A summary of the self-employment outcomes in the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program: Program years 2018,2019,and 2020

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Self-employment continues to be an elusive competitive integrated employment outcome (CIE) for people with disabilities receiving services from State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies (SVRA). This article provides a snapshot of the extent to which self-employment is occurring within the SVRA program as a CIE outcome. Recommendations are included for VR policies and practices that may expand the self-employment participation and outcomes for an inclusive range of VR recipients.

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this study is to provide an analysis of the national outcomes in self-employment for individuals served by the SVRAs for program years 2018, 2019, and 2020.

METHODS:

The data in this article was provided by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) as part of the RSA Case Service Report (RSA-911) for 2018, 2019, and 2020.

RESULTS:

Self-employment continues to be an underutilized VR service. Outcomes in self-employment as a percentage of all VR outcomes in CIE remained low and stagnant during 2018 and 2019 with a noticeable drop in outcomes for PY 2020. Consistently, self-employment outcomes are predominantly achieved in the VR system by a homogenous population of older (age 50+) participants whose race is white and gender is male.

CONCLUSION:

Unless the field of vocational rehabilitation proactively commits to diversifying and expanding self-employment participation and outcomes, the odds are that the outcomes for self-employment will remain unchanged.

Keywords

Vocational rehabilitation competitive integrated employment disabilities self-employment VR counselors people with disabilities

1 Introduction

There are a limited number of reports that provide information on the self-employment outcomes for people with disabilities who receive services from State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies (SVRA). SVRAs operate as (1) Blind VR agencies that serve individuals who are blind or have visual impairments, (2) General VR agencies that serve individuals with all types of disabilities, and (3) Combined VR agencies that serve individuals with all types of disabilities, including those who are blind or have visual impairments. Revell et al. (2009) reported on outcomes in self-employment based on a longitudinal analysis of closure data contained in the Rehabilitation Service Administration’s (RSA) 911 Closure Reports for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2003, 2005, and 2007. Combined national closure rates in self-employment as a percentage of all employment closures for General and Combined VR agencies were 2.0% FY 2003 and 1.7% in both FYs 2005 and 2007.

More recently, Sanchez et al. (2022) reported that the overall number of self-employment closures for individuals exiting the SVRA program declined to 8,253 closures in 2017-2019 from 13,007 closures in 2011-2013. The percentage of self-employment closures of the total number of VR recipients closed in competitive integrated employment (CIE) during these time periods declined to 1.75% for 2017-2019 from 2.4% in 2011-2013. These authors concluded that there is a need to increase competencies in self-employment among VR counselors and promote self-employment within the VR program.

Isben and Swicegood (2017) studied self-employment outcomes by surveying VR agencies serving a rural case mix. For the 47 VR agencies participating in the study, the combined self-employment closure rate was 2.1% of all those closed with an employment outcome. Closure rates in self-employment grew larger as locales in the states became more rural. For example, the self-employment rate of 2.1% when recalculated by rural-urban characteristics became: Urban (1.4%), Large Rural (3.5%), Small Rural (3.7%), and Isolated Rural (5.2%). Yamamoto and Alverson (2013) also reported on this rural/urban pattern in a study showing that probabilities of self-employment closure rates did vary significantly across states, after controlling for individual factors.

The University of Montana Rural Institute published a report identifying a number of reasons that self-employment is an important employment option for people with disabilities (Ipsen, 2021). Self-employment may provide 1) opportunity to remain close to established support networks, 2) non-traditional work hours as an accommodation, 3) flexibility, or consumer control to get to and from work when transportation is limited and 4) alternative worksites to minimize barriers such as inaccessible buildings and workplaces. Jones and Hansen (2022) also noted that characteristics of self-employment may make it a better match than wage employment for people with disabilities. The increased work autonomy that comes with self-employment may give more control over the physical work environment, scheduling, and transportation.

Avellone et al. (in press) conducted an international scoping review of factors that potentially affect self-employment. These include demographics (e.g., gender, age, race, disability), social networks, financial standing and work history, personal motivation, interagency collaboration, services (e.g., business plan development and mentorship), and barriers (e.g., lack of training and services). The multiple factors identified in this review point directly to the complexity facing VR counselors attempting to effectively and proactively support people with disabilities who could potentially benefit from self-employment.

In summary, studies document that the percent of self-employment outcomes through the SVRA program has remained low since 2003. The purpose of this study is to examine the longitudinal VR self-employment participation and outcomes for individuals exiting SVRAs in Program Years (PY) 2018, 2019, and 2020. Since the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act (WIOIA) includes self-employment in its definition of competitive integrated employment, the data is presented as a percentage of the overall number of VR recipients who exited services in CIE. Recommendations are made reflecting the importance of VR agencies taking proactive steps on policy, training, and resource development focused specifically on self-employment targeting a diverse population of people with disabilities, particularly those with the most significant disabilities.

