What a Difference a Race Makes: Reasons for Ineligibility Within The Vocational Rehabilitation System.

The purpose of this study was to identify the reasons for ineligibility among African Americans and European Americans seeking vocational rehabilitation (VR) assistance. The authors used a Chi-square test of independence to examine the reasons for closure after being found ineligible for VR services. Additionally, this study utilized the Cramer's V to test the strength of the association between the explanatory and criterion variables. Using this methodology, race and reason for closure if not accepted for VR services were dependent (statistically significant) of each other. Furthermore, race and reason for closure had a low association (Cramer's V = .164). African Americans were more likely to be closed (a) cannot locate and (b) failure to cooperate. Whereas, European Americans were likely to be closed (a) handicap too severe, (b) no vocational handicap and (c) other. Implications for rehabilitation counselors are discussed.

The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 state: "Patterns of inequitable treatment of minorities have been documented in all major junctures of the vocational process ... Of applicants accepted for services, a larger percentage of African American cases are closed without being rehabilitated" [sic](Alston & Bell, 1996b, p. 78). Atkinson and Hackett (1985) reported that monocultural ideologies of rehabilitation professionals facilitate the denial of dimensions of customers' identities (also see Mahalik, Worthington & Crump, 1999). If VR counselors are to effectively identify factors leading to the closure of cases among African American and European American customers without being rehabilitated, it is vital that we analyze the significance of race in relationship to rehabilitation outcomes and overall service delivery within the VR system.

Case closure and administration of rehabilitation services are but two facets of vocational rehabilitation; however, it could be argued that they are the most important factors concerning the overall access to rehabilitation services for marginalized customers. Effective administration without successful closure may defeat the aims of the VR system. On the other hand, reduced support from the state VR administration examining closure reasons may be counterproductive for customers seeking VR services; but when both are effective, rehabilitation is at its optimum.

Rehabilitation professionals and educators use multiple strategies to ensure successful case closures. Sue (1994) and many others have accented "multicultural counseling competencies" when training rehabilitation professionals. In a subsequent study, Rubin, Davis, Noe, and Turner (1996) adduced beyond training initiatives to actually discussing methods for evaluating training effectiveness. By emphasizing both the process and outcomes, Rubin et al. came closest to the overall goal of the present study--to explore delivery. To reach this goal, we took several steps. First, we acknowledged that multiple factors contribute to successful case closure among various cultural groups. Second, we suggest that each culture should be examined independently as well as by comparison in order to measure the equitable treatment of diverse clientele in rehabilitation settings. We further postulate that these approaches may also allow one to examine the interdependence of variables such as race, class, gender, and disability on unsuccessful case closures within the VR system.

Literature Review

One of the first studies examining reasons for closure if found ineligible for VR services was conducted in 1980 by Atkins and Wright. This study compared several factors that affected service delivery among African Americans and European Americans. Atkins and Wright observed that African Americans (12.09 percent) were found ineligible for VR services because they "failed to cooperate" at a proportionally higher rate when compared to their European American (8.59 percent) counterparts. In addition, the authors reported that the most cited reason for VR ineligibility among African Americans (7.25 percent) and European Americans (4.41 percent) was not having a handicap, and that 6.18 percent of African Americans compared to 3.13 percent of European Americans were unsuccessfully closed for a "non-disabling condition." Atkins and Wright suggested that African Americans were not being treated fairly in the VR system. It appears from this study that African Americans and European Americans have different experiences once they enter the VR system. The debate, however, continues over why these discrepancies exist.

For example, after being invited to respond to and after recalculating the data from the Atkins and Wright (1980) study, Bolton and Cooper (1980) asserted that differences among African and European Americans entering the VR system may not represent unfair treatment and that further analysis was needed. The findings of both the Atkins and Wright and the Bolton and Cooper studies are significant in that they demonstrated that African American customers were found not eligible for VR services at a higher rate than their European American counterparts. At this point, no clear pattern for ineligibility emerged.

Another factor examined to address the affect of race on eligibility is the customer-counselor relationship within the VR system. Danek and Lawrence (1982) explored the relationship between client-counselor racial similarity and rehabilitation outcomes and found that elements of their results were congruent with those found earlier by Atkins and Wright (1980). Although Danek and Lawrence reported that client-counselor racial similarity and rehabilitation outcomes were not related, they further indicated that African American customers' cases were most commonly closed for "lack of cooperation" and European Americans were most commonly closed for "refusing VR services," results similar to what Atkins and Wright had reported earlier. A pattern begins to emerge as African Americans were reported to be closed "failure to cooperate," when not accepted for VR services, whereas the pattern is not so clear for European Americans with disabilities.

