STATE - FEDERAL VR DIRECTOR PERCEPTIONS OF PROGRAM CHALLENGES, NEEDS, AND THE FUTURE OF THE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM By Susan G. Sherman A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requir ements for the degree of Rehabilitation Counselor Education - Doctor of Philosophy 2015 ABSTRACT STATE - FEDERAL VR DIRECTOR PERCEPTIONS OF PROGRAM CHALLENGES, NEEDS, AND THE FUTURE OF THE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRA M By Susan G. Sherman McFarlane, Schroeder and Enriquez (2014) wrote that the challenge is to ensure continuity in our government support systems for workforce development that addresses both the unique needs of the individual with a disability and the organizational systems through which public policies are carried out. This study sought to understand the challenges and needs of the state - see the future of the public VR pro gram. The stud y provides an in - depth examination of the tate - federal VR d irectors view the future of the public rehabilitation program , and what resources do they believe they need to create su ccess in light of th inclusion in this study were state - fede ral VR directors leading higher - functioning VR agencies, based on three year s of RSA 911 data from combined or general VR agencies in the continen tal United States. The results indicate that the state - federal VR directors interviewed are collaborating with workforce partners, school systems and other partners to meet the mandates of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Issues and concerns related to agency implementation of WIOA were examined. Creating a better world for people with disabilities was examined in terms of agency actions and policies. VR directors thoughts on their own training needs, and that of their staff, were shared. The findings from this study may be able to assist stakeholders in understanding and developing resources and supports that state - federal VR directors believe are needed in order to successfully operate public VR programs into the future. Copyright by SUSAN G. SHERMAN 2015 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to take this opportunity to thank the faculty and staff of the MSU Rehabilitation Counseling program and my committee member s , Dr. Michael J. Leahy, Dr. John K osciulek, Dr. Connie Sung and Dr. Avner Sega l l , for their patience, guidance and for the many opportunities presented to me during my time at Michigan State University. I especially want to thank my advisor , Dr. Michael J. Leahy , for his wisdom, guidance, and support. I will be forever grateful for the opportunities he has provided to me and for his encouragement and steadfast support . He has shown me the importance of scholarship and of sharing knowledge with others to create a better world for people w ith disabilities. I would also like to thank Dr. Leahy and the entire research team, for allowing me to participate and contribute to the literature through the RRTC - EBP - VR NIDRR grant. I wish to acknowledge my research assistant peers, Roy De l Valle an d Cayte Anderson, for their support and never - ending encouragement. I have met so many people during these past few years , many of whom I have met through the Big 3 events coordinated by MSU, Iowa and Penn State faculty . Many of these individuals have b ecome close friends and colleagues, and I thank them for all they have done in enabling me to succeed in my doctoral studies. I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues who encouraged me to pursue this degree. Most of all, I would like to thank my family for their enduring support of me during these years in Michigan. To my daughter, Sarah, I have been amazed at the lovely young woman you have become during our time here. To my wife, Ann, words alone cannot express my gratitude for all your sup port and sacrifice during these last few years. I am truly blessed and I shall be vi forever grateful to you and for this life we have made together. And, lastly, I would like to thank my mother, Lori Sherman, who I know is watching over me and would have b een extremely proud of this achievement. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... x LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... xi KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... xii Chapter 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 1 Statement of Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 4 Purpose of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 5 Research Question ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 8 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 8 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 9 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 10 Chapter 2 Literature Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 14 The State - Federal Rehabilitation Program and Related Legislation ................................ . 14 Growth of Vocational Rehabilitation Programs ................................ ............................... 14 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Amendments ................................ ........................... 15 The Workforce Investm ent Act and Ticket to Work ................................ ........................ 16 Twenty - First Century Legislation ................................ ................................ ..................... 17 The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act ................................ .............................. 18 Leadership of State - Federal Rehabilitation Programs ................................ ...................... 20 Evidence - Based Practices ................................ ................................ ................................ . 22 Culture ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 24 Leadership, Culture and the Learning Organization ................................ ......................... 25 The Culture of Leadership ................................ ................................ ................................ 28 Leadership in Times of Change ................................ ................................ ........................ 31 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 32 Chapter 3 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 33 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 34 Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 35 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 37 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 39 Role of the Researcher ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 41 Limitations of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 41 Chapter 4 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 43 Participant Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ . 43 viii Titles of state - federal directors ................................ ................................ ............. 43 Type of state - federal VR agency ................................ ................................ .......... 43 Years in current position ................................ ................................ ....................... 44 Previous position titles ................................ ................................ .......................... 44 State departmental locations ................................ ................................ ................. 45 Designated state unit locations ................................ ................................ .............. 45 Years with current VR agency ................................ ................................ .............. 46 Years in public rehabilitation ................................ ................................ ................ 46 Educational backgrounds and degrees ................................ ................................ .. 47 Licenses or certification held ................................ ................................ ................ 47 Themes and Categories ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 48 Future of the Vocational Rehabilitation Program ................................ ............................. 48 Perspectives of the VR program in the next decade ................................ ............. 48 ................................ ................................ ............................. 49 State director concerns about the future ................................ ................................ 50 Rehabilitation Legislation ................................ ................................ ................................ . 51 Impr oving the service delivery system for PWD in light of WIOA ..................... 51 Changes from WIOA affecting state - federal VR agencies ................................ ... 52 Agency Ac tions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 53 Maintaining the values of the rehabilitation process ................................ ............ 53 Actions by state - federal VR director and resources needed ................................ . 53 Resources needed to maintain and increase levels of success .............................. 