2 Method

The data in this article was collected from information submitted by Combined VR agencies, General VR agencies, and Blind VR agencies to the Rehabilitation Services Administration Case Service Report (RSA-911) protocol for Federal PYs 2018, 2019 and 2020. Combined VR agencies serve individuals with all types of disabilities. Other states have two VR agencies: one that serves individuals who are blind or have visual impairments, referred to as Blind VR agencies, and a separate agency that serves individuals with all other types of disabilities referred to as General VR agencies. RSA’s Case Service Report is the administrative data collected by each state VR agency on individuals exiting VR Services in a program year. PY 2018 covers the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. PY 2019 covers the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. PY 2020 covers the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Data for General VR agencies and Combined VR agencies were combined (“General/Combined VR Agencies”) for the purpose of this article.

One of the authors of this article requested the RSA 911 data through the grant project officer for the National Center on Self-employment, Business Ownership, and Telecommuting who directed her to the RSA staff handling these requests. Paperwork was completed requesting the specific program years, and the de-identified data was provided to the researchers. Because of the variation in numerical outcomes across these program years, this article focuses on percentages of relative participation instead of the numerical counts in comparing year-to-year outcomes. Three questions guided this analysis.

What are the longitudinal VR participation and outcome patterns for self-employment as a component of the overall VR outcomes in competitive integrated employment?

What factors appear to influence self-employment outcomes?

What practices can be incorporated into VR policies and practices at the federal, state, and community level to help expand and improve the self-employment participation and outcomes for an inclusive range of VR recipients?

3 Results

3.1 Self-employment outcomes

Table 1 compares PYs 2018, 2019, and 2020 for people with disabilities exiting in self-employment compared to all VR recipients exiting in CIE after receiving services under an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) for General, Combined, and Blind VR Agencies. In PY 2018, VR agencies closed 287,674 VR recipients in CIE, of which 4,994 were closed in self-employment. In PY 2019, 127,915 VR recipients were closed in CIE, of which 2,230 were closed in self-employment. For PY 2020, 121,571 VR recipients were closed in CIE, of which 213 were closed in self-employment. The percentage of VR outcomes in self-employment for both PYs 2018 and 2019 was 1.7% of the total exiting in CIE for all VR agencies (General/Combined and Blind VR Agencies).

Table 1
Individuals exiting VR services in self-employment compared to those exiting in CIE under an IPE: PY 2018-2020 for general, combined, and blind VR agencies

Program year # exiting VR services in self-employment # exiting VR services in CIE % self-employment

2018 4,994 292,668 1.7%

2019 2,230 130,145 1.7%

2020 213 121,784 0.2%

Program year	# exiting VR services in self-employment	# exiting VR services in CIE	% self-employment
2018	4,994	292,668	1.7%
2019	2,230	130,145	1.7%
2020	213	121,784	0.2%

Table 2 presents self-employment outcomes for (1) General and Combined VR Agencies and (2) Blind VR Agencies. Blind VR agencies had a higher percentage of individuals who exited services successfully in self-employment than General/Combined VR agencies in the three years reported. General/Combined VR Agencies had 1.54% of their employment outcomes in self-employment in PY 2018 and 1.57% in PY 2019. Blind VR agencies had 8.6% of their CIE outcomes in self-employment in PY 2018 and 7.4% in PY 2019. However, participation in self-employment outcomes in PY 2020 for General/Combined VR Agencies dropped to 0.2% and to 0.1% of the Agencies for the Blind VR agencies.

Table 2

PY 2018-2020 by type of VR agencies - general/combined agencies and agencies for the blind/visually impaired

Program year/type of VR agency	# exiting services in self-employment	# exiting services in CIE	% self-employment
2018: General/Combined	4,399	285,723	1.54%
2018: Blind/Visually impaired	595	6,945	8.6%
2019: General/Combined	2,001	127,045	1.57%
2019: Blind/Visually impaired	229	3,100	7.4%
2020: General/Combined	213	118,718	0.2%
2020: Blind/Visually impaired	4	2,674	0.1%

3.2 Gender, age, race/ethnic background, and educational history

Table 3 presents the gender of VR recipients with self-employment outcomes in PYs 2018, 2019 and 2020. In all years, males exited in self-employment at higher percentages than females. A small percentage of recipients in all years did not identify their gender. In PY 2018, 62.6% were male, and 37.1% were female; in PY 2019, 64.2% were male and 35.6% were female. The PY 2020 comparison was 50.2% male and 48.4% female.

Table 3
Gender – VR recipients exiting in self-employment

Program year Male Female Did not identify

2018 62.6% 37.1% 0.2%

2019 64.2% 35.6% 0.2%

2020 50.2% 48.4% 1.4%

Program year	Male	Female	Did not identify
2018	62.6%	37.1%	0.2%
2019	64.2%	35.6%	0.2%
2020	50.2%	48.4%	1.4%

Table 4 presents the mean ages at the time of implementation of the IPE. For all years, the mean age for VR recipients who exited in self-employment was older than all VR recipients who exited in CIE. In PY 2018, the mean age for those closed in self-employment at the time of IPE implementation was 51.7 compared to 35.3 for all VR recipients achieving a CIE outcome. In PY 2019, the comparative figures were a mean age of 52.6 for those closed in self-employment and 36.6 for all recipients closed in CIE. For PY 2020, the mean age for those closed in self-employment was 53.9 and 41.7 for those closed in CIE.