Vocational rehabilitation closure status by race continued to gain needed attention as Ross and Biggi (1986) reported that the most common reason for closure when found ineligible for VR services among European American customers was the "refusal of services," which Atkins and Wright (1980) and Danek and Lawrence (1982) also reported for European Americans. Ross and Biggi reported that the most cited reason for closure of non-whites was "failure to cooperate." They reported in rank order (highest to lowest) that the cases of European Americans were more likely to be closed because (a) refused services, (b) failed to cooperate, (c) had a handicap that was too severe, (d) had other circumstances, and (e) were unable to be located. These cases of African Americans were more likely to be closed for (a) failure to cooperate, (b) refusal of services, (c) a handicap too severe, (d) unable to locate, and (e) other reasons. Additionally, Ross and Biggi reported that the two main reasons for case closures among Indians/Alaskans were (a) failure to cooperate and (b) refused services; for Asians/Pacific Islanders the highest reasons for case closures were (a) refused services and (b) unable to locate. Based on the existing literature in the VR field, a clear pattern for European Americans, however, did not emerge. The results reported by Ross and Biggi (1986) were congruent with those reported earlier (Atkins & Wright, 1980; Danek & Lawrence, 1982) in which African Americans were likely to be closed due to "failure to cooperate."

Past studies investigating reasons for ineligibility among African Americans and European Americans with disabilities support the findings that African Americans are more likely to be closed due to "failure to cooperate" (Atkins & Wright, 1980; Danek & Lawrence, 1982; Ross & Biggi, 1996); whereas, European Americans are likely to be found ineligible for VR services because of refusing VR services (Atkins & Wright, 1980; Danek & Lawrence, 1982; Ross & Biggi, 1986). Other reasons for closure seem less clear. It is apparent that the reason for ineligibility by race appears to be different for African Americans and European Americans with disabilities. Research is warranted in this most important area to enhance the understanding of this noted discrepancy among the races.

The study reported here differs from past investigations in the following areas: (a) it correlates race and reason for closure, (b) it uses more closure options for VR customers and (c) it uses standardized scores for ease in interpreting the results. It is expected that the present investigation will shed more light on VR closure outcomes among African Americans and European Americans who are determined to be ineligible for VR services.

The Research Question

The study reported here set out to answer the following research question: Is there a difference between African Americans and European Americans in the reason for case closure once found ineligible (Status 08) for VR services?

Method

Data Collection. The data for this study came from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) 911 data report. This data was produced by a state agency where VR counselors record the opening and closing of each case. In addition, the coding procedures of the RSA-911 data conformed to federal guidelines established by RSA in 1995. The authors assigned any coding errors as random and unbiased and, to decrease the possibility of further coding errors, the authors generated descriptive statistics and examined variables for outliers and suspicious patterns. None was observed.

Sample. The sampling frame included 62,178 customers who sought VR services in a large Midwestern state. The subsample included 42,574 African Americans and European Americans who sought VR services during the 1996 fiscal year (October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996). At the first step in the sampling process, the authors identified persons with no missing data on the explanatory and criterion variables of race and VR ineligibility, respectively. The final subsample included all African Americans (n = 818) and European Americans (n = 2,642) whose cases were closed (ineligible for VR services) with no missing values on Status 08 (coded when customers are found ineligible for VR services). The authors did not statistically control for other variables in the study.

Variables

Racial Status. Race (African Americans and European Americans) served as the explanatory variable (categorical) by which we analyzed the population. For purposes of this study, race was defined as the race reported by customers on their applications for VR services (RSA, 1995). The authors excluded Asian Americans and Native Americans because of inadequate sample sizes. At the time, no category existed for multiracial designations.

Reasons for Closure. This variable has 11 descriptors, which are: (a) unable to locate, (b) handicap too severe, (c) refused service, (d) death, (e) institutionalized, (f) transfer to another agency, (g) failure to cooperate, (h) no disability, (i) no vocational handicap, (j) transportation, and (k) other.

Status 08. This closure was used to identify customers who were ineligible or otherwise not accepted for VR services (RSA, 1995).