54 Societal Advancements for People with Disabilities ................................ ........................ 55 Positioning the agency to create a better world for people with disabilities ........ 55 Using the director position to create a better world for peop le with disabilities .. 56 State Director Activities ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 57 Resources needed to be a successful state director ................................ ............... 57 Activities for agency success ................................ ................................ ................ 58 State - federal VR director training and learning communities .............................. 59 Decision - making over personnel and finances ................................ ..................... 59 Agency Policies ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 59 Upholding the letter and the spirit of the law ................................ ....................... 59 Factors related to development of financial policies ................................ ............ 60 Efforts around localizing decision - making ................................ ........................... 60 Staffing and Training ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 61 Attitudes, knowledge, skills and abilities needed by staff ................................ .... 61 Certi fication of VR counselors ................................ ................................ ............. 62 Support and funding for training and personnel development .............................. 62 Chapter 5 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 64 Vision of the Future under WIOA ................................ ................................ .................... 64 Customer Service ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 66 Innovation and Service Design ................................ ................................ ............. 68 Systems Integration and High - Quality Staffing ................................ .................... 70 Implications for State - Federal VR Directors ................................ ................................ .... 73 Implications for Rehabilitation Counselor Educators ................................ ....................... 75 ix Implications for Policymakers and Funders ................................ ................................ ..... 77 Implications for Rehabilitation Researchers ................................ ................................ ..... 79 Study Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 80 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 81 Conceptual Framework with Findings ................................ ................................ .............. 84 APPENDICES ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 86 Appendix A. Institutional Review Boards App roval ................................ ......................... 87 Appendix B. CSAVR Agreement to Support Study ................................ .......................... 89 Appendix C. CSAVR Research Endorsement ................................ ................................ ... 90 Appendix D. Study Participant Invitation Letter to VR Directors ................................ ..... 91 Appendix E. Research Consent Form ................................ ................................ ............... 92 Appendix F. Semi - Structured Interview Guide ................................ ................................ . 94 Appendix G. Zoom Invitation ................................ ................................ ............................ 97 Appendix H. RSA - TAC - 15 - 01 ................................ ................................ .......................... 98 Appendix I. 2011, 2012 & 2013 RSA Federal Indicators ................................ .............. 111 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 114 x LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Higher - Performing State - Federal VR Agencies by Federal Fiscal Year ........................ 40 Table 2. States by Program Type ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 44 Table 3. 2011, 2012 & 2013 RSA Federal Indicators ................................ ................................ . 111 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Competing Values Framework (CVF) ................................ ................................ ............ 6 Figure 2. Competing Values Framework: Organizational Effectiveness (Quinn, 1984) ................ 7 Figure 3. Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 Figure 4. Competing Values Map (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) ................................ .................. 27 Figure 5. Visual Model for Qualitative Research Design ................................ ............................. 37 Figure 6. Years in Position by State ................................ ................................ .............................. 44 Figure 7. Designated State Agencies Distribution ................................ ................................ ........ 45 Figure 8. Years w ith Current Agency ................................ ................................ ........................... 46 Figure 9. Years in Public Rehabilitation ................................ ................................ ....................... 47 Figure 10. Conceptual Framework with Findings ................................ ................................ ........ 85 Figure 11 . Institutional Review Board Online Form ................................ ................................ .... 87 Figure 12. IRB Approval Letter Email ................................ ................................ ......................... 88 Figure 13. CSAVR Agreement to Support Study Email ................................ .............................. 89 Figure 14. CSAVR Research Endorsement ................................ ................................ .................. 90 Figure 15. Study P articipant Invitation Letter to VR Directors ................................ .................... 91 Figure 16. Zoom Meeting Invitation ................................ ................................ ............................. 97 xii KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS AT Assistive Technology COLA Cost of Living Adj ustment CPA Certified Public Accountant CRC Certified Rehabilitation Counselor CSAVR Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation CVF Competing Values Framework DSA Designated State Agency DSU Designated State Unit EBP Evidenc e - Based Practices FFY Federal Fiscal Year FTE Full - Time Equivalent HELP Health, Education, Labor & Pensions HHS Health & Human Services IRB Institutional Review Board ICI Institute for Community Inclusion IRI Institute on Rehabilitation Issu es JDVRTAC Job - Driven Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center LPC Licensed Professional Counselor MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding NCSAB National Council of State Agencies for the Blind xiii NIDILRR National Inst itute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research NIDRR N ational Institute on Disability - Related Research PET S Pre - employment Transition Services PWD Person with a disability QA Quality Assurance RCEP Rehabilitation Continuing E ducation Program RSA - TAC - 15 - 01 Technical Assistance Circular RSA Rehabilitation Services Administration SRC State Rehabilitation Council TA Technical Assistance TACE Technical Assistance and Continuing Education VR Vocational Rehabilitation WIA Workforce Investment Act WIOA Workfo rce Innovation and Opportunity Act 1 C hapter 1 Introduction Federal legislation has supported the public vocational rehabilitation (VR) program for over 90 years (McFarlane, Schroeder, Enriquez & Dew, 2011) . The fo cus of this legislation has been to enable s tate - f ederal v ocational r ehabilitation (VR) agencies to provide services that support people with disabilities to obtain and maintain employment and increase independence. While the s tate - f ederal VR programs hav disabilities obtain and maintain employment, this federal disability program is faci ng some Leah y, Chan & Lui, 2014, p. 84). The strength of the state - federal program today is it s focus on policies, mandates and structures designed to identify and meet the needs of the individual with disabilities . The state - federal VR program, in assisting approximately one million individuals with disabilities with independent living and career goals, spends about three billion dollars annually according to Leahy et al., 2014 . The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) has found t hat after receiving VR services about half the individuals served were able to obtain emp loyment in integrated settings . Accountability by VR stakeholders for fund expenditure s is increasing . State VR d irectors are responsible, as outlined in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, for both the funds they expend and the outcomes their agenc ies produce . Unde rstanding how state - federal VR directors perceive their resource needs and their own abilities to transform their agencies, in order to improve employment outcomes , may provide insights into how to best support these directors in improving and sustaining V R services . McFarlane et al. noted that the public policy challenge is to balance person - centric principles while creating policies and structures to meet organizational mandates to assist the consumer . 