have
consistently called for changes in the formula and the Senate has twice attempted to
pass legislation that would require the Comptroller General to investigate the
formula. The issues raised by advocacy groups and Congress fall into the following
four general categories:
! First, the current formula does not take into account a state’s ability
to pay its share of the funding or spend its allotment and as a result
states frequently return unspent funds to the RSA for reallotment.
! Second, the increase in the CPI-U that affects the total appropriation
is not always passed on to each state or territory. As a result, some
states and territories do not receive an increase in funding to keep
pace with increased costs due to inflation.
! Third, the current funding formula does not account for the size of
a state’s caseload or its success at rehabilitating clients and assisting
them in finding and keeping competitive employment.
! Fourth, the current formula’s use of a state or territory’s 1978
allotment as a baseline lessens the impact of a state’s population on
its allotment and tends to negatively affect states with large
population growth since 1978.
33 29 U.S.C. § 730(b).
34 Department of Education, Rehabilitation Service Administration, Information
Memorandum RSA-IM-06-08: FY 2006 Reallotment Schedule for Formula Grants Under
the Rehabilitation Act, June 22, 2006, available on the website of the Department of
Education at [http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/rsa/im-06-08.pdf]. The Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (S. 1627) in the 108th Congress and The Workforce Investment Act
Amendments of 2005 (S. 1021) in the 109th Congress contained provisions that would have
given states that did not receive an increase in appropriations equal to the increase in the
CPI-U priority when applying for reallotment funds.

---

CRS-14
The Formula Does Not Take Into Account a State or
Territory’s Ability to Pay its Share of the Match
The current vocational rehabilitation allotment formula does not take into
account a state or territory’s ability or willingness to match the federal grant with
state or territorial funds as required by law. As a result, states and territories that for
political or economic reasons are not able to contribute the required 21.3% of total
vocational rehabilitation funding must return some of their federal funding to the
RSA for reallotment. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions has recognized this as a problem with the current formula stating in its
report on S. 1021 in the 109th Congress:
Yearly, States return millions of Federally appropriated dollars to carry out
vocational rehabilitation services program under Subtitle A to the Department of
Education to redistribute, as they were unable to match the allotted funds with
State dollars.35
As shown in Table 5 of Appendix III, since 1991 states and territories have
returned over $321 million in federal vocational rehabilitation funds to the RSA for
reallotment. This amount is less than 1% of the total federal funding for vocational
rehabilitation state and territorial grants during this period.
The Increase in the CPI-U is Not Always Passed Along to the
States and Territories
As shown in Table 3 of Appendix II, total federal spending on vocational
rehabilitation generally keeps pace with price inflation as reflected by the CPI-U.
However, while the total appropriation for vocational rehabilitation increases each
year to reflect higher prices, the individual amounts allotted to states and territories
may not. There is no hold-harmless provision in the law that guarantees that a state
or territory will see an increase in its vocational rehabilitation allotment at all, let
alone a guarantee that it will see an increase that matches the increase in the CPI-U.
In FY2006, 19 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, and
Puerto Rico did not have an increase in their vocational rehabilitation allotment that
matched or exceeded the growth in the CPI-U from the previous year.36 Louisiana,
Mississippi, Oklahoma, Guam, and Puerto Rico had a decrease in their allotment
from FY2005 while the remaining 15 states, the District of Columbia, and American
Samoa had increases that did not keep pace with inflation.
35 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Workforce
Investment Act Amendments of 2005, report to accompany S. 1021, 109th Cong. 1st sess.,
S.Rept. 109-134, (Washington: GPO 2005), p. 55.
36 The following states did not have an increase of at least 3.2% from FY2005 in their
FY2006 vocational rehabilitation allotment: Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.

