Equity and the order of selection mandate:Critical issues in implementation and evaluation

Journal of Disability Policy Studies

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 107-124

  Bellini, James ^a  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0007970645     PISSN: 10442073     EISSN: 15384802     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/104420739800900106     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Andrews, H., Barker, J., Pittman, J., Mars, L., Struening, E., & LaRocca, N. (1992). National trends in vocational rehabilitation: A comparison of individuals with physical disabilities and individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 58 (1), 7-16.
2. Barrett, L., Collignon, F., Dodson, R., Langlois, S., Rogers, J., & Shea, S. (1978). Implementing the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: The vocational rehabilitation program response. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Planning Associates.
3. Bellini, J., Bolton, B., & Neath, J. (1995). The development of a scale of social disadvantage for vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 19 (2), 107-118.
4. Bellini, J., Bolton, B., & Neath, J. (1996). Diagnostic determinants of rehabilitation counselor eligibility decisions. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 20 (2), 93-106.
5. Berkowitz, E. (1987). Disabled policy: America's programs for the handicapped. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Bolton, B. (1987). Outcome analysis in vocational rehabilitation. In M. J. Fuhrer (Ed.), Rehabilitation outcomes: Analysis and measurement (pp. 57-70). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
7. Chamie, M. (1990). The status and use of the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps. World Health Statistics Quarterly, 43 (4), 272-280.
8. Crewe, N., & Athelstan, G. (1984). Functional assessment inventory manual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
9. Eleventh Institute on Rehabilitation Services. (1974). Rehabilitation of the severely disabled. Dunbar, WV: West Virginia Research and Training Center.
10. Federal Register. (1993, July 16). Vol. 58, No. 135. Proposed rules.
11. Frey, W. (1984). Functional assessment in the '80s: A conceptual enigma, a technical challenge. In A. S. Halpern & M. J. Fuhrer (Eds.), Functional assessment in rehabilitation (pp. 11-44). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
12. Gatens-Robinson, E., & Rubin, S. (1995). Societal values and ethical commitments that influence rehabilitation service delivery behavior. In S. Rubin & R. Roessler (Eds.), Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation process (4th ed.) (pp. 157-174). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
13. Growick, B., & Stueland, D. (1979). The relationship between differential service patterns and change in weekly earnings for three disability groups. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 22, 431-436.
14. Howie, J., Gatens-Robinson, E., & Rubin, S. (1992). Applying ethical principles in rehabilitation counseling. Rehabilitation Education, 6, 41-55.
15. Koshel, J., & Granger, C. (1978). Rehabilitation terminology: Who is severely disabled? Rehabilitation Literature, 39 (4), 102-106.
16. Moriarty, J., & Walls, R. (1988). Employability of clients served in state vocational rehabilitation agencies: A national census. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 32 (2), 108-121.
17. Nagi, S. (1991). Disability concepts revisited: Implications for prevention. In A. M. Pope & A. R. Tarlov (Eds.), Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for prevention (pp. 309-329). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. (1992). Digest of data on persons with disabilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
19. Obermann, C. E. (1965). A history of vocational rehabilitation in America. Minneapolis, MN: T. S. Denison.
20. Rehabilitation Services Administration. (1978). Rehabilitation Brief: Who is severely handicapped?-The need for a workable definition. Washington, DC: Author.
21. Rehabilitation Services Administration. (1992). Order of selection for services guidance, Chapter G2501. Washington, DC: Author.
22. Rehabilitation Services Administration. (1995). Information memorandum: Caseload statistics, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, Fiscal Year 1993. Washington, DC: Author.
23. Rehabilitation Services Administration. (1996). Commissioner's memorandum: State VR agencies on an order of selection as of April 1, 1996. Washington, DC: Author.
24. Rubin, S., & Roessler, R. (1995). Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation process (4th ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
25. Salkever, D. (1994). Access to vocational rehabilitation services for people with severe disabilities: Analysis of the 1990 Developmental Disabilities National Consumer Survey. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 5 (2), 45-64.
26. Schriner, K. F. (1996). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992: Initiatives and issues. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 27 (1), 37-41.
27. Schriner, K. F., Rumrill, P., & Parlin, R. (1995). Rethinking disability policy: Equity in the ADA era and the meaning of specialized services for people with disabilities. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 17, 478-500.
28. Stone, D. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
29. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1991). Vocational rehabilitation: Clearer guidance could help focus services on those with severe disabilities. Gaithersburg, MD: Author.
30. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993). Vocational rehabilitation: Evidence for federal program's effectiveness is mixed. Gaithersburg, MD: Author.
31. Urban Institute. (1974). Report of the Comprehensive Service Needs Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
32. Young, P. (1994). Equity: In theory and practice. Princeton, NJ: Sage Publications.