Test Statistics. The method used to examine the reason for closure of those cases that were found to be ineligible for VR services among African Americans (n = 818) and European Americans (n = 2,642) was the chi-square test of independence. Because the present investigation is analyzing categorical data, the chi-square test is the appropriate test statistic (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 1990; Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993). If the obtained frequencies are similar to the expected frequencies, then researchers conclude that the groups do not differ" (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993, p. 201). The Adjusted Standardized Residuals (ASRESIDs) was used to see whether cells departed from the null hypothesis of independence. Because the ASRESIDs is normally distributed with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1, scores can be interpreted as z-scores. SPSS (1997) reports that ASRESIDs of [+ or -] 2 are considered statistically significant. Positive ASRESIDs (z-scores) indicated that the proportion of African Americans whose cases were closed for ineligibility was greater than that of European Americans. Negative ASRESIDs (z-scores) indicated that the proportion of European Americans whose cases were closed for ineligibility was greater than that of African Americans. Because the data analyzed was dichotomous and multidichotomous, the Cramer's V was used to measure the association between the explanatory and criterion variables.

Results

An initial cross-tabulation analysis revealed that the chi-square test violated one of the basic assumptions reported by SPSS (1997) [a cell having less than an expected value of 1]. Consequently, "transportation" was collapsed into the "other" category. Deleting transportation was not considered because doing so would have resulted in lost data. Subsequent analysis found no assumption violations. As Table 1 shows, race and reason for closure when found ineligible for VR services proved statistically significant: [chi square] (2, n = 3,460) = 92.756; p [is less than] .05; Cramer's V = .164. There is also a low association between race and reason for closure. African Americans were closed (a) unable to locate and (b) failure to cooperate, whereas European Americans were closed (a) handicap too severe, (b) no vocational handicap and (c) for other reasons. These findings are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Reason For Closure Once Determined Ineligible For Vocational Rehabilitation Services

                                 n (Column Percent)
                                 European Americans

                                 n         (Column %)

Unable To Locate                140          (5.3)
Handicap Too Severe             119          (4.5)
Refused Service                 715         (27.1)
Death                            10           (.4)
Institutionalized                31          (1.2)
Transferred                      16           (.6)
Failure To Cooperate            519         (19.6)
No Disability                   163          (6.2)
No Vocational Handicap          246          (9.3)
Other                           683         (25.9)
Total                         2,642        (100.0)

                         Adjusted Standardized Residual
                               African Americans

                                  n        (Column %)

Unable To Locate                 94         (11.5)
Handicap Too Severe              19          (2.3)
Refused Service                 192         (23.5)
Death                             4           (.5)
Institutionalized                11          (1.3)
Transferred                       3           (.4)
Failure To Cooperate            239         (29.2)
No Disability                    50          (6.1)
No Vocational Handicap           48          (5.9)
Other                           158         (19.3)
Total                           818        (100.0)

                              Total %        ASRESID

Unable To Locate                6.8           6.2(*)
Handicap Too Severe             4.0          -2.8(*)
Refused Service                26.2          -2.0(*)
Death                           0.4           0.4
Institutionalized               1.2           0.4
Transferred                     0.5           0.8
Failure To Cooperate           21.9           5.8(*)
No Disability                   6.2          -0.1
No Vocational Handicap          8.5           3.1(*)
Other                          24.3           3.8(*)
Total

(*) p < .05. Note: [chi square] (2 n=3,460)=92.756; p < .05; Cramer's V=.164. Positive z-scores indicate that the proportion of African Americans was greater than the proportion of European Americans. Negative z-scores indicate that the proportion of European Americans was greater than the proportion of African Americans

Discussion

As indicated by the present study and corroborated by Feist-Price (1995), Atkins and Wright (1980), Denek and Lawrence (1982), and Ross and Biggi (1986), African Americans are more likely to be closed "failure to cooperate." A customer's case is closed "failure to cooperate" when his/her actions convince the counselor that it is not possible to continue rehabilitation services. This closure status may be utilized if the customer fails to keep appointments for counseling and other VR services and for noncompliance with guidelines provided in the customer's rehabilitation plan (RSA, 1995). According to Dziekan and Okocha (1993), consumers may not follow through with the rehabilitation process due to their frustrations with the steps and delays involved. Dziekan and Okocha further postulated that the counselor's perception of the client's level of involvement may result in an inaccurate determination of the customer's ability to benefit from VR services. The recent study by Rosenthal and Berven (1999) supports this assertion by Dziekan and Okocha. Therefore, the counselor's and customer's feelings about the VR process may influence the customer's level of involvement, which may result in the case being closed "failure to cooperate" if determined by the counselor. In contrast, European Americans are more likely to be closed (a) handicap too severe, (b) having no vocational handicap and (c) other circumstances.