Table 4

Mean age at IPE

Program year	Self-employment: Mean age at IPE	All VR recipients exiting in CIE: Mean age at IPE
2018	51.7	35.3
2019	52.6	36.6
2020	53.9	41.7

Table 5 presents the race or ethnic backgrounds for recipients closed in self-employment in PYs 2018, 2019 and 2020 compared to all VR recipients closed in CIE. A majority of VR recipients exiting in self-employment were predominately identified as white for all three Program Years: 85.3% in PY 2018, 84.8% in PY 2019, and 82.9% in PY 2020. In comparison, VR recipients exiting in CIE identified as white were 75.0% in PY 2018, 74.7% in PY 2019, and 74.8% in PY 2020. The percentage of VR recipients exiting in self-employment who identified as black was 12.4% in PY 2018, 13.0% in PY 2019, and 15.4% in PY 2020. Participation levels in self-employment for individuals identified as Hawaiian or American Indian were under 1.0% in each of the 3 program years. The race/ethnic data are presented in Table 5.

Table 5

Race/ethnic background: Self-employment compared to all VR recipients with a CIE outcome for PY 2018, 2019, and 2020

Race /ethnic background 2018	Self-employment PY 2018	CIE PY 2018
Black	12.4%	21.9%
Hispanic	12.4%	13.3%
Native American	2.1%	1.9%
White	85.3%	75.0%
Race/ethnic background 2019	Self-employment PY 2019	CIE PY 2019
Black	13.0%	21.8%
Hispanic	9.7%	12.7%
Native American	1.3%	1.8%
White	84.8%	74.7%
Race/ethnic background PY 2020	Self-employment PY 2020	CIE PY 2020
Black	15.4%	22.0%
Hispanic	7.7%	12.6%
Native American	4.3%	1.9%
White	82.9%	74.8%

Table 6 presents the educational level at time application for VR services in PYs 2018 and 2019. Data is not presented for PY 2020, because a code for educational level, used in PYs 2018 and 2019, was removed for PY 2020’s RSA code book. Since 54.7% of the data was missing for PY 2020, the decision was made not to compare the 2018 and 2019 data to 2020. The VR recipients’ most frequent educational level at time of application was a Secondary Level Diploma: 39.2% for PY 2018; 28.8% for PY 2019. An additional 5.7% in PY 2018 and 4.7% in PY 2019 had a Secondary School Equivalent certification. For PY 2018, 5.7% of the VR recipients had a Post-Secondary education at time of application. Other education at the time of application included Post-Secondary Licenses or Certificates (3.8%), Associate Degrees (5.7%), Bachelor Degrees (11.3%), and Beyond Bachelor Degrees (7.2%). For PY 2019, Post-Secondary education at time of application included Associate Degrees (5.6%), Post-Secondary Licenses or Certificates (3.8%), Associate Degrees (5.7%), Bachelor Degrees (4.3%), and Beyond a Bachelor Degree (6.6%). ‘No level of education completed’ was reported for 16.1% of the recipients in PY 2018 and 23.2% in PY 2019.

Table 6

Highest level of education at time of application

Level of education at time of application	% VR recipients who exited in self-employment: PY 2018	% of VR recipients who exited in self-employment: PY 2019
Secondary school diploma	39.2%	28.8%
Secondary school equivalent	5.7%	4.7%
Certificate of attendance/completion (IEP)	0.7%	0.7%
Completed 1 + years of post-secondary	10.2%	15.7%
Obtained post-secondary certification, license or certificate	3.8%	4.3%
Associate degree	5.7%	5.6%
Bachelor degree	11.3%	10.5%
Beyond a bachelor degree	7.2%	6.6%
No level of education completed	16.1%	23.2%

3.3 Earnings and hours worked from self-employment

Table 7 presents a comparison of earnings per week for all VR recipients with a self-employment outcome compared to all VR recipients with a CIE outcome. Those exiting services in self-employment achieved higher average earnings per week when compared to all VR recipients who achieved a CIE outcome in all three program years. The national average earnings per week in self-employment in PY 2018 were $500.76 compared to $392.04 for all VR recipients who achieved a CIE outcome. Corresponding average weekly earnings for PY 2019 for self-employment were $528.81 compared to $418.60 for all CIE outcomes. For PY 2020, average wages for self-employment were $422.80 compared to $419.10 for CIE.

Table 7
Comparison of earnings per week

Program year National average earnings per week for recipients exiting in self-employment National average earnings per week for all recipients exiting in CIE

2018 $500.76 $392.04

2019 $528.81 $418.60

2020 $422.80 $419.19

Program year	National average earnings per week for recipients exiting in self-employment	National average earnings per week for all recipients exiting in CIE
2018	$500.76	$392.04
2019	$528.81	$418.60
2020	$422.80	$419.19

Table 8 presents a comparison of hourly earnings for VR participants with a self-employment outcome compared to VR participants exiting services with a CIE outcome for General and Combined Agencies. In PYs 2018, 2019 and 2020, VR recipients who exited in self-employment earned a higher average hourly wage than other VR recipients exiting in CIE. The national average hourly earnings in self-employment for PY 2018 were $17.77 compared to $13.30. Corresponding average hourly earnings in PY 2019 for self-employment was $18.62 compared to $14.00 for all VR recipients who exited services in CIE; for PY 2020, $15.28 compared to $13.10 for CIE.