2 Federal regulations provide the foundation for impl ementing the state - federal VR policies and services . For most of its history, the state - federal VR program received bipartisan support and this has contributed to longevity of the program . VR cy mandates has required commitments and resources at both the state and federal lev els and created a system that should be consistent throughout the United States (McFarlane et al., 2011) . McFarlane et al . believe that i n order to ensure that public poli cies are both person - centric and system - centric constant thoughtful consideration, planning and implementation by policymakers, administrators, employers, providers and the person with a disability that endeavors to enter or return to the job market is req uired . An analysis of the most recent version of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which is now Title IV of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), expands the requirements of the Designated State Unit (DSU ) to requir e that there be a f ull - time VR d irector who is ultimately responsible for the day - to - day . The WIOA gives VR directors sole authority and responsibility within the Designated State Agency (DSA), under which the DSU is housed, to expend fu nds made available under the Act . This language specifically identifies and empowers the VR d irector as the decision - maker on expenditure of fund s . The State VR Director is the only position specifically outlined in the Act and is responsible for the staff hired . and responsibilities are clearly outlined in the Act . Fiscal, legislative and leadership changes at the state and f ederal levels have , ov er time , changed the field of rehabilitation services (McFarlane et al., 2011) . According to the 2005 document from the 31st Institute on Rehabilitation Issues (IRI) , m anaging a VR system 3 successfully depends on managin g many competing priorities . iduals in positions of leadership are being asked to make many decisions, both large and small, in this rapidly 5 ). Bitter and Gay (1997) point out that setting direction with vision, values and creativity requires leadership . Pac kard (2009) notes that leadership is an important variable that affects the performance of an organization. The leadership behavior of an organization creates, either knowingly or unknowingly, the culture of the organization in w hich staff operates (Packard, 2009) . Rijal (2010) suggests that leadership facilitating a culture allowing for the creation of a learning organization encourages the development, acquisition, transformation and dissemination of new knowledge that can fost er innovation leading to evidence - based practices (EBP) . Emphasis on the development and implementation of EBPs is needed to assist state - f ederal VR directors in demonstrating the effectiveness of VR service provision by their agencies . Creating cultures that transform agencies into learning organizations and that empower staff towards innovation appears to be a critical and necessary step (Sherman et al., 2014) . Shaw, rehabilitation c ounseling have frequently been cited in the rehabilitation counseling literature . These researchers reported the results of a Delphi study with a wide variety of leaders in the field that include d leaders of the various professional organizations, accred itation and certification bodies . The results of this study were professional identity and recognition; changes in service delivery systems; education and training issues; research; and professional . The goal of this study was to provide the profession with guidance in developing agendas and strategies that will address the critical issues facing the profession . 4 In another recent study, Sherman, Leahy, Del Valle, Anderson, Tansey and Lui (2014) l elements encourage and support the . McFarlane, Schroeder and Enriquez (2014) wrote that the challenge is to ensure continuity in our government support systems for workforce development that addresses both the unique needs of the individual with a disability and the organizational systems through which public p olicies are carried out . This study proposes to look at state - federal VR d irectors, those individuals charged with carrying out the mandates and goals of the s tate - f ederal VR program. While the literature addresses the perspectives of a wide variety of l eaders in the field, this study will extend research in the field by exploring state - federal VR director s insights on the future of the VR program and what these directors believe they need to successful ly address the complex and ever - changing demands on their agencies . Statement of Problem . State - federal VR directors have the responsibility to assure that funds, expended by the staff they hire, are used to support program success for agency clients . Sherman et al . (2014) found there is a clear link between leadership style and management practice , and these factors have a significant influen ce on the adoption of innovation and utilization of evidence - based practices within state - federal VR agencies . Leaders of successful VR ag ze the use of outc ome - focused business models by adopting organizational innovations and harnessing ad vances in information (Sherman et al., 2014, p. 151). 5 Given the changes over time to the state VR program, including recent changes brought about by the recently pas sed WIOA legislation, this study examin es the administration of a state - that may provide view of the challenges and , in turn, the needs of the state - federal VR program . These d irectors are uniquely situated direction and how state directors perceive the national program needs to adapt in continuing the provision of quality services . These insights may provide a roadmap for potential changes that VR agencies and their stakeholders could undertake especially in light of state budget cuts and the diminishing availability of training dollars . Purpose of Study According to Sherman et al. ( 2014 ) , i n o r der to achieve VR program success in times of change, leaders should strive to create a culture of adhocracy that supports a learning organization . Organizational culture is one of the management tools available to leaders of organizat ions that can shape employee performance (Giberson et al., 2009; Lincoln, 2010; Sherman et al., 2014 ) . In an attempt to define organizational culture in relation to organizational learning, Cameron and Quinn (1999) proposed the Competing Values Framework (CVF) . Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) explained CVF in terms of two primary dimensions that include four major quadrants representing opposite assumptions. Dimension 1 ranges from flexibility and discretion to stability and control in the organization. Dime nsion 2 ranges from internal focus and integration to external focus and differentiation in the organization. The four major quadrants, as depicted in Figure 1 , are defined by these two axes , labeled as clan, market, hierarchy and ad hocracy (Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Naranjo - Valencia, Jimenez - Jimenez & Sanz - Valle, 2011; Sherman et al., 2014). 6 Figure 1 . Competing Values Framework (CVF) L eaders in adhocracy systems value innovation an d building partnerships with external stakeholders. A dhocracy culture is externally focused and emphasizes flexibility or dynamism, adaptability and change . Decision - making is decentralized and creativity, entrepreneurship and risk - taking are expected an d valued. In this culture, teams are formed around projects and communication flows up the chain of command. Such a culture promotes survival in an uncertain, ambiguous and turbulent environment (Lincoln, 2010; Millington & Schultz, 2009; Sanz - Valle et a l., 2011 ; Sherman et al., 2014 ). T he decisions that state - federal VR directors make, who these leaders are, and the resources needed to support informed decisions will be the topic of this dissertation . be sufficient to lead the public Based on the CVF, Quinn in 1984 developed a model to organize the literature on leadership. From his work, eight categories of leader beha vior or roles emerge d. Figure 2 show s how these eight roles fit into his existing framework on organizational effectiveness. Each of the quadrants reflects core management skills. The upper left quadrant is the human relations model 7 that encourages te amwork, cohesiveness and interpersonal conflict. In the upper right quadrant, the innovator is creative and encourages adaptation and change, while the broker role is persuasive, influential and politically astute. The lower right quadrant shows the prod ucer who is task - oriented and work - focused , encouraging production to accomplish