Published by the Research and Training Center on Community Living, Institute on Community Integration • College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota
Volume 22 • Number 1 • December 2012
A Review of Commonly-Used State Employment Measures in Intellectual and Developmental Disability Services
This Policy Research Brief summarizes publicly-available data sources that provide information about the employment of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It provides important information about these data sources, including their purposes, key definitions, and where to access the public data. Using these data sources, a state-by-state comparison of employment outcomes is conducted to provide readers with a picture of the employment landscape for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Finally, a discussion about how the data can be used, and the limitations of the data, is provided. The analysis was conducted at the University of Minnesota’s Research and Training Center on Community Living (RTC). It reviews data gathered in 2010 and 2011. This brief was authored by Derek Nord, Ph.D., Research Associate at the RTC. The study was supported by Grant #H133B080005 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department of Education, to the RTC. For further information, please contact Derek Nord at nord0364@umn.edu.
Introduction
There is wide agreement that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are underrepresented in the general workforce (American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities & The Arc of the United States, 2008; Migliore, Mank, Grossi, & Rogan, 2007). Often framed as Employment First, there is renewed focus and energy to improve the employment of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities nationally. As a current grassroots movement, Employment First aims to increase the employment of people with disabilities through changes in policy, practices, and expectations of the disability support system and many other stakeholders, including people with disabilities and their family members. Employment First seeks to make employment in the community alongside employees without disabilities, earning minimum or prevailing wage, the first and preferred outcome for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Niemiec, Lavin, & Owens, 2009; Kiernan, Hoff, Freeze, & Mank, 2011).
The Employment First movement is gaining momentum. Employment First policies affecting people with intellectual and developmental disabilities have been legislatively passed or administratively approved in 18 states, and many other states have ongoing initiatives but no official policy at this time (Hoff, 2012). At the national level, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently issued updated employment and service definitions, as well as guidance to inform states about how 1915(c) Waivers can be used to increase the employment of Waiver recipients (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011), many of whom have intellectual and developmental disabilities. The National Governors Association (2012) also announced an initiative to increase the employment of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities by supporting state policy leaders in assessing and developing more employment effective policies.
Current employment data is an effective ally in advocating for and making policy changes. To understand the current status of employment for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and to inform the future direction of intellectual and developmental disability services and supports across the country, numerous state data sources have been used by policymakers, state agency leadership, and researchers. A challenge when using different employment data sources is understanding how they differ in purpose, in target population, and by definitions of employment and successful employment outcomes.
This Policy Research Brief provides an overview and description of commonly-used state employment outcome measures in intellectual and developmental disability services, policy, and research. Using the most current research, it also provides a state-by-state summary and cross-state comparison of these measures. Implications to policy, practice, and research are also discussed.
Methodology
The inclusion criteria for the data sources in this review included the following:
- The data sources provide employment outcomes of adults with intellectual, developmental, and/or cognitive disabilities.
- The data provided is aggregated at the state-level.
- The state-aggregated data are easily accessible for public consumption and widely used in policy and research activities.
After identifying the data sources, publicly-available data were accessed to provide the state employment outcomes. When state data were unavailable from a specific source, each datum was treated as missing. Once data were fully gathered, state ranks were calculated for each measure on the employment outcome of interest. States with higher employment outcomes were ranked closer to one. When multiple states reported the same outcome for a measure, the state rank was deemed a tie. States with missing data were not ranked.
Findings
The assessment and analysis of employment data sources reveal several important findings, including, (a) a list and description of commonly-used data sources in the intellectual and developmental disability policy, services, and research communities; and (b) a state-by-state comparison across each employment measure.
Commonly-Used Data Sources for State Employment Measures
Four data sources were identified that met the inclusion criteria for this study, two from non-governmental organizations and two from federal government agencies. The two from non-governmental organizations were:
- National Core Indicators – Consumer Survey (NCI) (Human Services Research Institute & The National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services, 2011)
- ICI National Survey of Day and Employment Services for People with Developmental Disabilities (Institute for Community Inclusion, n.d.).