Table 8

Comparison of earnings per hour for general and combined agencies

Program year	Average earnings per hour for recipients exiting in self-employment	Average earnings per hour for VR recipients exiting in CIE
2018	$17.77	$13.30
2019	$18.62	$14.00
2020	$15.28	$13.10

Table 9 provides a comparison of average hours worked per week for all VR participants with a self-employment outcome compared to all VR participants who exited services with a CIE outcome. In all three years, participants exiting with a self-employment outcome worked somewhat fewer hours per week than participants who exited with a CIE outcome. The national average hours worked per week for individuals who exited services in self-employment for PY 2018 was 28.23 compared to 29.7 for all VR employment outcomes. Corresponding hours worked per week in PY 2019 for self-employment was 28.4 compared to 29.9 for all employment outcomes; for PY 2020, 26.0 hours for self-employment compared to 29.1 hours for CIE outcomes.

Table 9

Comparison of hours worked per week for VR cases exiting in self-employment versus all VR recipients exiting in CIE for VR agencies (general and combined only)

Program year	Average hours worked per week in self-employment	Average hours worked per week for all VR recipients exiting in CIE
2018	28.2 hours	29.7 hours
2019	28.4 hours	29.9 hours
2020	26.0 hours	29.1 hours

Table 10 presents the 10 States with the highest percentage of individuals exiting with a self-employment outcome in PY 2018 for General and Combined VR Agencies. The percentages are specific to each state compared to the VR recipients who exited in CIE for that state. The four General/Combined VR agencies with the highest percentage of self-employment outcomes are Mississippi (10.2%; n of 533), Hawaii (5.6%; n of 28), Montana (15.9%; n of 29), and Maine (6.0%; n of 77). Table 11 presents the same information for PY 2019. The six General/Combined VR agencies with the highest percentage of self-employment outcomes are Hawaii (15.6%; n of 9), Mississippi (10.5%; n of 322), Colorado (6.3%; n of 123), Maine (5.5%; n of 37), New Mexico (5.3%; n of 25) and Michigan (5.1%; n of 11). PY 2020 is not included, since the total percentages in self-employment were very low in that year.

In PY 2018, 1.54% of all CIE outcomes for the General and Combined VR agencies were in self-employment; in PY 2019 the self-employment outcomes were 1.57%. In PY 2018, approximately 40 (71.4%) of the 56 General and Combined VR agencies had employment outcomes in self-employment less than 1.5%; the corresponding figure in PY 2019 was 42 (75%). Also, with the possible exception of Colorado and Michigan, the states presented in Tables 10 and 11 representing VR agencies with the highest percentage of self-employment may be considered generally more rural with limited, frequently dispersed populations.

Table 10

The 10 VR agencies (general/combined only) with highest % of recipients exiting in self-employment for PY 2018

State VR agency: General/combined only	PY 2018 percentage of recipients exiting in self-employment	PY 2018 number of recipients exiting in self-employment
Mississippi	10.2%	533
Hawaii	5.6%	28
Montana	5.0%	29
New Mexico	4.4%	77
New Hampshire	3.9%	47
Colorado	3.8%	145
Maine	3.6%	56
Wyoming	3.5%	47
Idaho	3.1%	77
Vermont	2.9%	51
National	1.54%	4,399

Table 11

The 10 VR agencies (general/combined only) with highest % of recipients exiting in self-employment for PY 2019

State VR agency: General/combined only	PY 2019 percentage exiting in self-employment	PY 2019 number exiting in self-employment
Hawaii	15.5%	9
Mississippi	10.5%	322
Colorado	6.3%	123
Maine	5.5%	37
New Mexico	5.3%	25
Montana	5.1%	11
Puerto Rico	4.8%	84
South Carolina	4.8%	192
New Hampshire	4.2%	10
Wyoming	3.5%	20
National	1.57%.	2,001

Tables 12 and 13 present the 10 States with the highest percentage of self-employment outcomes in PYs 2018 and 2019 for the Blind VR agencies. PY 2020 is not included since the number of VR recipients exiting in self-employment was so low in that year. For PY 2018, 8.6% of the employment outcomes for VR Agencies for the Blind/Visually Impaired were in self-employment. The five VR Agencies for the Blind/Visually Impaired with the highest percentage of self-employment outcomes in FY 2018 were: Vermont (21.3%; n of 20), Maine (15.4%; n of 12), Florida (15.0%; n of 261), South Dakota (12.2%; n of 27) and Oregon (10.0%, n of 18). For PY 2019, 7.4% of the employment outcomes for Blind VR Agencies were in self-employment. The six Blind VR Agencies with the highest percentage of VR recipients exiting in self-employment for PY 2019 were Nebraska (20.5%; n of 8), Vermont (17.2%; n of 5), Florida (14.0%; n of 115), Oregon (11.8%; n of 8), Washington (9.2%; n of 6), and Minnesota (9.0%; n of 7).