goals. The lower left quadrant coordinator maintains structure, coordinates staff efforts and attends to housekeeping issues while monitoring performance and paperwork. Whil e managers are expected to play all of these roles, effective managers have the ability to perform multiple roles and balance competing demands (Dennison, Hooijberg & Quinn, 1995) . Executives who exhibit a greater variety of leadership roles have been fou nd to be more effective than their less effective counterparts ( Dennison, Hooijberg & Quinn, 1995). Leaders who were perceived as more effective by their staff and others tended to perform leadership functions more frequently than those that were seen as performing other roles (Hooijberg, 1996 ). Figure 2 . Competing Values Framework: Organizational Effectiveness (Quinn, 1984) The purpose of this study is to provide an in - depth examination and discussion of the findings from a qual itative multiple case study of 13 s tate - federal VR d irectors, selected from 8 general and combined agencies in the continental United States , who lead higher - performing state - federal VR programs. The findings from this study may assist stakeholders in under standing and developing resources and supports that the state - federal VR directors believe are need ed in order to successfully operate public VR programs in to the future . The study may also help administrators of state - federal VR agencies gain insights th at could potentially enhance the future of the public rehabilitation program. Research Question The primary research q uestion that will guide this study is: How do s tate - f ederal VR d irectors view the future of the public rehabilitation program , and what resources do they believe they need to create or to enhance their agencies success in light of the changes occurring in the field? The structured interview guide and research question s have been adapted from questions in the publication entitled Institu te on Rehabilitation Issues (2005) and from questions in the article by McFarlane, Schroeder & Enriquez (2014). Conceptual Framework Figure 3 depicts how funding and expectations flow through legislation to fund state - federal VR agenc ies, from various state, federal and private stakeholders, and those agencies expectation of accountability for funding and service provision . In order to obtain f unding , there are expectations for accountability that flow to the sta te - federal VR agency to the VR d irector , through whom can create a learning organization that may enable staff to provide evidence - based services to agency c ustomers , thereby facilitating the opportunity ( successful ) outcomes, which in turn can prov ide the accountability the funders are expecting for 9 continued financial support of the legislation , enabling VR agencies to continue to provide services to agency c ustomers . Figure 3 . Conceptual Framew ork Summary In resource - limited environments, evidence of efficacy and effectiveness can help leaders make program matic funding decisions so agencies can show that the services they provide work (Brannon, 2010) . The state - f ederal VR program has been conti nually challenged to demonstrate the effectiveness of VR services provided to eligible customers . T he emphasis on the development and implementati on of EBPs is needed to assist state - f ederal VR agencies in demonstrating the effectiveness of VR service pro vision. Executive leadership sets the tone to 10 create cultures that have the potential to transform agenci es into learning organizations that empower staff towards innovation . Leadership continuity will also become a highly significant factor in the susta inability of these types of en abling organizational cultures . Leaders of VR agencies must develop a foundation of EBPs that lead to competitive employment outcomes for people with disabilities . Today, s uch practices are in need of metrics that can prove they work . Finding ways to measure the outcomes of organizational strategies implemented by state - federal VR d irectors is necessary to provide the level of empirical evidence of success to all the stakeholders in the state/federal VR program . Given the v ariability of outcomes in state - federal VR programs, t he perceptions of state - federal VR directors about the future of VR and the resources needed to operate their programs successfully is important for the future of the program and to the various stakehol ders of state - federal VR programs . The research conducted through this study may give those in the field of rehabilitation and VR program stakeholders a better understanding of what state - federal VR directors, the only position required by the Rehabilitat ion Act, believe is necessary to sustain and continue to grow this important public program. Definition of Terms Adhocracy C ulture Organizational culture p laces importance on flexibility and innovation. Adaptability and quick reactions to the changing ma rket, competition and external environment are integral component s of corporate strategy in this type of business. Leadership in an adhocracy culture is demonstrated by entrepreneurship and risk - taking. The emphasis is always on growth opportunities and employees are encour aged to experiment with new ideas . 11 Competing Values Framework (CVF) A model of four distinct culture types , developed by Cameron & Quinn, that include hierarchy, market, clan and adhocracy cultures . Designated State Unit (DSU) The s ta te agency or the bureau, division or othe r organizational unit within a s tate agency that is primarily concerned with the vocational rehabilitation, or vocational and other rehabilitation, of individuals with disabilities and that is responsible for the ad ministration of the VR program of the s t ate agency; or the independent state commission, board or other agency that has the vocational rehabilitation, or vocational and other rehabilitation, of individuals with disabilities as its primary function. Evidenc e - B ased Practices (EBP) Evidence - based practice refers to the use of research and scientific studies as a base for determining the best practices in a field. Federal Indicators e in serving individuals with disabilities under the VR program. Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) Federal year which funding runs from October 1 through September 30 each year. General and Combined Agencies State - federal vocational rehabilitation agencies that a re inclusive of programs for the blind (combined) or exclude services to the blind (general). Higher - Functioning VR A gencies D esigned State U nits that within a three - fiscal - year time period achieve at least one six 12 and no less than a five out of the six ev aluation standard indicators used to assess successful performance of state - federal VR programs. Learning Organization O rganizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together. Rehabilitati on Act (of 1973, as amended) Federal legislation that authorizes the formula grant programs of vocational reha bilitation, supported employment, independent living and client assistance. It also authorizes a variety of training and service discretionary grants administered by the Rehabilitation Services Administration. Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) Federal agency that oversees grant programs that help individuals with physical or mental disabilities to obtain employment and live more independently through the provision of such supports as counseling, medical and psychological services, job training a nd other individualized services . RSA's major Title I formula grant program provides funds to state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies to provide employment - related services for individuals with disabilities, giving priority to individuals who are si gnificantly disabled. State - Federal VR Director Individual who has the sole authority under the Rehabilitation Act for the state level day - to - day operations of the vocational rehabilitation program. 13 VR O utcomes Outcomes , measured by federal indicators , in determining the success of a state - federal VR program . Vocational Rehabilitation Program that provides grants to states to support a wide range of services designed to help individuals with disabilities prepare for and engage in gainful employment consist ent with their strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abi lities, capabilities, interests and informed choice. Eligible individuals are those who have a physical or mental impairment that results in a substantial impediment to employment, who can bene fit from vocational rehabilitation (VR) services for employment, and who require VR services. Priority must be given to serving individuals with the most significant disabilities if a state is unable to serve all eligible individuals. VR Stakeholders I ndi viduals, organizations and funding agencies that have an interest in the provision of vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities . Workforce Innovation & Opportunities Act (WIOA) Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, now known as Title IV of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act, which was signed into law in 2014 (H.R. 803) . 