The two sources from federal government agencies were:
- Rehabilitation Services Administration Case Service Report, also known as RSA-911 (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
- American Community Survey (ACS) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).
As highlighted in Table 1, the data sources vary in their target populations and how employment is defined for the publicly accessible data. For example, one data source, ACS, estimates the population of people with cognitive disabilities in each state. This population is defined in a broad way that does not explicitly target adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Instead, it targets adults with physical, mental, or emotional conditions that affect concentration, remembering, or making decisions. This includes adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities as well as a number of other conditions; therefore, ACS estimates cannot be used to explicitly identify intellectual and developmental disability prevalence and outcomes, but they do provide a state population estimate that encompasses intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Table 1: Accessible State-Level Employment Data Sources |
|||||
| Source | Recent Year Available | Author |
Population |
Employment Variable Definition |
State Data Available At |
| National Core Indicators - Consumer Survey (NCI) | 2010 - 2011 |
Human Services Research Institute & National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disability Services |
Recipients of state developmental disability services. |
Community job: Percent of recipients with a paid job in a community-based setting; includes supported employment, competitive employment, enclave, or work crew.
|
www. national core indicators. org |
| ICI National Survey of Day and Employment Services for People with Developmental Disabilities | Fiscal Year 2010 | Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston |
Recipients of day and employment services. |
Integrated employment: Percent of recipients with competitive, individual supported, group
|
www. statedata. info |
| Rehabilitation Services Administration Case Service Report (RSA-911) |
Fiscal Year 2010 |
Rehabilitation Services Adminstration, U.S. Department of Education |
Recipients of vocational rehabilitation services with intellectual disabilities with cases closed due to successful or unsuccessful job placement. |
Rehabilitation rate: The percent of all recipients with intellectual disabilities with Individualized Employment Plans who were employed at case closure.
|
www. statedata. info |
| American Community Survey (ACS) | 2010 |
U.S. Census Bureau |
Non-institutionalized people with a cognitive disability, defined as having a physical, mental, or emotional condition that presents a serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. |
Employment rate: The percentage of non-institutionalized people with a cognitive disability, ages 18-64, in the United States who were employed in 2010. |
www. disability statistics. org |
In contrast, the remaining three data sources provide a programmatic perspective, where the population is service users with both intellectual and developmental disabilities, or only intellectual disabilities. There are important differences among these data sources: The NCI data samples adults who receive any state developmental disability service, the ICI national survey provides data on adults who receive day and employment supports in state developmental disability services, and RSA-911 provides data on service recipients with intellectual disabilities who received services and whose cases were closed either with or without a job.
There are also differences in how the publicly-available data define employment. Both the NCI and ICI data include individual community-based employment, as well as group employment such as enclaves and work crews, as an employment outcome. Conversely, RSA-911 data defines its primary outcome, the Rehabilitation Rate, as the percent of service recipients who obtain work among people who qualify for services, obtain an Individualized Employment Plan, and receive a case closure. Employment in ACS is self-reported by the individual or the head of the household and denotes that a person was paid to work during a reference week or they had a job during the reference week but temporarily did not work.
State Employment Outcomes and Rankings
Table 2 presents employment outcomes achieved by each state across the identified data sources. As can be seen, there is considerable state-by-state variability within each data source. Additionally, the number of states reporting data varied; the NCI had 15 states participating in the most recent year, the ICI National Survey of Day and Employment Services had 41 states providing data, whereas data for all states and the District of Columbia were available from RSA-911 and ACS.
State rankings of employment outcomes differ across the four data sources, reflecting differences in sample size, margin of error, and even definitions of variables being measured. These differences explain why, for example, NCI ranked Oklahoma highest in people receiving intellectual and developmental disability services working in community jobs, while the ICI National Survey of Day and Employment Services ranked Washington State highest in achieving integrated employment for people receiving day and employment services, RSA-911 ranked Delaware highest in the rehabilitation rate for people with intellectual disabilities, and ACS ranked North Dakota highest in the employment rate among people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. These apparent “firsts” vary from one source to another because of differences in what the sources measure and how they measure it. Taken together, the four data sources certainly add value by providing more information about state employment outcomes than any one source could. However, readers must avoid over-generalizing from limited data that varies in content from one source to another.