Table 12

The 10 blind VR agencies with highest % of VR recipients exiting in self-employment for PY 2018

State VR agency: General/combined only	PY 2018: % exiting in self-employment	PY 2019: # exiting in self-employment
Vermont	21.3%	20
Maine	15.4%	12
Florida	15.0%	261
South Dakota	12.2%	27
Oregon	10.0%	18
Arkansas	9.4%	46
Connecticut	8.6%	14
Missouri	8.5%	32
New Mexico	8.3%	3
Nebraska	8.2%	7
National Summary	8.6%	595

Table 13

The 10 blind VR agencies with highest % of VR recipients exiting in self-employment: PY 2019

State VR agency: General/combined only	PY 2019: % of VR recipients exiting in self-employment	PY 2019: # of recipients exiting in self-employment
Nebraska	20.5%	8
Vermont	17.2%	5
Florida	14.0%	115
Oregon	11.8%	8
Washington	9.2%	6
Minnesota	9.0%	7
Massachusetts	6.3%	8
North Carolina	5.8%	21
Connecticut	5.2%	4
South Dakota	4.9%	5
National	7.4%	229

3.4 Disability

Table 14 provides information on the most frequent primary disability for VR recipients who exited services in self-employment. There is limited variation in the comparative percentages between PYs 2018 and 2019 while the disability percentages for PY 2020 do vary considerably from the other two years. Individuals with a primary disability, Physical Disorder not Listed elsewhere, represent the highest percentage of individuals exiting services with a self-employment outcome for PYs 2018 and 2019 at 26.1% both years. For PY 2020, the highest primary disability percentages were for Accident/Injury other than TBI/SCI at 14.1% and Depressive and Other Mood Disorder at 13.1%. Other primary disabilities are presented in Table 14.

Table 14
Most frequent primary disability for VR recipients closed self-employment

Primary disability PY 2018: % of people in disability category exiting in self-employment PY 2019: % of people in disability category exiting in self-employment PY 2020: % of people in disability category exiting in self-employment

Accident/injury other than TBI/SCI 7.5% 7.8% 14.1%

Anxiety disorder 2.6% 2.8% 8.1%

Cardiac and other conditions of the circulatory system 2.3% 2.7%

Cause unknown 20.4% 20.2% 7.1%

Congenital condition or birth injury 7.6% 8.0%

Depressive and other mood disorder 6.5% 5.4% 13.1%

Drug abuse or dependence other than alcohol 2.7% 3.5% 1.0%

Physical disorder not listed elsewhere 26.1% 26.1% 10.1%

Specific learning disability 3.5% 3.5% 3.0%

Primary disability	PY 2018: % of people in disability category exiting in self-employment	PY 2019: % of people in disability category exiting in self-employment	PY 2020: % of people in disability category exiting in self-employment
Accident/injury other than TBI/SCI	7.5%	7.8%	14.1%
Anxiety disorder	2.6%	2.8%	8.1%
Cardiac and other conditions of the circulatory system	2.3%	2.7%
Cause unknown	20.4%	20.2%	7.1%
Congenital condition or birth injury	7.6%	8.0%
Depressive and other mood disorder	6.5%	5.4%	13.1%
Drug abuse or dependence other than alcohol	2.7%	3.5%	1.0%
Physical disorder not listed elsewhere	26.1%	26.1%	10.1%
Specific learning disability	3.5%	3.5%	3.0%

Table 15 presents the level of disability status for VR recipients exiting services with a self-employment outcome compared to all VR recipients who exited in CIE for PYs 2018, 2019 and 2020. For both PYs 2018 and 2019, significant disability is the most frequent disability level for those exiting in self-employment (46.5% in PY 2018; 47.3% in PY 2019); for PY 2020, most significant disability (59.6%) is the most frequent disability level. In comparison for participants who exited with a CIE outcome, for PYs 2018, PY 2019 and PY 2020, most significant disability is the most frequent disability level for all VR participants exiting services in CIE (52.6% in PY 2018; 54.1% in PY 2019; 53.8% in PY 2020).

Table 15

Comparison level of disability status

Significance of disability: PY 2018	Significance of disability exiting in self-employment	Significance of disability all exiting in CIE
Does not have significant disability	11.7%	17.7%
Significant disability	46.5%	40.7%
Most significant disability	35.8%	52.60%
Significance of disability: PY 2019	Significance of disability exiting in self-employment	Significance of disability all exiting in CIE
Does not have significant disability	18.3%	7.0%
Significant disability	47.3%	38.9%
Most significant disability	34.3.6%	54.1%
Significance of disability: PY 2020	Significance of disability exiting in self-employment	Significance of disability all exiting in CIE
Does not have significant disability	2.0%	8.0%
Significant disability	38.4%	38.3%
Most significant disability	59.6%	53.8%

Table 16 provides information on VR recipients exiting services with a self-employment outcome whose primary disability was a developmental disability. Overall, the percentages of VR recipients exiting in self-employment who had a developmental disability were small. The largest percentage was for individuals with a congenital condition or birth injury with 7.6% in PY 2018, 8% in PY 2019, and 12.8% in PY 2020. Only 1.3% of the VR recipients exiting in self-employment in PY 2018 had an intellectual disability; with 1.2% in PY 2019 and 1.7% in PY 2020.