14 Chapter 2 Literature Review The State - Federal Rehabilitation Program and Related Legislation The Soldiers Rehabilitation Act in 1918 was the first f ederal legislation that focused on veterans returning from World War I with injuries and permanent disabilities. Those disabilities presented significant barriers to a veteran ability to become reemp loyed back in the civilian work force. Rehabilitation programs and services promoted physical recovery and the building of new work skills in order for those veterans to return to employment. The State - Federal Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program originated through federal legislation in 1920 with the Smit h - Fess Act (Patterson, Bruyere, Szymanski & Jenkins, 2005; Rubin & Roessler, 2008; Wright, 1980) an d remains over 94 years later the primary public sector provider of VR services for individuals with significant disabilities in this country. Vocational r e habilitation legislation has been focused on providing vocational guidance, vocational education, occupational adjustment and job placement services to individuals with physical disabilities. The Smith - Fess Act established a funding mechanism of a 50 - 50 m atching of funds from the federal government as an incentive to states to pass VR laws and create their own public VR agencies (Rubin & Roessler, 2001) . Growth of Vocational Rehabilitation Programs The years after World War II saw significant g rowth of vo cational rehabilitation programs for veterans with disabilities. Although i ndividuals with disabilities were marginalized in American society at that time, wartime labor shortage s created opportunities that allowed individuals with disabilities to demonst rate their abilities to work and be productive in mainstream society. Through the passing of the Barden - LaFollette Act in 1943, the United 15 States acknowledged that a variety of groups of people with disabilities, including people with mental illness, men t al retardation and blindness, could b enefit from the VR program and C ongress provided additional federal funding for VR program s (Rubin & Roessler, 2008; Wright, 1980). The Golden Era of Rehabilitation began in the 1950s, with significant expansion of the public VR program ( G olden, Bruyere, Karpur, Nazarov & VanLooy, 2012; Rubin & Roessler, 2008, p. 32; Rusalem & Malikin, 1976). 1954 and 1965. The share of federal funding increased by 50 percent to $3 for every $2 of state During this time period, funding expanded for rehabilitation research, demonstration grants and rehabilitation facility development. These research and development grants allowed state VR ag encies and nonprofit organizations to explore new areas of knowledge within the rehabilitation field (Rubin & Roessler, 2008). Federal funding ratios to the 36 state VR agencies continu ed to increase to a level of 80% to 20 % at this time and allowed facil ities and community rehabilitation programs to increase the number individuals with disabilities served (Rubin & Roessler, 2008). The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Amendments Landmark legislation, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, retained the 80 - 20 ratio o f federal to state funding (Rubin & Roessler, 2008) and reaffirmed the rights of individuals with disabilities . This legislation prioritized services to individuals with severe disabilities . It encouraged consumer involvement in the VR process and requir ed program evaluation to measure program outcomes . Over the years, amendments to this legislation encouraged more research in rehabilitation and reaffirmed the need for training of qualified rehabilitation counselors through the funding of rehabilitation . Reauthorizations of the Rehabilitation Act, and 16 it s implementing regulations, called for expansion of federal funding for further rehabilitation programs and services , such as independent living centers, and emphasized the serving of individuals with sev ere disabilities (Rubin & Roessler, 2008). The Rehabilitation Act amendments of 1986 promoted community integration for people with disabilities, development of Client Assistance Programs and rehabilitation technology and engineering, as well as supported employment (Rubin & Roessler, 2008) . The Workforce Investment Act and Ticket to Work The 1990 s saw consumer choice and the goal of integrated employment in the 1992 and 1998 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Golden et al., 2012). In 1990, t h e Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) strengthened the rights of individuals with disabilities to participate in mainstream society (Rehabilitation Services Administration, 1990). In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, of which t he Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, became Title IV . The new legislation mandated consolidation an d integration orkforce programs into a o ne - s top delivery system in an effort to improve service outcomes (Dorrer, 2001; Rubin & Roes sler, 2008). Under WIA, the s tate - f ederal vocational rehabilitation programs maintained their independent identities but were expected to coordinate with other federally funded vocational training programs through cooperative agreements . In 1999, Preside nt Clinton signed into law the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act (TWWIIA) . While this legislation was not officially part of the workforce investment system, it addressed policy barriers for Social Security (SSI) and Social Security Disab ility (SSDI) recipients . It created Employment Networks (ENs) to give consumers a choi ce of providers, including the S tate - Federal VR Program. Payments to VR programs changed from an entirely cost reimbursement process to programs having a choice when su ccessfully working 17 with SSI or SSDI recipients of either receiving the traditional method of payment or milestone payments. It also gave consumers the choice of working with VR or another EN organization ( Dorrer, 2001; Golden et al., 2012; Rubin & Roessle r, 2008). Twenty - First Century Legislation In the 21 st century, state - f downward trends across four key performance indicators, including percentages of individuals with significant disabilities who ach ieve an employment outcome with earnings; percentages of individuals receiving SSI/SSDI with an employment outcome with earnings; average earnings of individuals who receive SSI/SSDI at application; and percentages of transition age youths who achieve an e m ployment outcome with earnings (Golden et al., 2012, p. 11) . In July 2008, the Social Security Administration (SSA) revised the regulations covering TWWIIA . requirement to become an EN (Golden et al., 2012, p. 13) . In 2012, Senator Tom Harkin , who served on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee , . Beginning in March 2011, the HELP committee conducted hearings on the topic of employment for people with disabilities . The report suggested that there is a need to rethink the way all p rograms that support people with disabilities are structured . The report made clear that integrated competitive employment needs to be the goal . The recession of 2008 dramatically a ffected employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities . As t he economy began to rebound, workers with disabilities did not experience the same recovery in employment as people without disabilities . 18 32.7% compared to individuals without disabilities who had an employment rate of 73.6% Disability Statistics and Demographics, 2013, p. 26) . In addition to issues of unemployment, underemployment still remains a facto r for people with disabilities . In f ederal f iscal y ear 2011, the United States spent over 3.9 billion dollars for VR services expenditures on people with disabilities (Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics, 2013) . According to the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) , in f iscal y ear 2011, VR p rograms assisted 178,188 individuals with disabilities in achieving an employment goal . This was a 9% increase from f iscal y ear 2010 (C SAVR , 2013). The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act In order to continue to address the employment the outlook for people with disabilities, in 2014 Congress passed the Workforce Innovation and O pportunity Act (WIOA) (H.R. 803, 2014) . The final vers ion of the WIOA was a comp rom ise bill between the S KILLS Act (H . R . 803), passed by the U . S . House in 2013 , and the Workforce Investment Act of 2013 (S . 