"Handicap too severe," which the present investigation reports as a reason for closure for European Americans, "is used to identify an individual whose mental or physical disability is so severely limiting that there is little chance the individual can be vocationally rehabilitated (RSA, 1995, p. 43)." Although African Americans with disabilities tend to present with proportionally more severe disabilities than European Americans in the general population (Allen, 1976; Marshall, 1987), European Americans were proportionally more likely to be found ineligible for VR services due to the severity of their disabilities in the present investigation. Because African Americans are proportionally more severely disabled in the general populace, these findings contradict what one would normally expect to find relative to the relationship between severity of disability and eligibility for VR services by race in this Midwestern state.

To make an ineligibility determination of "handicap too severe," an assessment and/or thorough review of functional limitations must be made by the VR counselor. Therefore, the authors of this study find this data intriguing as it appears, based on this finding, that European American customers are more likely to receive an in-depth analysis prior to their cases being closed, and are not found eligible for VR services because they present no physical or mental impairment during the application process. It might be useful to see if European Americans spent more time in Status 06 (evaluation) compared to their African American counterparts. As observed in the present investigation, it is likely that a customer who has a disability that is not a vocational handicap might be coded as having "no vocational handicap" if not accepted for VR services. African Americans (minorities) and European Americans with disabilities are found ineligible for VR services for different reasons (See Table 2).

Table 2

Comparative Analysis: Reasons for Ineligibility (Status 08) Within The Vocational Rehabilitation System By Research Team, Year and Results

Research Teams        Year       Reasons for Ineligibility
                                 (Status 08)

Atkins and Wright     1980(*)    Failure to cooperate (AA)
                                 No vocational handicap (AA)
                                 No disabling condition (AA)
                                 Unable to locate (EA)
                                 Refused VR services (EA)

Danek and Lawrence    1982       Failure to cooperate (AA)
                                 Refused VR services (EA)

Ross and Biggi        1986(*)    Failure to cooperate (non-whites)
                                 Refused VR services (non-whites)
                                 Handicap too severe (non-whites)
                                 Unable to locate (non-whites)
                                 Other (non-whites)

                                 Refused VR services (EA)
                                 Failure to cooperate (EA)
                                 Handicap too server (EA)
                                 Other (EA)
                                 Unable to locate (EA)

                                 Failure to cooperate (IA)
                                 Refused VR services (IA)
                                 Other (IA)
                                 Handicap too severe (IA)
                                 Institutionalized (IA)

                                 Refused VR services (AP)
                                 Unable to locate (AP)
                                 Handicap too severe (AP)
                                 Failure to cooperate (AP)
                                 Other (AP)

Wilson, Jackson,      2000       Unable to Locate (AA)
and Doughty                      Failure to cooperate (AA)
                                 Other (EA)
                                 No vocational handicap (EA)
                                 Handicap too severe (EA)
                                 Refused VR services (EA)

Table Abbreviations: AA = African Americans, EA = European Americans, IA = Indians/Alaskans, and AP = Asians/Pacific Islanders. Generally, reasons for ineligibility are arranged in rank order--highest to lowest. Asterisk (*): Did not indicate which variables for ineligibility were statistically significant.

African Americans' cases tend to be closed "unable to locate" when found ineligible for VR services. The "unable to locate" closure status for African Americans could be related to the lack of resources indicated by these customers prior to coming into the VR system (see Danek & Lawrence, 1982; Feist-Price, 1995; Wheaton, Finch, Wilson, & Granelo, 1997; Wilson, 1997). Perhaps, financial constraints are manifested through customers giving telephone numbers and street addresses where no permanent housing has been established or when the occupant has recently vacated. Given the reality that African Americans are proportionally more likely to have a severe disability than European Americans (Allen, 1976; Marshall, 1987), living in transient conditions may lead to housing instability for some African American customers. In fact, many of these individuals may reside in community parks and shelters temporarily. Several researchers (Barnett, 1976; Hacker, 1995; Wilson, 1999) adduced that financial constraints could be the outward manifestation of racism towards African Americans and other racial minorities in the United States. The assertion supporting that African Americans tend to have fewer resources (Atkins & Wright, 1980; Hacker, 1995; Wilson, 1997) is reinforced by the proportionally high occurrence of African Americans with disabilities relying on public transportation prior to coming into the VR system (Belgrave & Walker, 1991; Brown, 1993; Wheaton, Wilson & Brown, 1996; Wilson, 1999). There is a tendency not to rely on public transportation when inclement weather is present, increasing the likelihood that providing services for African Americans may not be as straightforward as for their European American counterparts. For example, Wilson (2000) reported a direct realtionship between resources at application and VR acceptance. Vocational rehabilitation agencies may also need to meet many basic necessities for African Americans before concentrating on services to improve their vocational conditions. Danek and Lawrence (1982) indicated that African Americans take a longer time to be accepted for VR services, which may be an indication that African Americans are coming to VR with fewer resources than European Americans (Feist-Price, 1995; Wilson, 1997), which Atkins and Wright reported as far back as 1980. Current research (Belgrave & Walker, 1991; Brown, 1993; Wheaton, Wilson & Brown, 1996) supports that African Americans come into the VR system with more immediate needs, primarily financial, than European Americans with disabilities.