Table 16

Primary developmental disability for individuals exiting in self employment: PYs 2018, 2019, and 2020

Primary disability	PY 2018	PY 2019	PY 2020
Autism	0.9%	1.0%	3.4%
Cerebral palsy	0.5%	0.5%	0.9%
Congenital condition or birth injury	7.6%	8.0%	12.8%
Epilepsy	0.2%	0.2%	0%
Intellectual disability	1.3%	1.2%	1.7%
Muscular dystrophy	0.2%	0.2%	1.7%
Polio	0.2%	0.3%	0%
Specific learning disability	3.5%	3.5%	2.6%

3.5 Self-employment occupations

Table 17 provides information on the top ten occupations for VR recipients exiting services in self-employment for PY 2018 and PY 2019. Management (11.3% in PY 2018 and 10.6% in PY 2019) and Personal Care Services (11.1% in PY 2018 and 11.3% in PY 2019) were the top two occupations for both years. Data is not presented for PY 2020 because of a change in the RSA code book, which deleted one of the employment occupations used in PYs 2019 and 2020. In addition, the number of VR recipients exiting in 2020 was very low in comparison to the other two years.

Table 17
Highest % of self-employment occupations

Type of occupation % self-employment occupations: PY 2018 % self-employment occupations: PY 2019

Management 11.3% 10.6%

Personal care and service 11.1% 11.3%

Construction and extraction 8.9% 10.3%

Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media 9.8% 8.9%

Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance 7.1% 6.9%

Sales and related 6.7 7.6%

Production 6.6% 5.6%

Installation, maintenance and repair 6.4% 6.5%

Transportation and material handling 5.0% 5.3%

Type of occupation	% self-employment occupations: PY 2018	% self-employment occupations: PY 2019
Management	11.3%	10.6%
Personal care and service	11.1%	11.3%
Construction and extraction	8.9%	10.3%
Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media	9.8%	8.9%
Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance	7.1%	6.9%
Sales and related	6.7	7.6%
Production	6.6%	5.6%
Installation, maintenance and repair	6.4%	6.5%
Transportation and material handling	5.0%	5.3%

4 Discussion

4.1 What are the longitudinal VR participation and outcome patterns for self-employment?

COVID-19 most likely contributed to the decline in self-employment outcomes for people with disabilities exiting the SVRA program. There was a considerable reduction in the percentage of VR recipients exiting services in PY 2020 with only 0.02% of the recipients exiting in CIE with a self-employment outcome when compared to previous program years. According to data gathered by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on employment in the spring of 2020 in United States were the largest in the history of their data collected. Beginning with May of 2020 through September of 2022, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics added questions to the Population Survey to help determine the pandemic’s effect on the labor market. A report available on the Bureau’s website states that self-employed workers were much more likely than private wage and salary workers and government workers to have been unable to work because of pandemic-related closures or lost business. About 27% of self-employed individuals in July reported that they were unable to work because of the pandemic, compared with 11% of private wage and salary workers and 6% of government workers (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022).

While the COVID-19 pandemic undoubtedly impacted the number of people with disabilities entering and exiting VR services, the data reveals that self-employment continues to be an underutilized VR service. Outcomes in self-employment as a component of all VR outcomes in CIE remained low and stagnant during the period 2003-2019 with the noticeable drop in outcomes for PY 2020. That percentage has hovered around 1.7% nationally of all individuals exiting in CIE for the General and Combined VR agencies. The Blind VR Agencies had higher percentages of recipients exiting in self-employment than the General/Combined VR Agencies in PY 2018 and PY 2019; although these percentages are still small.

Also evident, is the limited racial/ethnic and gender diversity among those achieving self-employment outcomes. When compared to overall CIE outcomes, self-employment outcomes are predominately realized by older participants (mean age of 51.7 in 2018; 52.6 in 2019; mean age of 53.9 in 2020). The mean age at time of development of the recipients’ Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) was approximately 15 years older for people with disabilities exiting VR services in self-employment compared to the mean age of all those exiting with a CIE outcome.

As a group, VR recipients who achieved a self-employment outcome identified as white at a higher percentage than those who identified as black or other races. The percent of VR recipients identified as white was 85.3% for PY 2018; 84.8% for PY 2019; and 82.9% for PY 2020. In addition, a higher percentage identified as male than female for all program years (PY 2018, 62.5%; 2019, 64.2%; 2020, 50.2%). This same limited diversity is seen in the overall sample of VR recipients exiting SRVAs during this time period who achieved CIE outcomes. For comparison, 75% of the VR recipients exiting with a CIE outcome were white in 2018; 74.7% were white in 2019; and 74.8% were white in 2020.