Table 2: State Employment Outcomes by Data Source |
||||||
National Core Indicators: Consumer Survey (NCI) (2010-2011) |
ICI National Survey of Day and Employment Services (FY 2010) |
|||||
| State | Community Job |
N |
State Rank |
Integrated Employment |
N |
State Rank |
| AK | - | - | - | 28% | 1,360 | 11 |
| AL | 3% | 500 | 15 | 5% | 4,966 | 41 |
| AR | 7% | 379 | 14 | - | - | - |
| AZ | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| CA | - | - | - | 15% | 74,273 | 29 |
| CO | - | - | - | 25% | 5,357 | 12 |
| CT | - | - | - | 53% | 9,287 | 3 |
| DC | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| DE | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| FL | 13% | 1,232 | 7 | 15% | 21,507 | 29 |
| GA | 15% | 474 | 5 | 40% | 6,661 | 5 |
| HI | - | - | - | 7% | 1,499 | 37 |
| IA | - | - | - | 21% | 8,950 | 20 |
| ID | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| IL | 8% | 350 | 13 | 10% | 26,280 | 36 |
| IN | - | - | - | 23% | 10,614 | 17 |
| KS | - | - | - | 15% | 6,217 | 29 |
| KY | 9% | 478 | 11 | 11% | 8,668 | 34 |
| LA | 13% | 363 | 7 | 33% | 4,563 | 9 |
| MA | - | - | - | 25% | 14,039 | 12 |
| MD | - | - | - | 39% | 11,476 | 6 |
| ME | 28% | 365 | 3 | 25% | 14,039 | 12 |
| MI | - | - | - | 24% | 17,042 | 16 |
| MN | - | - | - | 18% | 13,546 | 26 |
| MO | 9% | 526 | 11 | 7% | 5,038 | 37 |
| MS | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| MT | - | - | - | 11% | 1,789 | 34 |
| NC | 14% | 857 | 6 | 17% | 17,908 | 27 |
| ND | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| NE | - | - | - | 6% | 3,785 | 40 |
| NH | 36% | 396 | 2 | 51% | 2,366 | 4 |
| NJ | - | - | - | 14% | 9,130 | 32 |
| NM | - | - | - | 37% | 3,243 | 7 |
| NV | - | - | - | 20% | 2,060 | 22 |
| NY | 18% | 329 | 4 | 13% | 67,770 | 33 |
| OH | 11% | 434 | 10 | 22% | - | 19 |
| OK | 45% | 406 | 1 | 61% | 4,079 | 2 |
| OR | - | - | - | 25% | 10,025 | 12 |
| PA | 13% | 1,133 | 7 | - | - | - |
| RI | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| SC | - | - | - | 31% | 7,435 | 10 |
| SD | - | - | - | 19% | 2,325 | 24 |
| TN | - | - | - | 16% | 7,789 | 28 |
| TX | - | - | - | 7% | 44,053 | 37 |
| UT | - | - | - | 23% | 2,796 | 17 |
| VA | - | - | - | 21% | 11,574 | 20 |
| VT | - | - | - | 37% | 2,561 | 7 |
| WA | - | - | - | 89% | 8,271 | 1 |
| WI | - | - | - | 20% | 13,702 | 22 |
| WV | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| WY | - | - | - | 19% | 1,468 | 24 |
| Sources: Human Services Research Institute & The National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services, 2012; Institute for Community Inclusion, n.d.; Erickson, Lee, & von Schrader, 2012. | ||||||
Table 2: State Employment Outcomes by Data Source (continued) |
|||||||
Rehabilitation Services Administrative Case Service Report (RSA-911) (FY 2010) |
American Community Survey: Cognitive Disability (2010) |
||||||
| State | Rehabilitation Rate |
N |
State Rank |
Employment Rate |
Margin of Error (90%) |
N |
State Rank |
| AK | 67% | 36 | 8 | 33.3% | 2.09 | 144 | 6 |
| AL | 21% | 3,013 | 51 | 18.0% | 2.09 | 1,694 | 47 |
| AR | 42% | 199 | 43 | 20.6% | 2.95 | 1,035 | 42 |
| AZ | 44% | 154 | 41 | 22.8% | 7.66 | 1,455 | 34 |
| CA | 51% | 2,801 | 29 | 21.6% | 1.07 | 7,268 | 39 |
| CO | 71% | 276 | 4 | 30.8% | 3.09 | 1,080 | 11 |
| CT | 45% | 137 | 40 | 27.5% | 3.64 | 707 | 16 |
| DC | 56% | 75 | 21 | 22.3% | 6.99 | 158 | 36 |
| DE | 76% | 160 | 1 | 27.8% | 6.17 | 233 | 15 |
| FL | 34% | 1,075 | 50 | 20.6% | 1.35 | 4,524 | 42 |
| GA | 53% | 1,266 | 25 | 19.6% | 1.85 | 2,407 | 46 |