Another finding of our study reveals that African American cases are more likely to be closed "failure to cooperate" than their European American counterparts. According to a study by Sue and Sue (1990), African Americans had a 50 percent termination rate when compared to only 30 percent for European Americans after one contact with a counselor. Although speculative, it is suggested that "failure to cooperate" may be a passive aggressive attempt by African Americans to communicate distrust in the VR system, generally, and towards the VR counselor, specifically. Moreover, it is suggested that African American customers are possibly rejecting treatment options that are presented by European American counselors due to strained interactions with European American VR counselors. Because counselors and therapists tend to have different world views, the work by Mahalik et al. (1999) support this strained interaction assertion by the authors. Conceivably, rehabilitation professionals may believe that they can simply exchange ideas or cede services rather than codes of personhood (see Bennett, 1995), however identities are relationally defined and validated. It is not that African American customers are looking for European American counselors to affirm their existence or importance, but rather that they are valued as individuals who can offer unique contributions.

To further inspect postulated manifestations of behavior outcomes, it is imperative to examine the importance of the customer-counselor relationship. According to Bennett (1995), these interactions between customers and counselors/administrators may be related to different styles of learning and perceiving the world by certain groups. Ramirez and Castaneda (1974) reported that these learning styles detailed by Bennett are related to one's world view. Lending support to what Ramirez and Castaneda adduced, Mahalik et al. (1999) reported that therapists tend to have a different world view than their clients, even if the client and counselor are both of the same race. Although Mahalik et al. did not study VR counselors, their central findings are relevant to this population. It is apparent that different world views by counselors and therapists may lead to strained relationships in various circumstances. Another premise by psychologist Edwin Nichols (1976) argues that African Americans typically value the relationship over the object, while European Americans tend to value the object over the relationship. Bennett (1995) would agree with the earlier assertion by Nichols. Thus, it could be that many African Americans reject treatment options because they sense VR counselors may care less about them as human beings and are only there to do a job. When treated impersonally, as though the end goal is more significant than one's humanity, the results could be tumultuous. Rather than be subjected to what may be interpreted as artificiality, the customer terminates his or her involvement with the counselor prematurely, resulting in VR ineligibility, as indicated by the present study. Relationships are viewed as paramount when African American customers interact with counselors of the dominant culture. It is tenable that a clash between world views may lead to premature outcomes for African Americans and other minorities seeking VR services. As suggested by Rosenthal and Berven (1999), negative stereotypes held by counselors tend to bias positive outcomes for African Americans, even when positive information is presented that contradict negative stereotypes about African Americans. In short, the investigation by Rosenthal and Berven revealed that previously held stereotypes are resistant to change. Although speculative, the discrepancies in the present investigation may also be caused by disability perception on the part of the counselor and financial incentives or disincentives on the part of the customer. Based on current research, it is tenable that previously held stereotypes and different world views of both the customer and counselor may explain VR outcome discrepancies between African Americans and European Americans.

Trust may be another manifestation of African Americans being closed "failure to cooperate" when they are found ineligible for VR services. Alston and Bell (1996a) report that: "Cultural mistrust is one of several characteristics of African Americans with disabilities that may influence the manner in which they approach the rehabilitation system and interact with its professionals. It is important to note that cultural mistrust is not intrinsically negative. Ideally, the likelihood of rehabilitation entry and success for African American clients will be greatly enhanced by professional awareness concerning cultural mistrust and knowledge of strategies to control its effects on the rehabilitation process" (p. 19).