---

CRS-15
The Senate passed legislation in the 108th and 109th Congresses that would have
partially dealt with this issue by requiring that states and territories that did not
receive an increase in their vocational rehabilitation allotment that was at least equal
to the increase in the CPI-U from the previous year would receive the first priority
for any reallotted funds. The RSA currently reallots funds using this method.
Advocacy groups have taken this a step further, however, and both the National
Rehabilitation Association and the Council of State Administrators of Vocational
Rehabilitation (CSAVR) have publicly called for changes to the vocational
rehabilitation funding process that would ensure that each state and territory receives
an annual allotment that keeps pace with the increases in the cost of living.37
The Formula Does Not Take Into Account a State’s or
Territory’s Caseload or Success at Returning Clients to Work
A state or territory’s vocational rehabilitation allotment is based on its allotment
in 1978, its per capita income, and its population. The size of a state or territory’s
vocational rehabilitation caseload, or its success at returning portion of this caseload
to the workforce are not part of the allotment formula and are not a factor in
determining how much money a state or territory will have available for vocational
rehabilitation services.
Because the size of a state or territory’s caseload is not part of the allotment
formula, state and territorial vocational rehabilitation agencies are often unable to
provide services for persons that want them. Currently, more than half of all state
vocational rehabilitation agencies are operating under orders of selection which
require that they establish waiting lists for vocational services and provide services
to persons determined to have the most significant disabilities. Nearly 40,000
persons with disabilities seeking vocational rehabilitation services are currently
waiting on these lists.
In addition to disregarding the size of a state or territory’s vocational
rehabilitation caseload, the allotment formula does not take into account a state or
territory’s performance in returning clients to the workforce and helping them
maintain competitive employment. As a result, the Department of Education is left
without a possible tool to encourage compliance with established performance
standards and has no way to reward state or territorial agencies that are successful at
returning clients to the workforce.
Section 107(c) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 does give the Secretary of
Education the ability to withhold vocational rehabilitation funding from any state or
territory that is not in compliance with its published state plan or that is falling below
the performance standards established by the Department of Education for the
37 National Rehabilitation Association, Recommendations for Reauthorization of the
Rehabilitation Act, January 29, 2003, available on the website of the National Rehabilitation
Association at [http://www.nationalrehab.org/website/govt/200240.html]; and Council of
State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation, CSAVR Comments on HR 27, February
14, 2005, available on the website of the Council of State Administrators of Vocational
Rehabilitation at [http://www.rehabnetwork.org/wia_rehab_act/hrcomments.htm].

---

CRS-16
vocational rehabilitation program. However, despite the fact that the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) identified two cases in FY2003 in which vocational
rehabilitation agencies failed to meet these performance standards, the Department
of Education has never withheld funding from a state or territorial vocational
rehabilitation agency because of performance.38
The GAO cited the inability of the Department of Education to establish a
means to reward successful vocational rehabilitation agencies with increased funding
as part of the agency’s overall inability to properly monitor and manage the
performance of the state and territorial vocational rehabilitation agencies that it
provides funding to.39 In addition, the Senate recognized this shortcoming in the
current law and Section 421 of S. 1021 in the 109th Congress provided authorization
for the Department of Education to provide incentive grants to states that
demonstrated success at returning persons with disabilities to the workforce.40 In its
report on S. 1021, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
stated:
Based on program data and other sources of information, it is apparent that there
is a wide variation in the performance of individual State vocational
rehabilitation agencies. In Section 421 of S. 1021 the Committee permanently
authorizes the Administration’s Vocational Rehabilitation Incentive Grants
Program as a method to encourage State vocational rehabilitation agencies to
improve their performance. The Committee intends that grant funds be used
primarily to encourage State vocational rehabilitation agencies to adopt effective
strategies to improve employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities
receiving assistance under the vocational rehabilitation program.41
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that these incentive grants
would have cost $13 million in 2006 and $137 million over the period from 2006
through 2010.42
38 Government Accountability Office, Vocational Rehabilitation: Better Measures and
Monitoring Could Improve the Performance of the VR Program, GAO-05-865,
(Washington: GPO 2005), p. 35. (Hereafter cited as GAO-05-865).
39 GAO-05-865.
40 This provision was also included as Section 419 of S. 1621, the Workforce Investment Act
Amendments of 2003, in the 108th Congress.
41 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Workforce
Investment Act Amendments of 2005, report to accompany S. 1021, 109th Cong. 1st sess.,
S.Rept. 109-134, (Washington: GPO 2005), p. 56.
42 Congressional Budget Office, S. 1021 Workforce Investment Act Amendments of 2005,
cost estimate, (Washington: GPO 2005), p. 6.