| HI | 46% | 81 | 38 | 32.7% | 6.67 | 258 | 7 |
| IA | 51% | 512 | 29 | 35.8% | 3.78 | 631 | 4 |
| ID | 60% | 226 | 16 | 25.8% | 4.57 | 435 | 21 |
| IL | 55% | 1,018 | 22 | 23.0% | 1.92 | 2,523 | 32 |
| IN | 52% | 981 | 27 | 22.4% | 2.21 | 1,853 | 35 |
| KS | 36% | 479 | 49 | 33.5% | 3.93 | 678 | 5 |
| KY | 61% | 569 | 14 | 17.3% | 2.04 | 1,711 | 49 |
| LA | 39% | 352 | 48 | 24.9% | 2.48 | 1,523 | 25 |
| MA | 60% | 288 | 16 | 22.9% | 2.36 | 1,553 | 33 |
| MD | 71% | 383 | 4 | 26.3% | 2.98 | 1,109 | 19 |
| ME | 59% | 136 | 18 | 17.3% | 2.04 | 435 | 49 |
| MI | 43% | 1,004 | 42 | 21.5% | 1.70 | 2,971 | 40 |
| MN | 51% | 398 | 29 | 37.4% | 3.11 | 1,091 | 3 |
| MO | 66% | 1,214 | 9 | 23.8% | 2.24 | 1,846 | 30 |
| MS | 46% | 418 | 38 | 19.9% | 2.72 | 1,060 | 45 |
| MT | 52% | 121 | 27 | 30.5% | 6.90 | 188 | 12 |
| NC | 57% | 3,003 | 20 | 21.2% | 1.78 | 2,724 | 41 |
| ND | 73% | 124 | 3 | 41.2% | 9.90 | 116 | 1 |
| NE | 61% | 187 | 14 | 26.8% | 5.00 | 366 | 17 |
| NH | 63% | 99 | 12 | 25.4% | 5.36 | 306 | 23 |
| NJ | 50% | 386 | 34 | 26.6% | 2.53 | 1,539 | 18 |
| NM | 53% | 179 | 25 | 22.1% | 3.84 | 562 | 37 |
| NV | 68% | 59 | 6 | 25.3% | 4.20 | 531 | 24 |
| NY | 42% | 2,296 | 43 | 21.9% | 1.49 | 3,981 | 38 |
| OH | 42% | 1,027 | 43 | 24.2% | 1.66 | 3,348 | 28 |
| OK | 54% | 335 | 23 | 28.6% | 2.90 | 1,279 | 14 |
| OR | 48% | 218 | 35 | 24.1% | 2.69 | 1,162 | 29 |
| PA | 47% | 1,451 | 37 | 24.6% | 1.60 | 3,417 | 27 |
| RI | 42% | 142 | 43 | 24.7% | 5.14 | 316 | 26 |
| SC | 41% | 422 | 47 | 20.1% | 2.37 | 1,476 | 44 |
| SD | 68% | 204 | 6 | 30.1% | 7.99 | 131 | 13 |
| TN | 48% | 775 | 35 | 17.9% | 1.85 | 2,272 | 48 |
| TX | 51% | 1,120 | 29 | 25.7% | 1.29 | 5,712 | 22 |
| UT | 64% | 184 | 11 | 31.6% | 4.45 | 568 | 9 |
| VA | 51% | 1,180 | 29 | 23.6% | 2.31 | 1,705 | 31 |
| VT | 75% | 231 | 2 | 32.0% | 6.71 | 1,705 | 8 |
| WA | 62% | 590 | 13 | 26.2% | 2.40 | 1,650 | 20 |
| WI | 54% | 586 | 23 | 31.1% | 2.77 | 1,168 | 10 |
| WV | 66% | 245 | 9 | 16.5% | 2.78 | 765 | 51 |
| WY | 58% | 84 | 19 | 40.5% | 8.38 | 132 | 2 |
Discussion
Employment outcome data is an important ingredient in effective advocacy, research, and policy advancement. As this study shows, the intellectual and developmental disability policy, advocacy, and research communities are fortunate to have easy access to a number of data sources to monitor employment progress and to build a case for more effective employment supports and services. In doing so, users of these data sources have a responsibility to use the existing data accurately. This requires an understanding of the data, including the purpose and scope of the data sets, different definitions of the employment outcome, and the target populations.
Users also need to recognize the limitations of the data sources. It is known that many people with intellectual and developmental disabilities do not receive formal supports through a government agency, and as a result, they are not counted in much of the employment data. The NCI, ICI National Survey of Day and Employment Services, and RSA-911 data only report outcomes for people receiving services and supports. It is inappropriate to suggest the employment outcomes of these data sources represent a statewide employment rate for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The ACS does attempt to provide state employment rates by reporting population estimates, but this data must be interpreted with caution because the definition of cognitive disability is not the same as intellectual and developmental disability, the sample size of some states is small, and the margin of error in some state estimates is high.