1356) , which was passed by the Senate Health , Education , Labor and Pensions ( HELP ) c ommittee also in 201 3 (Schroeder, 2014) . A section - by - section review of the WIOA legislation shows that within t he WIOA, Title IV reauthorizes a mendments to the Rehabilitation Act and adds specific requirements . The Rehabilitation Act has been due for reauthorization since 2003. This new bill requires state VR programs to submit a unified or combined state plan to the s ecretaries of Education and Labor for approval instead of to the RSA Commissioner . The WIOA creates a new section for the provision of pre - employment transi tion services . It requires a 15% set - aside for provision of such services. This new legislation creates additional monitoring and review 19 criteria and greatly expands the services VR agencies provide to employers. New standards and performance indicators will be established to re place those created by the RSA c ommissioner under WIA . A requirement was added to clarify responsibilities for service delivery for those individuals receiving services from both employment networks and state rehabilitation servi ces . Other new requirements outline expectations for cooperative agreements with other state agencies serving people with disabilities . WIOA changed the Comprehensive System of d of study certain fields of study . Appropriations for state vocational rehabilitation programs under th e new WIOA legislation is level - funded for each of t h e next five years and the cost - of - living adjustment (COLA) is added to the base and is guaranteed (Schroeder, 2014) . In addition to the changes to the Rehabilitation Act, funding for training of rehabilitation s general appropriation . Another resource that has been available to address the training needs of public rehabilitation personnel has been the Technical Assistance and Continuing Education Centers (TACE) . These programs will sunset September 30, 2014 . To date, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) has announced a priority for one national Job - Driven Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center which primarily looks to serve the training needs of employers. WIOA mo ves both Independent Living programs and what was the National Institute for Disability - Related Research (NIDRR) from the Department of Education to the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and adds Independent Living to its title to become the Nati onal Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (H.R. 803, 2014) . It is 20 too early to tell how this move will impact research dollars for vocational rehabilitation program services. Leadership of State - Federal Rehabilitation Pr ograms As resources have tighten ed and services have expanded over the years to an ever - increasing pool of individuals with a variety of disabilities, the public rehabilitation program is faced with increasing demands on rehabilitation agency leadership . Rehabilitation leaders must find ways to increase the number of individuals , with a wide variety of disabilities , to become successfully employed in integrated job settings . public policies promoting workforce d evelopment and employment participation over the past three decades, individuals with disabilities continue to experience disparate workforce participation rates and lower earnings than their non - . Golden et al. state there is a need for workforce partners to focus on identification of promising and evidence - based practices leading to increased employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Areas for research outlined by Golden et al. include systems int egration, data sharing, collaboration and partnerships, shared expertise and vocational rehabilitation . In order organizational culture and evolving systems capaciti es to meet complex challenges faced by . Forward movement in rehabilitation will be a function of leadership and Saleh states that it will need to include self - appraisal and the d esire to make a positive difference (Saleh, 1991). Even in times of change, leaders must work on the system , creating opportunities as well as energy and excitement . Vision, values and creativity should be used by leaders when in se tting direction (Danie ls, 1997) . 21 and practical to insure that most or all can perform these critical jobs when they enter them and . N o longer is reactionary leadership enough . According to Saleh, rehabilit ation leaders must be able to : (1) Be dedicated to self - improvement and professional development ; ( 2 ) C ( 3 ) Develop follower s who are dedicated to the future of the field; ( 4 ) B ridge the gap with outside entities; and ( 5 ) Foster the development of in - service education (Saleh, 1991) . most formidable obstacle to rehabilitation efforts to fulfill its function to the fullest lies with There have been a number of articles that discuss rehabilitation leadership competencies and how those attributes can contribute to creating high - performing organizations (Atkinson, 1997; Atkinson & Bitter, 1997; Ford, 1997). Through competent leadership, public rehabilitation agencies can meet the challenges in an ever - changing political and legislative landscape . aleh, 1991, p. 211) . According to Atkinson, leaders, not organizations , creat e excellence (Atkinson, 1997). Funding is a major factor among the many challenges facing s tate - f ederal rehabilitation agency leaders. Though costs have increased, since the ear ly 1990s state - federal rehabilitation agenc ies have essentially been level - There has always been . Today, leaders of state - federal rehabili tation programs must find creative ways to obtain diminishing state dollar s in order to bring down their allotted federal match dollars . In the age WIOA, and , of - employment transition services (Schroeder, 2014). The WIOA includes language that may allow for staff 22 with less than the state or national standard for rehabilitation counselors or other personnel . By definition, those individuals may need additional training to understand disability - related issues in order to be successful with agency clients. age ncies forward . At the agency director level, this means understanding the political environments one must operate in . Individuals in positions of executive leadership must help their organizations adapt to often complex changes . ch adapt to . uccessful rehabilitation leader must be an expert in rehabilitation matters, total community efforts, and operations and collaborative efforts with sister agencies; at the same time he or she must 245) . for more and better VR se . In this climate of fast - paced change, the need for evidence - based practices is crucial to support the work that state - federal VR agencies provide . In an age of accountability, state - federal VR director s must develop organizational climates that create learning organization and utilize evidence - ba sed practices (Daniels, 1997). Evidence - B ased Practices There has been an expectation in recent years on state - federal VR programs to demonstrate accountability for employment outcomes of those served by the state - federal system through the development and use of evidence - based practices. There is now an increased focus on research dedicated to improving practice and the translation, dissemination and utilizatio n of that knowledge throughout the 83 state - federal agencies that represent the public VR program. 23 The emphasis of the National Institute of Disability , Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (NID IL RR) on knowledge translation of research findings into practice highlights the paucity of evidence - based practice and sets the agenda for the work that needs to be done. As indicated by Pruett, Swett, Chan, Rosenthal and Lee (2008), the powerful question posed by Paul What treatment, by whom , is most effective for this individual with that specific problem, and under which 111) , remains for the most part unanswered within the public rehabilitation program (Leahy, Thielsen, Millington, Austin & Fleming, 2009; Sherman et al., 2014). Although federal mandates from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) for public VR programs initially focused on the design of program evaluation systems and the collection, analysis and reporting of data on the impact of services, the focus has evolved over the years to emphasize how these data are used for continuous improvement in the delivery of services and the outcomes achieved. In recent years there has also been increased attention on the concepts of quality assura nce systems or plans, evidenced - based practice (EBP), and knowledge translation (KT) efforts within the health care, disability and rehabilitation arenas. These initiatives are associated with the use of quantitative and qualitative data obtained through research and evaluation efforts to inform policy, practice and continuous improvement strategies for organizations that serve people with disabilities. One of the most critical issues that affects the quality and usefulness of program evaluation, research and continuous improvement efforts is the degree to which the leadership and management of the organization value such efforts. Sherman et al. (2014) state that this is similar to the development of a learning culture within organizations that creates an d sustains an environment that supports the creation of best practices , provides the resources to rigorously examine the impact of these promising practices 24 and interventions on employment outcomes of the consumers they serve . Leahy et al. in 2009 stated that if the state d irector in a public rehabilitation program do es not value and invest in program evaluation and research efforts, those activities will be minimally effective and only serve to satisfy compliance with regulatory standards. Culture Cultur . . 