---

CRS-17
The Formula’s 1978 Baseline Negatively Affects States With
Population Growth Since the Mid-1970s
A unique feature of the vocational rehabilitation allotment formula is its use of
a state’s 1978 allotment as a baseline for all current and future allotments. While the
formula also considers a state’s per capita income and population, these variables
only affect a state’s share of the excess amount — the difference between the total
appropriations for the current FY and the total appropriations for FY1978. For
FY2007 the excess amount makes up 73% of the total vocational rehabilitation
appropriation meaning that 27% of the total appropriation is not affected by the
allotment formula but rather is distributed to match each state and territory’s FY1978
allotment.43
In order to analyze the impact of the 1978 baseline on the vocational
rehabilitation allotment formula, each state and territory’s FY2007 allotment is
estimated using a modified formula that does not take into account a state or
territory’s allotment in FY1978.44 Table 6, in Appendix IV shows each state and
territory’s estimated allotment for FY2007 under this modified formula and the
difference between these amounts and the actual allotments. In this table, states with
positive differences between their actual and modified allotments are benefitting
from the current formula and its use of the FY1978 allotment as a baseline while
states with negative differences are not benefitting from this formula.
An analysis of the modified allotment formula as compared to the actual
FY2007 state allotments shows that states with the largest increases in population
from 1976 until 2005 also had the largest reductions due to the use of the FY1978
baseline to actual allotments. Nevada, the state with the largest population growth
also had the largest difference in allotments and of the five states with the largest
differences in allotments, four were also among the top five states in population
growth. Statistical analyses of the data show strong and significant negative
correlations between a state’s rate of population growth from 1976 and the difference
between its FY2007 allotment and its modified allotments.45 These negative
correlations demonstrate that states with large increases in population since the mid-
1970s have the largest differences between their actual and modified allotments
under the current allotment formula. This analysis also demonstrates how the current
vocational rehabilitation allotment formula does not properly account for population
changes, such as migrations to the Southern and Western states during this period.
43 The total allotment in FY1978 was $759,317,831 while the total allotment for FY2007
was $2,802,716,000.
44 This modified allotment is calculated by multiplying a state’s share of the excess amount
by the total appropriation for FY2007.
45 The statistical analyses yielded a Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient of
-0.7449 and a Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation Coefficient of -0.6968. Both coefficients
were significant at the level of p<0.0001. These statistical tests measure the correlation
between a state’s population growth and the difference between its current and modified
allotments, but they do not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between these
variables. Additional information on the statistical analyses is available from the author of
this report.