Access to self-employment services also appears to be limited for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Individuals with a primary disability category of physical disorder not listed elsewhere represent the highest percentage of people who exited services in self-employment during PYs 2018 and 2019. A small percentage of people who exited in self-employment did not have a significant disability in all three program years (11.7% in 2018, 18.3% in 2019, and 2% in 2020).The data also reveals that there is very limited participation in self-employment services by people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This information is presented in Table 16.

It is important to report that there are some state General and Combined VR agencies that had percentages of VR recipients exiting services in self-employment higher than the national average of 1.7% in PYs 2018 and 2019. In addition, the Blind VR agencies have higher percentages of outcomes than the General and Combined VR agencies. However, over 70% of the SVRAs had employment outcomes in self-employment at less than 1.5%. Consistently, the highest percentage of self-employment outcomes from the VR system occurred in more rural with smaller, frequently dispersed populations. Other positive outcomes to report are the hourly and weekly wage outcomes in self-employment. The average hourly and weekly earnings at exit from General and Combined VR Agencies were consistently higher during the period of 2018-2020 for participants exiting in self-employment than for all VR recipients exiting in CIE.

While the data does not provide information on the issues impacting the low self-employment participation rates and outcomes in the SVRA program, efforts are needed to improve access to self-employment services and improve the outcomes. The University of Montana Rural Institute published a report (Ipsen, 2021) presenting the following possible causes: VR agency policies and procedures may lack clear guidelines for self-employment cases. VR Counselors may lack adequate training to support recipients who wish to pursue self-employment. It takes considerable time and effort to explore, develop, and start a business, and counselors may not be aware of external supports for individuals interested in self-employment. Financial outcomes are uncertain for VR participants who start a business, particularly for those who receive social security benefits.

Inge and her colleagues conducted a series of focus groups with VR counselors (Inge et al., in press) that support the findings from the University of Montana Rural Institute report. VR counselors participating in these focus groups reported that they have limited knowledge and experience with self-employment policies and processes. These same participants reported having difficulty applying those policies and processes to VR recipients with the most significant disabilities. The hesitance of some VR counselors to pursue self-employment was noted because of the nature of the process, the time involved, and the complexity of many of the tasks that some counselors felt may be beyond the capacity of their clients. While the authors caution that their findings should not be generalized to the views of all VR counselors, they do provide potential insights into further study on the training and support needs of VR counselors on self-employment. States should review their own outreach practices as well as their policies and practices to address these concerns. This also applies to expanding access to self-employment services to VR recipients with IDD, who are younger, and have the most significant disabilities.

4.2 What are the factors that appear to most strongly influence self-employment outcomes in the VR system?

The SVRA program and its counselors face a number of inherent challenges in responding to the employment support needs and interests of large and diverse caseloads. For example, financial resources for case services can be limited. Counselors are dependent on community resources and partnerships to obtain effective employment support services beyond employment planning and counseling and guidance. Employment options in their community for people with disabilities are impacted by national, state, and local economic cycles and job availability. It is also important to recognize that there are 78 VR agencies that can vary considerably in the provision of services within the framework of federal regulations and funding implementing Title IV of the 2014 Federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act.

The VR system as a whole must take a proactive approach to its support of self-employment. Consistently, self-employment outcomes are predominantly achieved in the VR system by a homogenous population of older (age 50+) participants whose race is white and gender is male. The SVRAs need to acknowledge and address a variety of identified factors influencing the limited and stagnant level of self- employment outcomes through the VR system, such as:

Need for increased competencies and the promotion of self-employment within the VR system (Sanchez et al., 2022).

Need for VR counselors to acknowledge a wide variety of training on topics related to self-employment (Inge et al., 2022b) such as 1) self-employment assessments; 2) market analysis or business planning requirements; and 3) self-employment funding and financing guidelines (Hansen, in press).

Need to recognize and proactively address the complexity of the multiple factors affecting self-employment such as demographics of the PWDs served by VR, social networks, financial standing, work history, motivation, interagency collaboration, services (e.g.: business plan development and mentorship), and barriers (e.g.: lack of training and services) (Avellone et al., in press).

These and other studies on factors limiting self-employment outcomes refer repeatedly and consistently to the lack of both counselor training and clear policy and procedure guidelines on self-employment, a lack of awareness by VR counselors of external supports, and uncertainty regarding the financial implications of starting a business on Social Security benefits (Ipsen, 2021).

There are also under utilized potential resources within the VR system that if explored and used proactively, could expand self-employment access to a younger and more diverse demographic population using the VR system. One example is the Workforce Opportunities and Investment Act of 2014 (WIOA). WIOA requires VR agencies to allocate at least 15% of their state’s VR grant to pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities. WIOA also permits VR agencies to provide extended services for youth with the most significant disabilities up to 4 years. Finally, VR agencies are required to reserve and expend 5% of their Federal Supported Employment allotment for the provision of supported employment services with youth with the most significant disabilities to assist them achieve an employment outcome in supported employment. These features of WIOA are supportive of customized services that could be utilized in support of self-employment. As an example, pre-employment services could potentially include a Discovery approach to explore self-employment interests. Extended ongoing supports are a key feature of success in self-employment for youth with autism or intellectual disabilities. Clearly, studies have identified many primary factors strongly influencing and unfortunately frequently limiting self-employment participation and outcomes through the VR system.