2009) . One of the - Valle, Na ranjo - Valencia, Jimenez - Jimenez & Perez - Caballero, 2011, p. 999) . Culture pr ovides shared meanings and helps interpret information provided and events that occur in the organization (Giberson et al., 2009) . handling organizational pro an et al., 2014). individual to develop knowledge that can impact organizational learning, and it creates processes by which knowledge is created, approved and distrib Schein (1984) defined different levels of organizational culture as basic assumptions that are unconsciously - held learned responses . Schein (1984) believe s learned responses determine (1 ) how group memb ers perceive, think an d feel; (2 consciously held concepts that are used to jus tify beliefs and actions; and (3 ) objects and physical settings that include office layouts and organizational symbols . 25 cu ltural precepts to manage people, to develop strategy and to implement organizational (Sherman et al., 2014). Schultz (2008) noted that cult ure was the collective practice of the organization . He stated that tional culture facilitates buy - in, creativity, and personal involvement of professional staff (p. behavior of those in the organization and can serve as a mechanism for bringing employees together to enh ance organizational goals and increase productivity (Schraeder, Tears & Jordan, 2005) . In organizations, culture is the shared meaning and understanding of the organization (Giberson et al., 2009) . organizational cultur e affects all facets of the organization including policies, procedures, and operational strategies . The culture of an encourage and create new knowledge from w hich employees can be more productive and meet customer need (Rijal, 2010; Schraeder et al., 2005; Brown, 1992) . The development of the also i mpact organizationa l innovation (Sherman et al., 2014). Leadership, Culture and the Learning Organization Transitioning state VR agencies from administrative entities (Herbert, 2004; Herbert & Trusty, 2006; Schultz, 2007; Schultz, 2008; Bezyak, Ososkie, Trice & Yeager, 2010 ) into learning organizations th at develop and promote evidence - based service delivery practices is necessary to enhancing program outcomes and creating environments that facilitate innovation . Learning organizations develop new knowledge and insight from the common experiences of its capabilities (Sanz - Valle, Naranjo - Valencia, Jimenez - Jimenez & Perez - Caballero, 2011) . 26 Learning organizations are better at retainin g staff, encouraging innovation and developing evidence - based practices to improve organizational performance (Schultz, 2007; Packard , 2009) . According to Sessa and London (2006), three levels of learning occur within organizations : ( 1) Adaptive learning occurs when an organization reacts to and attempts to resolve an issue in a manner that is not conscious or reflective in nature , ( 2) Generative l earning occurs when individuals seek out new knowledge about a subject or issue , and ( 3) Transformational l ear ning occurs when a group of individuals experience a shift in the way they perceive t heir environment (Mezirow, 2000; Schultz, 2007) . The greatest benefit for an organization occurs through generative and transformational learning (Schultz, 2007) . De Lon g and Fahey (2000) suggest that culture shapes organ izational learning in four ways: ( 1) culture shapes employee assumptions about whether knowledge is important or not and what knowledge is worth managing, ( 2) culture allows individual knowledge to becom e organizational knowledge, ( 3) culture shapes the processes by which new knowledge is created, legitimated and distributed, and ( 4) culture creates the context for social interaction that ultimately determines how effective an organization can be at creat ing, sharing and applying knowledge In an attempt to define organizational culture in relation to organizational learning, Cameron and Quinn (1999) proposed the Competing Values Framework (CVF) . The CVF is an extremely useful tool for analyzing organiza tional culture and designing a course for changing such culture in a way to effectively promote sweeping strategic initiatives (Lincoln, 2010). Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) explained CVF in terms of two major dimensions that included four major quadrants re presenting opposite assumptions. Dimension 1 ranges from flexibility and discretion to stability and control in the organization. Dimension 2 ranges from internal 27 focus and integration to external focus and differentiation in the organization. The four major quadrants defined by these two axes are lab eled as clan, market, hierarchy and adhocracy (Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Naranjo - Valencia, Jimenez - Jimenez & Sanz - Valle, 2011) . Figure 2 illustrates the CVF model. is collab orative in nature, has an emphasis on flexibility, internal maintenance, teamwork, employee involvement, empowerment, cohesion, participation, and corporate commitment to employees . In this culture, leaders and management encourage mentoring, nurturing, t rust, and sharing . Market culture is externally focused and decision - making is based on data analysis . The emphasis is on productivity, profitability, market share . Leaders and managers are strategic, competit ive, and results - oriented (Giberson et al., 2009; Lincoln, 2010; Sanz - Valle et al., 2011 ; Millington & Schultz, 2009). Flexibility and Discretion Internal focus and integration Clan Adhocracy External focus and differentiation Hierarchy Market St ability and Control Figure 4 . Competing Values Map (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) , structu red bureaucracy) and is control - oriented . Decision - making is centralized with information coming down through 28 . In hierarchical systems, the use of authority by those in administrative roles, efficiency, cost containment, and compliance to rules are of paramount importance (Sanz - Valle et al., 2011; Millington & Schultz, 2009). adaptability, and change . Decision - making is decentralized and creativity, entrepreneurship, and risk - taking are expecte d and valued. In this culture, teams are formed around projects and communication flows up the chain of command . As a result, leaders and managers in adhocracy , 2014, p. 118) . Such culture promote s survival in an uncertain, ambiguous, and turbulent environment (Lincoln, 2010; Millington & Schultz, 2 009; Sanz - Valle et al., 2011). Different organizational cultures have different impacts on organizational learning (Sanz - Valle et al., 2011) . Leaders in these programs have often overseen hierarchical cultures (Millington & Schultz, 2009) that focus on internal organization and control (Giberson et al., 2009). Sherman et al. (2014) state that characteristics of thes e types of hierarchical cultures include following the rules, regulations and norms . They go on to state that leadership styles emphasizing this type of culture has negative effects on learning and therefore does not encourage movem ent to a learning organ ization. The Culture of Leadership No matter how large the organization, agency leaders need to develop an organizational culture that encourages innovation at all levels and creates a learning environment leading to sustainable synergy . Leadership of an leaders influence the attitudes, behaviors, values of others toward organiza Lan 29 individuals to a . The effect of leadership behaviors on organizational culture is of importance to organizational success and effectiveness . Leadership is an important variable that affects the performance of an organization ( Packard, 2009) . The leadership behavior of an organization creates, either knowingly or unknowingly, the culture of the organization in which staff operates (Packard, 2009) . Leadership that facilitates a culture that allows for the creation of a learning organization encourages the development, acquisition, transformation, and dissemination of new knowledge that can foster innovation leading to effective bes t practices (Rijal , 2010). Organizational culture is one of the management tools available to leade rs of organizations to shape employee performance (Lincoln, 2010; Giberson et al., 2009). Culture can improve employee performance by reducing job stress and enhancing the confidence and commitment of employees (Lincoln, 2010; Shahzad, Luqman, Khan & Shab bir, 2012). Schein (1984, 1992, 1993, 1997) has done extensive research into organizational culture and leadership . Schein suggests that organizational learning should be looked at in terms of an 2008) . In his basic model, Schein noted that behaviors, values and basic assumptions, such as ways of thinking, perceiving and reacting, are powerful forces that stabilize organizations (Shahzad et al., 2012). The convergence of attitudes, behaviors and values of those in an organization is considered leadership (Chi, Lan & Dorjgotov, 2012) . Schein believes that leadership, particularly at the The leadership of an organization, thr ough strategic and operational decisions, forms the basis of shared values and lture (Giberson et al., 2009). 