---

CRS-18
Issues for the 110th Congress
It is likely that the 110th Congress will consider the reauthorization of the
vocational rehabilitation program. Efforts to reauthorize the program without
significant changes to the allotment formula or other aspects of the program were
unsuccessful in the 108th and 109th Congresses. If Congress does consider
reauthorization in 2007 or 2008, it may want to consider making changes to several
parts of the vocational rehabilitation program. Possible areas for reform include the
definition of disability used and the order of selection rules that give preference to
persons with the most severe disabilities even those this group may be the least likely
to return to work. This issue is expected to be addressed in a future Congressional
Research Service report.
In addition, Congress may wish to consider some method for increasing the
overall success rate of the vocational rehabilitation program. Currently, the RSA has
very little ability to give states and territories incentives to improve the return to work
rate of their vocational rehabilitation clients or to punish states that fail to meet
established expectations for vocational rehabilitation agencies. The Senate’s
reauthorization bill in the 109th Congress did include a program of authorization
grants that could be used to reward states that demonstrate success at returning clients
to the workforce. The overall effectiveness of the vocational rehabilitation program
is to be examined in a future Congressional Research Service report.
In its previous two attempts at vocational reauthorization, the Senate has
recognized some of the shortcomings of the allotment formula discussed in this
report. In both the 108th and 109th Congress the Senate reauthorization bills would
have required the GAO to study the vocational allotment formula.
As demonstrated in this Congressional Research Service report, the current
formula fails to account for a state or territory’s ability to pay its share of the costs
of vocational rehabilitation or its caseload. In addition, this report has shown that the
current formula does not ensure that funding increases due to changes in the cost of
living are passed along to individual states and territories. The formula also does not
take into account a state or territory’s success at returning vocational rehabilitation
clients to work. Finally, this report has shown the impact of the allotment formula
on the vocational rehabilitation funding levels of states that have seen significant
population growth since the 1970s. Each of these concerns with the allotment
formula are areas that the House and Senate may consider as they prepare to consider
reauthorization of the vocational rehabilitation program in the 110th Congress.

---

CRS-19
Appendix I. Order of Selection Status for State and
Territorial Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies
Table 1. Order of Selection Status for States and Territories
with Combined Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies, FY2007
State
Order of
State
Order of
Selection?
Selection?
Alabama
No
North Dakota
Yes
Alaska
No
Ohio
Yes
Arizona
Yes
Oklahoma
Yes
California
Yes
Pennsylvania
Yes
Colorado
Yes
Rhode Island
Yes
Georgia
Yes
Tennessee
Yes
Hawaii
Yes
Utah
No
Illinois
Yes
West Virginia
Yes
Indiana
Yes
Wisconsin
Yes
Kansas
Yes
Wyoming
Yes
Louisiana
Yes
District of Columbia
No
Maryland
Yes
American Samoa
No
Mississippi
Yes
Guam
No
Montana
No
N. Mariana Islands
No
Nevada
No
Puerto Rico
No
New Hampshire
No
U.S. Virgin Islands
Yes
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) table with data provided by the U.S. Department of
Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services.

---

CRS-20
Table 2. Order of Selection Status for General and Blind
Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies, by State, FY2007
Order of Selection?
State
General Agency
Blind Agency
Arkansas
Yes
Yes
Connecticut
Yes
No
Delaware
No
Yes
Florida
No
No
Idaho
No
No
Iowa
Yes
No
Kentucky
Yes
Yes
Maine
Yes
Yes
Massachusetts
Yes
No
Michigan
No
No
Minnesota
Yes
No
Missouri
Yes
No
Nebraska
Yes
No
New Jersey
Yes
No
New Mexico
No
No
New York
No
No
North Carolina
Yes
No
Oregon
Yes
No
South Carolina
No
No
South Dakota
No
No
Texas
No
No
Vermont
Yes
No
Virginia
Yes
Yes
Washington
Yes
No
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) table with data provided by the U.S. Department of
Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services.

---

CRS-21
Appendix II. Vocational Rehabilitation
Appropriations and State Allotment Data
Table 3. Changes in Vocational Rehabilitation Appropriations
and the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), FY1999-FY2007
Appropriation
Change from
Change in
Appropriations
(in thousands
Previous FY
CPI-U
FY
Law
of $)
(%)
(%)
1998
P.L. 105-78
2,246,888
n/a
n/a
1999
P.L. 105-277
2,304,411
2.6
2.1
2000
P.L. 106-113
2,338,977
1.5
1.5
2001
P.L. 106-554
2,399,790
2.6
2.6
2002
P.L. 107-116
2,481,383
3.4
3.4
2003
P.L. 108-7
2,533,492
2.1
2.1
2004
P.L. 108-199
2,584,162
2.0
2.0
2005
P.L. 108-447
2,635,845
2.0
2.0
2006
P.L. 109-149
2,720,192
3.2
3.2
2007
P.L. 110-5a
2,837,160
4.4
4.4
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) figure with data on appropriations taken from the
conference reports accompanying each FY’s appropriations bill and data on the CPI-U taken from the
website of the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics at [ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/
special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt].
Notes: Appropriations data includes money appropriated to Native American Indian Tribes under the
provisions of Section 121 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 741).
a. P.L. 110-5 was the fourth in a series of continuing resolutions used to make appropriations for
FY2007.