In keeping with the cultural mistrust theme, African Americans may not perceive European American VR counselors as capable of serving them adequately. Thus, these perceptions of competence may influence the participation of African Americans in the VR system (Alston & Bell, 1996a; Asbury, Walker, Belgrave et al., 1994; Watkins & Terrell, 1988). If the cultural mistrust premise is accurate, the ramifications for VR agencies is potentially troublesome because some researchers view the VR system as a microcosm of society (Ayers, 1969; Dodd et al., 1991; Feist-Price & Ford-Harris, 1994; Rubin et al., 1995; Sue, 1994; Thomas & Sillen, 1972; Wise, 1988), meaning, "since none of us is immune from inheriting the images/stereotypes of the larger society, we can assume that all counselors [VR personnel] are prisoners of their own cultural conditioning (Sue, 1993, p. 26)." The authors concur.

In addition, it is important for VR counselors to be aware of possible cultural factors that influence the level of participation of African American customers in the VR process. Since the two primary closure statuses of African Americans included "failure to cooperate" and "unable to locate," we believe that further communication between the customer and the counselor is warranted. Expanding communication between the customer and the counselor is further supported by Dziekan and Okocha (1993) who suggested the importance of counselors being trained to explain the "helping (or VR) process" to customers in a culturally-sensitive manner. This increased positive interaction will foster rapport and facilitate an effective working alliance between both the customer and the counselor.

Because the VR system is generally viewed as a microcosm of society (Feist-Price & Ford-Harris, 1994; Rubin et al., 1995), it is not surprising that stereotypes play a role in determining outcomes of certain racial and ethnic groups. Based on the negative perceptions transmitted via different kinds of news media in the United States, it appears that racial and cultural conflicts are inevitable between VR counselors and customers. In part, the training curriculum of many VR counselors may unknowingly fuel existing stereotypes of African American customers. In support of this premise, Herbert and Cheatham (1988) submit the following pertaining to cultural influences and rehabilitation counseling: "Cultural factors have an important influence on the rehabilitation counseling process because many of the psychological theories and techniques to promote personal, social and vocational adjustment are embedded in a Eurocentric model. However, a substantial body of information exists to demonstrate the inadequacy of Eurocentric models to address the needs and interests of black Americans" (p. 51).

Baker and Taylor (1995) suggest that European American counselors and administrators may not have the cultural tools to adequately address diversity concerns with ethnic racial minorities. In order to gain the initial tools for cultural competencies working with diverse groups, it is recommended that VR counselors (1) confront and admit their personal limitations when working with diverse racial customers, (2) increase their exposure to racial groups and (3) replace their stereotypes with facts about diverse racial customers. Because the VR system is a microcosm of society, attitudes of European American VR counselors may consciously or unconsciously influence outcomes for African American customers.

Conclusion

Our study indicates that African Americans and European Americans have different reasons for closure once they are found ineligible for VR services. In an effort to achieve equity in VR services, it is critical for VR counselors and administrators to be aware of issues that influence VR access for African American customers. In addition, it is our hope that once awareness, coupled with more training regarding the cultural needs of African American customers, is attained, all customers will receive equitable treatment and access to the services needed to achieve optimal vocational outcomes, regardless of race.

Limitations

Since this study relied on archival data, an element of miscoding may have mildly contaminated the collection and the subsequent data analysis. To reduce coding errors, however, RSA has developed 18 cross-checks (RSA, 1995). Another obvious weakness of using archival data is the non-manipulation of the explanatory variable. The only variable controlled in the present investigation was race. Including other variables may shed more light on variables associated with reason for closure when found ineligible for VR services. Other variables to consider may include age, education, disability severity, and customer earnings. The inclusion of these variables in the present investigation might have influenced the results.

Beyond the general need for replication and statistically controlling for certain explanatory variables, this investigation also contains limitations related to external validity. Specifically, this study is limited to African Americans and European Americans who sought VR services from a Midwestern state and whose cases had been closed unsuccessfully (Status 08). Thus, generalizations can only be made from the state and variables included in this study.

Future Research

Because a preponderance of past research drew upon only two groups when investigating reasons for closure when found ineligible for VR services (African Americans and European Americans), future research might benefit by including additional racial minorities in the research design. Of the past studies cited, only Ross and Biggi (1986) include more racial groups in their investigation. Including other racial groups may perhaps expand the research in these areas by which researchers can correlate the reasons for closure among groups other than African Americans and European Americans. Because of the demographic shift in the United States, the Latino ethnic and racial group would be an obvious choice to include in future research designs.