This state assessment shows that employment outcomes vary widely across the country. Together, these data sources offer states a more comprehensive picture about the service delivery systems and employment rate of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This information can be an overview for states as they develop, implement, and monitor policy and practice strategies. The data allow for state-by-state comparisons.
Finally, it is necessary to recognize that the employment rate across the various data sources is a narrow view of a large issue. Merely having a job does not mean that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities work enough hours, earn enough in wages, or perform the type of work they want. As the advocacy, policy, and research communities look to broad indicators to support better employment opportunities, they must remember the importance of employment and quality support services.
References
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities & The Arc of the United States. (2008). Employment: Joint position statement. Retrieved June 3, 2012 from http://aaidd.org/content_148.cfm?navID=31
Erickson, W., Lee, C., & von Schrader, S. (2012). Disability statistics from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics (StatsRRTC). Retrieved August 9, 2012 from http://www.disabilitystatistics.org
Hoff, D. (2012). SELN Employment First resource list. Retrieved August 15, 2012 from https://apse.org/employment-first/
Human Services Research Institute & The National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services. (2011). National core indicators – Consumer survey. Cambridge, MA: Author.
Human Services Research Institute & The National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services. (2012). Consumer outcomes: Final report: 2010-2011 NCI adult consumer data. Cambridge, MA: Author.
Institute for Community Inclusion. (n.d.). ICI national survey of day and employment services. Retrieved August 3, 2012 from http://www.statedata.info
Kiernan, W., Hoff, D., Freeze, S., & Mank, D. (2011). Employment First: A beginning not an end. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 49(4), 300-304.
Migliore, A., Mank, D., Grossi, T., & Rogan, P. (2007). Integrated employment of sheltered workshops: Preferences of adults with intellectual disabilities, their families, and staff. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 26(1), 5-19.
National Governors Association. (2012). A better bottom line: Employing people with disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.
Niemiec, R., Lavin, D., & Owens, L. (2009). Establishing a national Employment First agenda. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 31(3), 139-144.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 American Community Survey. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Rehabilitation Services Administration case service report (RSA-911). Washington, DC: Rehabilitation Services Administration.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011, September). CMCS informational bulletin. Washington, DC: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Related Institute Publications
The following other resources published by the Institute on Community Integration may be of interest to readers of this Policy Research Brief.