4.3 What research-based practices can be incorporated into VR policies and practices at the federal, state, and community level to help expand and improve self-employment participation and outcomes for an inclusive range of VR clientele?

The next step is for the field of vocational rehabilitation to proactively address how to incorporate research-based practices into VR policies and practices. Professionals need to move away from making decisions about self-employment potential based mostly on perceptions of disability-related limitations. Instead, professionals need to adopt an “assumption of ability” approach that emphasizes exploration, systematic assistance, and extended supports. There are numerous examples of huge steps forward in recent years expanding opportunities for competitive integrated employment outcomes for a cross section of individuals with significant disabilities who historically had limited access to VR employment services. Examples include but are not limited to potential VR applicants with significant intellectual disabilities, mental illness, autism, and other developmental disabilities (Mueser et al., 2016; Wehman et al., 2018; Wehman et al., 2020). For individuals in each of these and other disability areas, targeted research and demonstration studies have been conducted, and continue to take place, to identify, test, validate, disseminate and fund evidence-based practices that have substantially improved opportunities for competitive employment. People with the disabilities referenced here are candidates for CIE, including self-employment, and are representative of a more diverse and inclusive population for self-employment if proactive VR attention is given to their potential and support needs.

5 Conclusion

There is clear evidence of the lessons learned on how the VR System can respond effectively to prioritizing VR Services for people with the most significant disabilities. The lessons are drawn from giving proactive attention to people with significant disabilities who have low participation and employment outcome rates through SVRAs. This attention involves research, development, dissemination, and implementation of evidence-based employment practices. It involves identifying and disseminating evidence drawn from pockets of excellence in targeted areas such as agencies that have higher rates of self-employment participation and outcomes. The field of vocational rehabilitation and the system of providing VR services has demonstrated that with focused attention, a diverse population of historically unemployed and underemployed people with disability can be successful in community integrated employment, including self-employment, when provided with effective services, supports, and resources. Unless the field of vocational rehabilitation proactively commits to diversifying and expanding self-employment participation and outcomes, the odds are that the outcomes for self-employment will remain unchanged.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

None to report.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Funding

This article was funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration (Grant #H263E200005). The ideas, opinions, and conclusions expressed do not represent recommendations, endorsements, or policies of the U.S. Department of Education.

References

Avellone,

, Malouf,

, Taylor,

& Whittenburg,

[in press]. An international scoping review of factors impacting self-employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation.

Hansen,

[in press]. Understanding the provision of self-employment for people with disabilities in the United States. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation.

Inge,

, Keeton,

, & Taylor.

[in press]. Vocational rehabilitation counselors’ perceptions of barriers to self-employment for individuals with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation. https://centeronselfemployment.org/documents/Information_Brief_.pdf

Inge,

, Revell,

, Cimera,

, & Keeton,

(2022b). Results from a national needs assessment on self-employment: The self-reported training needs and opinions of vocational rehabilitation professionals. National Center on Self-Employment, Business Ownership, and Telecommuting. Retrieved from: https://centeronselfemployment.org/documents/Information_Brief_4.pdf

Ipsen, C. (October, 2021). Research progress report: Increasing consumer opportunities for self-employment in vocational rehabilitation. Missoula, MT: The University of Montana Rural Institute for Inclusive Communities. Retrieved from: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/ruralinst_employment

Ipsen,

, Swicegood,

(2017) Rural and Urban vocational rehabilitation self-employment outcomes. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation46, 97–105.

Jones,

, Hansen,

(2022) Understanding the provision of self-employment for people with disabilities in the United States. Retrieved from: https://centeronselfemployment.org/documents/Understanding_the_Provision_of_Self-Employment_in_the_United_States.pdf

Mueser,

K. T.

, Drake,

R. E.

, Bond,

G. R.

(2016) Recent advances in supported employment for people with serious mental illness. Current Opinion in Psychiatry29(3), 196–201.

Revell,

, Smith,

, Inge,

(2009) An analysis of self-employment outcomes within the Federal/State Vocational Rehabilitation System. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation31, 11–18.

10.

Sanchez,

, Frain,

, Shirley,

, Rohack,

, Pan,

(2022) Persons with disabilities in self-employment serviced by the federal/state Vocational Rehabilitation system: Difference between 2011-2019. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 1–12.

11.

University of Montana Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities. (2021). Vocational rehabilitation self-employment guide. Retrieved from: https://vrselfemploymentguide.org/

12.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). Persons with a disability: Labor force characteristics, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf

13.

U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022). Effects of the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/cps/effects-of-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic.htm

14.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023). Persons with a disability: Labor force characteristics, 2022 (USDL-23-0351) Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf

15.

Wehman,

, Schall,

, McDonough,

, Sima,

, Brooke,

, Ham,

, Molinelli Brooke,

Riehle,

(2020) Competitive employment for transition-aged youth with significant impact from autism: A multi-site randomized clinical trial. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders50(6), 1882–1897.

16.