Perhaps using a different test statistic could be helpful in explaining variance in those variables included in a regression equation, for example. Logistic regression comes to mind, since many past investigations tended to use explanatory and criterion dichotomous variables. Statistically controlling explanatory variables in a regression model is another way to only account for those variables of interest in an investigation. In addition, employing a survey and focus group methodology could also provide valuable answers to closure discrepancies. After employing a survey and/or focus group methodology, it would be useful to compare how consistent the results are using this triangulation method. Finally, a qualitative approach could provide information about the efforts of both the counselor and customer when "unable to locate" is indicated. Although a potentially time consuming task, a qualitative methodology will provide insights not revealed with traditional quantitative techniques.

Traditionally, data collection instruments are designed with the majority group in mind. Future researchers might begin to assess the need to address subpopulations within different racial groups to ascertain explanations for VR discrepancies. For example, what does "failure to cooperate" mean in regards to customer and counselor behaviors? Future research may clarify these most important questions and result in policy changes that benefit all people with disabilities. It is also recommended that VR begin to address issues relevant to language barriers and cultural specific factors that might influence compliance and participation in the VR program (see Quinones-Mayo et al. [in press]).

Bibliography

[1.] Allen, K.G. (1976). First finding of the 1972 survey of the disabled: General characteristics. Social Security Bulletin, 39, 18-37.

[2.] Alston, R.J., & Bell, T.J. (1996a). Cultural mistrust and the rehabilitation enigma for African Americans. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 62(2), 16-20.

[3.] Alston, R.J., & Bell, T.J. (1996b). Ideological synthesis of multiculturalism and rehabilitation education. Rehabilitation Education, 10(2,3), 73-82.

[4.] Asbury, C.A., Walker, S., Belgrave, EZ., Maholmes, V., & Green, L. (1994). Psychosocial, cultural, and accessibility factor associated with participation of African-Americans in rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 39(2), 113-117.

[5.] Atkins, B.J., & Wright, G.N. (1980). Three views: vocational rehabilitation of blacks: The statement. Journal of Rehabilitation, 46(2), 40 42-46.

[6.] Atkinson, D.R., & Hackett, G. (1995). Counseling diverse populations. Madison, WI: WCB Crown & Benchmark.

[7.] Ary, D., Jocobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1990). Introduction to research in education. New York: Holt, Rienehart, & Winston.

[8.] Ayers, E.G. (1969). White racist attitudes and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, (13)1, 53-60.

[9.] Baker, C.K., & Taylor, D.W. (1995). Assessment of African American clients: Opportunities for biased results. Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin, 28(2), 46-51.

[10.] Barnett, B.N. (1976). Enterprising principles of counseling the low income black family. Journal of Non-White Concerns, 5(1), 14-22.

[11.] Belgrave, EZ., & Walker, S. (1991). Predictors of employment outcome of black person with disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 36(2), 111-120.

[12.] Bennett, C.I. (1995). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.

[13.] Bolton, B., & Cooper, P.G. (1980). Three views: Vocational rehabilitation of blacks: The comment. Journal of Rehabilitation, 46 (2), 41, 41-49.

[14.] Brown, J.G. (1993). Substance abuse. In T. Wright & P. Leung (Eds.). Meeting the unique needs of minorities with disabilities. National council on disabilities: A report to the President and the Congress. Proceedings from the national council on disabilities (p. 41). Washington, DC: National Council on Disability.

[15.] Danek, M.M., & Lawrence, R.E. (1982). Client-counselor racial similarity and rehabilitation outcomes. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 48(3), 54-58.

[16.] Dodd, J.M., Nelson, J.R., Ostward, S.W., & Fischer, J. (1991). Rehabilitation counselor education programs' response to cultural pluralism. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22,(1), 46-48.

[17.] Dziekan, K.I., & Okocha, A.A. (1993). Accessibility of rehabilitation services: Comparison by racial-ethnic status. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 36(4), 183-197.

[18.] Feist-Price, S. (1995). African Americans with disabilities and equity in vocational rehabilitation services: One state's review. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 39, 119-129.

[19.] Feist-Price, S., & Ford-Harris, D. (1994). Rehabilitation counseling: Issues specific to providing services to African American clients. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 60(4), 13-19.

[20.] Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

[21.] Hacker, A. (1995). Two nations: Black and White, separate, hostile, unequal. New York, NY: Macmillan.

[22.] Herbert, J.T., & Cheatham, H.E. (1988). Africentricity and the black disability experience: A theoretical orientation for rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 19(4), 50-54.