- Impact: Feature Issue on Supporting New Career Paths for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (2012). The U.S. is in the midst of a national conversation about jobs. That conversation includes discussion of employment for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and their changing role in the American workforce. This new Impact issue explores some of the innovative thinking and resources that are providing expanded employment options for people with disabilities today, and offers success stories of some of the individuals taking new career paths. Cost: Free online at http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/251. Print copies are also available (first copy free, each additional $4) from the Institute’s Publications Office at (612) 624-4512 or icipub@umn.edu.
- Impact: Feature Issue on Employment and Women with Disabilities. (2008). Why is work important to women with disabilities? And why do fewer women with disabilities participate in the workforce than men with disabilities or women without disabilities? These are two of the questions explored in this Impact issue. Because having meaningful, valued work is such an important part of life, this Impact encourages readers to hold an expansive vision of what’s possible for women with disabilities in the employment arena, and offers strategies, resources, and inspiration to realize that vision. Cost: Free online at http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/211. Print copies also available (first copy free, each additional $4) from the Publications Office at (612) 624-4512 or icipub@umn.edu.
- Policy Research Brief: Postsecondary Education for Students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Critical Review of the State of Knowledge and a Taxonomy to Guide Future Research (2011). This issue of Policy Research Brief reviews the state of knowledge and research practice in the emerging field of postsecondary education for students with intellectual and other learning-related developmental disabilities. The authors additionally propose a taxonomy to better organize and structure research and program descriptions in support of an improved knowledge base. Cost: Free online at http://ici.umn.edu/products/prb/211/default.html. Print copies are also available for $3 from the Publications Office at (612) 624-4512 or icipub@umn.edu
- Impact: Feature Issue on Postsecondary Education and Students with Intellectual, Developmental and Other Disabilities (2011). Even though the majority of high school students with disabilities identify participation in postsecondary education as a goal for their adult lives, only about 3 in 10 have taken classes since completing high school (National Longitudinal Transition Study-2). And among those with the lowest rates of participation are students with intellectual disabilities. This Impact issue explores what we know, and what we still need to know, about supporting increased participation of students with disabilities – especially those with intellectual disabilities – in postsecondary education, and why that participation is important. It includes articles from families, young adults with disabilities, and professionals. Cost: Free online at http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/233. Print copies are also available (first copy free, each additional $4) from the Publications Office at (612) 624-4512 or icipub@umn.edu.
- Quality Mall (www.qualitymall.org). Operated by the Research and Training Center on Community Living, this online clearinghouse of quality materials from around the country includes over 200 resources on noteworthy practices in the many different areas of employment and jobs. Resources in the Employment area are grouped into the following categories:
— Employment Policy, Strategy and Funding
— Employment Tools for Self-Advocates
— Information for Employers
— Self-Employment and Business Ownership
— Staff Development for Employment
— Wage Employment
— Work Incentives
— Transportation
- E-Connect E-Mentoring Program /strong>. E-Connect is a mentoring program that utilizes e-mail and school-supervised face-to-face meetings to connect high school students with disabilities with employees from local companies. These local companies and their employees represent a full range of careers and offer students the opportunity to learn about the skills necessary for future employment. E-Connect was developed at the University of Minnesota’s Institute on Community Integration, with implementation funded by Pathways to Employment, a partnership between the Minnesota Department of Human Services, the
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, and the Minnesota State Council on Disability. The Web site includes the program manual and other resources for those interested in exploring it further.
This publication is supported, in part, by Cooperative Agreement #H133B080005 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), U.S. Department of Education.
The opinions expressed in Policy Research Brief are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Center or its funding sources.
Print copies of this publication are available for $3.00 per copy. An order form is available online, or contact:
Publications Office
Institute on Community Integration
University of Minnesota
109 Pattee Hall
150 Pillsbury Drive SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455
612/624-4512
icipub@umn.edu
Policy Research Brief is available in alternative formats upon request from the above address.
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity employer and educator.
Published on the Web site of the Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota (http://ici.umn.edu)