---

CRS-22
Table 4. Vocational Rehabilitation State and Territorial
Final Allotments, FY2007
State or
Allotment
State or
Allotment
Territory
(dollars)
Territory
(dollars)
Alabama
56,445,098
Nevada
17,843,899
Alaska
9,342,387
New Hampshire
10,573,786
Arizona
56,406,863
New Jersey
54,171,747
Arkansas
35,708,220
New Mexico
22,359,551
California
2,714,528,202
New York
146,134,022
Colorado
34,105,069
North Carolina
90,329,177
Connecticut
19,870,539
North Dakota
9,342,387
Delaware
9,342,387
Ohio
118,396,849
District of Columbia
12,182,451
Oklahoma
40,564,976
Florida
154,108,575
Oregon
34,855,466
Georgia
86,685,255
Pennsylvania
121,735,403
Hawaii
11,254,618
Rhode Island
10,276,323
Idaho
15,464,609
South Carolina
49,594,695
Illinois
103,911,345
South Dakota
9,342,387
Indiana
66,266,265
Tennessee
64,866,447
Iowa
31,580,868
Texas
212,142,313
Kansas
26,963,399
Utah
26,821,027
Kentucky
50,876,929
Vermont
9,342,387
Louisiana
56,314,853
Virginia
62,456,588
Maine
14,885,193
Washington
48,830,519
Maryland
39,069,153
West Virginia
24,796,159
Massachusetts
45,164,390
Wisconsin
54,831,961
Michigan
95,240,255
Wyoming
9,342,387
Minnesota
43,337,953
American Samoa
924,424
Mississippi
41,030,639
Guam
2,831,294
Northern Mariana
Missouri
61,038,559
1,126,126
Islands
Montana
10,907,036
Puerto Rico
70,459,799
U.S. Virgin
Nebraska
17,539,735
1,965,456
Islands
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) table with data taken from the Department of
Education website at [http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/08stbyprogram.pdf].
Note: Does not include any reallotments that have occurred or may occur in FY2007.

---

CRS-23
Appendix III. Vocational Rehabilitation Funds
Returned for Reallotment, FY1991-FY2006
Table 5. Vocational Rehabilitation Funds
Returned for Reallotment, FY1991-FY2006
Percent of Total
FY
Amount Returned
Federal Allotment
1991
$26,721,793
1.64
1992
43,686,698
2.45
1993
5,897,261
0.31
1994
46,924,222
2.38
1995
24,130,066
1.18
1996
19,266,781
0.92
1997
8,126,332
0.38
1998
10,219,861
0.46
1999
10,653,948
0.47
2000
10,660,283
0.46
2001
12,232,685
0.51
2002
25,269,055
1.03
2003
22,442,536
0.90
2004
35,830,933
1.40
2005a
0
0.00
2006
19,525,481
0.73
Total
321,587,935
0.90
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) table with data taken from
annual Information Memoranda released by the Rehabilitation Services
Administration available on the website of the Department of Education at
[http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/rsa/information-memoranda.html].
a Does not include reallotments made under the provisions of the Assistance
for Individuals with Disabilities Affected by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita Act
of 2005, P.L. 109-82.