[23.] Mahalik, J., Worthington, R., & Crump, S. (1999). Influence of racial/ ethnic membership and "therapist culture on therapists worldview." Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 27, 2-17.

[24.] Nichols, E. (1976). The psychological aspects of cultural differences. Ibadan, Nigerria: World Psychiatric Association.

[25.] Marshall, M. (1987, October). Fighting for their rights. Ebony, 62 (5), 68-70.

[26.] Quinones-Mayo, Y. Wilson, K.B., & McGuire, M.V. (in press). Vocational rehabilitation and cultural competency of Latino Populations, Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling.

[27.] Ramirez, M., & Castaneda, A. (1974). Cultural Democracy: Bicognitive Development, and Education. New York: Academic Press.

[28.] Rehabilitation Services Administration. (1995). Reporting manual for the case service report (RSA-911) (RSA-PD-95-04). Washington, DC: Rehabilitation Services Administration.

[29.] Rosenthal, D.A., & Berven, N.L. (1999). Effects of client race on clinical judgement. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 42(3), 243-264.

[30.] Ross, M.G., & Biggi, I.M. (1986). Critical vocational rehabilitation service delivery issues at referral (02) and closure (08, 26, 28, 30) in serving select disabled persons. In S. Walker, E Belgrave, A.M. Banner, & R.W. Nicholls (Eds.), Equal to the challenge: Perspective, problems, and strategies in the rehabilitation of the nonwhite disabled: Proceedings of the National Conference (pp. 39-50). Washington, DC: The Center for the Study of Handicapped Children and Youth, School of Education, Howard University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 276 198).

[31.] Rubin, S.E., Davis, E., Noe, S., & Turner, T. (1996). Assessing the effects of continuing multicultural rehabilitation counseling education. Rehabilitation Education, 10(2,3), 151-126.

[32.] Rubin, S.E., Pusch, B.D., Fogarty, C., & McGinn, E (1995). Enhancing the cultural sensitivity of rehabilitation counselors. Rehabilitation Education, 9 (4), 253-264.

[33.] SPSS. (1997). SPSS base 7.5 applications guide. Chicago: SPSS.

[34.] Sue, D. (1993). In T. Wright & P. Leung (Eds.), The challenge of cultural diversity: Overcoming barriers. Meeting the unique needs of minorities with disabilities. National council on disabilities: A report to the President and the Congress. Proceedings form the national council on disabilities (p. 20-27). Washington, DC: National Council on Disability.

[35.] Sue, D.W. (1994). The challenge of cultural diversity: Overcoming barriers. In P. Leung & R.A. Middleton (Eds.), National Association of Multicultural Concerns, 20-27.

[36.] Sue, D.W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

[37.] The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992.29 U.S.C. U70 et seq. (1992).

[38.] Thomas, A., & Sillen, S. (1972). Racism and psychiatry. New York: Carol Publishing Group.

[39.] Watkins, C.E., Jr., & Terrell, E (1988). Mistrust level and its effects on counseling expectations in black client-white counselor relationships: An analogue study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 194-197.

[40.] Wheaton, J,E., Finch, J., Wilson, K.B., & Granello, D. (1997). Patterns of services to vocational rehabilitation consumers based upon sex, race and closure. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 3 (21), 209-225.

[41.] Wheaton, J.E., Wilson, K.B., & Brown, S.M. (1996). The relationship between vocational rehabilitation services and the consumer's race, gender and closure status. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 40, 116-133.

[42.] Wilson, K.B. (2000). Predicting vocational rehabilitaiton acceptance based on race, education, work status, and source of support.

[43.] Wilson, K.B. (1999). Vocational rehabilitation acceptance: A tale of two races in a large midwestern state. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling 30(2), 25-31.

[44.] Wilson, K.B. (1997). The relationship between consumer race and vocational rehabilitation services and outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

[45.] Wise, S.A. (1988). Service equity and program effectiveness in the rehabilitation process. Journal of Rehabilitation, 54(4), 68-72.

Please address correspondence concerning this article to Keith B. Wilson, Department of Counselor Education, Counseling Psychology, and Rehabilitation Services, 308 CEDAR Building, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802-3110. Telephone [phone]; or send electronic mail via the Internet to [e-mail].

Dr. Wilson is an assistant professor in the Department of Counselor Education, Counseling Psychology, and Rehabilitation Services, Pennsylvania State University; Dr. Jackson is an assistant professor in the Department of Speech Communication; and Ms. Doughty is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Counselor Education, Counseling Psychology, and Rehabilitation Services.