---

CRS-24
Appendix IV. State Vocational Rehabilitation
Allotments, Modified Allotments,
and Population Data
Table 6. Vocational Rehabilitation State FY2007 Allotments,
FY2007 Modified Allotments, and
1976 to 2005 Population Growth
Estimated
Difference as
Population
Actual
FY2007
Percentage of
Growth,
FY2007
Modified
FY2007 Modified
1976 to 2005
State
Allotment ($)
Allotment ($)
Allotment
(%)
Alabama
56,445,098
52,589,725
6.83
21.77
Alaska
9,342,387
10,070,786
-7.80
65.41
Arizona
56,406,863
65,672,100
-16.43
153.73
Arkansas
35,708,220
34,612,741
3.07
27.90
California
271,452,202
294,093,386
-8.34
64.82
Colorado
34,105,069
35,400,446
-3.80
77.16
Connecticut
19,870,539
17,628,743
11.28
13.54
Delaware
9,342,387
10,070,786
-7.80
42.63
Dist. of Columbia
12,182,451
9,265,404
23.94
-15.92
Florida
154,108,575
171,408,514
-11.23
105.00
Georgia
86,685,255
89,910,288
-3.72
77.92
Hawaii
11,254,618
12,267,322
-9.00
40.82
Idaho
15,464,609
16,623,308
-7.49
66.79
Illinois
103,911,345
104,806,374
-0.86
12.54
Indiana
66,266,265
64,683,776
2.33
16.27
Iowa
31,580,868
30,921,090
2.09
2.15
Kansas
26,963,399
27,106,847
-0.53
19.43
Kentucky
50,876,929
47,948,045
5.76
18.23
Louisiana
56,314,853
52,450,420
6.86
14.09
Maine
14,885,193
13,603,428
8.61
21.11
Maryland
39,069,153
37,874,231
3.06
34.67
Massachusetts
45,164,390
36,966,756
18.15
12.01
Michigan
95,240,255
93,754,396
1.56
10.64
Minnesota
43,337,953
41,195,061
4.94
29.31
Mississippi
41,030,639
37,894,131
7.64
19.70
Missouri
61,038,559
58,758,754
3.74
19.81

---

CRS-25
Estimated
Difference as
Population
Actual
FY2007
Percentage of
Growth,
FY2007
Modified
FY2007 Modified
1976 to 2005
State
Allotment ($)
Allotment ($)
Allotment
(%)
Montana
10,907,036
11,000,935
-0.86
23.43
Nebraska
17,539,735
17,154,232
2.20
13.36
Nevada
17,843,899
21,731,423
-21.79
272.86
New Hampshire
10,573,786
10,000,357
5.42
54.61
New Jersey
54,171,747
49,100,807
9.37
18.58
New Mexico
22,359,551
22,921,649
-2.51
61.94
New York
146,134,022
134,992,118
7.62
7.67
North Carolina
90,329,177
90,339,296
-0.01
54.65
North Dakota
9,342,387
10,070,786
-7.80
-1.73
Ohio
118,396,849
112,168,766
5.26
6.68
Oklahoma
40,564,976
39,824,312
1.83
25.35
Oregon
34,855,466
36,684,233
-5.25
53.01
Pennsylvania
121,735,403
112,182,665
7.85
4.27
Rhode Island
10,276,323
9,617,066
6.42
13.48
South Carolina
49,594,695
48,951,402
1.30
44.27
South Dakota
9,342,387
8,973,568
3.95
12.89
Tennessee
64,866,447
62,549,745
3.57
37.01
Texas
212,142,313
226,842,989
-6.93
77.68
Utah
26,821,027
29,162,677
-8.73
95.33
Vermont
9,342,387
9,900,778
-5.98
28.35
Virginia
62,456,588
61,663,416
1.27
47.69
Washington
48,830,519
51,779,341
-6.04
70.35
West Virginia
24,796,159
22,299,260
10.07
-3.48
Wisconsin
54,831,961
52,183,800
4.83
20.27
Wyoming
9,342,387
10,070,786
-7.80
28.18
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) table with data on FY2007 Allotments taken from
website of the Department of Education at [http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/ statetables/
08stbyprogram.pdf]; population data taken from the Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
Notes: FY2007 Modified Allotments are calculated by multiplying a state’s share of the excess
amount by the total appropriation for FY2007.

---