30 connection betwee . Bass originally expected to do . Transformational leaders expand and can change the inter ests of their followers, and generate awareness and acceptance of the purpose and mission of the organization . Transformational leadership consisted of three components: ( 1) charismatic leadership, where the leader exhibits behaviors that subordinates adm ire and appreciate; ( 2) intellectual stimulation, where the leader encourages innovation and creativity; and ( 3) individualized consideration, where the leader finds ways for followers to identify goals and enables opportunities to achieve those goals (Pac kard, 2009) . Bass believes that transformational leaders, who believe in the principle of power with rather than power over, make strategic and operational decisions that impact the culture of their organizations and influence those who work within the cu lture . Transformational leaders encourage creation of learning environments that support staff in implementing best practices that lead to greater organizational success (Tuft, 2012). in his book The Fifth Discipline . He identified three leadership roles needed to build a learning organization: leaders as designers, leaders as teachers, and leaders as stewards (Senge, 1994). Support of innovation, transformation and change is required to create a transformational culture (Sherman et a l, 2014) . Leaders of learning organizations must provide a clear and attractive vision of the 2011). Transformati onal leaders see a need for change, create a new vision and obtain from followers a commitment to organizational change (Rijal, 2010) . Rijal believes these leaders 31 work with their followers to embrace uncertainty and facilitate followers understanding of the goals of the learning organization . Transformational leaders build commitment and then set - interest for the good of the . In order to tr ansform their organization, transformational leaders recognize the need for change, create a new vision and institute the change (Warrick, 2011; Yan g, Wu, Chang & Chien, 2011) . Leadership in Times of Change The state - federal VR program has been challenged to demonstrate the effectiveness of VR services provided to eligible customers . In resource - limited environments, evidence of efficacy and effectiveness can help make programmatic funding decisions so that agencies can show that the services they provide work (Brannon, 2010) . The emphasis on the development and implementation of EBPs is needed to assist state - federal VR agencies in demonstrating the effectiveness of VR service provision. Executive leadership sets the tone to create cultures that can tra nsform agencies into learning organizations and that empower staff towards innovation is a critical and necessary step. In order to achieve VR program success in times of constant change, leaders must create a culture of adhocracy that support s a learning organization . The decisions that these leaders make, who these leaders are, and their perceptions of the resources needed to support informed decisions will be the topic of this study . McFarlane et al . suggest that the leadership question of our time is about how state - f ederal VR directors enormous ly challenging fiscal realities? . The findings from the study may assist stakeholders in the field of rehabilitation in develop ing the programs and 32 resources necessary to support state - f ederal VR directors in enhancing their organizations ability to transform their agencies into high performers that can thrive in a climate of change. Summary The state - federal VR program originated th rough federal legislation . Over the years, amendments to the Rehabilitation Act encouraged research and training of rehabilitation counselors in an effort to assure that consistent , quality services were provided to eligible individual with disabilities . In the 21 st century, many rehabilitation agencies have experienced downward trend s across federal indicators that assess VR program success . In 2014, the latest amendments to the Reha bilitation Act resulted in the a ct being included as Title IV of the WI OA . Appropriations for the funding of state - federal rehabilitation pr ograms under WIOA will be level - funded for each of the next five years . In addition, training dollars are now part of the . While cost s have increased , many agenc ies are not bringing in all of their allotted federal dollars because matching state dollars have decrease d . While diminishing program dollars have directly impacted VR agencies, expectations for accountability have increased. Today, state - federal VR dir ectors must find creative ways to fund their programs and inspire their staff . These individuals can help their organizations adapt to change in order to survive and thrive . The culture created by the state - federal VR director guides the behavior of the organization. Creation of organizational cultures, such as a culture of adhocracy, is one of the management tools available to shape employee performance (Lincoln, 2010; Giberson et al., 2009) . The decisions that these leaders make, who these leaders are , and their perceptions of the challenges and needs they are confronting may provide a window into the VR program of the future. 33 Chapter 3 Methods The purpose of this study is to provide an in - depth examination of the findings of a case study of 12 state - f ederal VR directors, selected from the higher - performing agencies in the continental United States. Agencies selected are those that scored at least one six and no less than a five out of six of the federal performance indicators , using the Rehabilitation Services federal indicator data from f iscal 7 ears 2011, 2012 and 2013. These agencies were selected due to their high performance on the RSA federal indicators. High - performing agencies most often exhibit a culture of adhocrac y , where the organization is externally focused and emphasizes flexibility, adaptability and change. As a result, leaders in adh ocracy cultures generally value innovation and building partnerships with external partners (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Sherman et al., 2014, p.118). By examining the r esponses of directors of higher - performing agencies, t he findings of this research may be of assist ance to the field of rehabilitation and VR stakeholders in understanding the cultures created by these leaders and reso urces these state - f ederal VR d irectors believe are necessary to support their agencie s to be successful . The research, using qualitative case study methodology, will e xamine the following question: How do s tate - f ederal VR directors view the future of the public rehabilitation program , and what resources do they believe they need to create or enhance their success in light of the changes occurring in the field? As McFarlane et al . (2011) noted , the state - federal VR program s of the future will not be successful if the program leaders continue to rely solely on past experience and expertise to guide the future . Understanding how state - federal VR directors view the future and the resources they need has the potential to shape the VR program of the f uture . Utilizing this understanding , rehabilitation educators and other stakeholders may be able 34 to d evelop the tools and resources necessary to assist state - federal VR directors in addressing what they believe is needed to increase employment outcomes an d sustain and enhance their organizations . Research Design This study used a qualitative rese a rch design that allow ed the researcher to be highly involved in the actual experiences of the participants and develop a level of detail about an individual or p lace . Patton (2002) believed if not much is known and the study is exploratory in nature that qualitative research is useful when examining the topic . methods are used less frequently in rehabilitation counseling research but this m ethodology can be instrumental in understanding complex interactions between individuals and their environment and how these ph ( Anderson, Leahy, Del Valle, Sherman & Tansey, 2014, p. 88) . Qualitative approaches traditionally have included narrative, phenomenological, grounded theory, ethnogra phic studies and case studies. This study use d explanatory analysis of a person, group, event, policy, project, (Anderson et al., 2014, p. 89) . Qualitative data is emergent, rather than preconfigured so that the data may emerge through the interviews with the participants (Creswell, 2009, p. 181) . The examination of phenomena in a natur al setting instead of an experimental or controlled setting is the goal of qualitative research . Using a case study design enable d a decision or set of decisions: why they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what . As Creswell (2009) has noted, case studies explore a bounded system through in - depth data collection, involving multiple sources of information that report a description of themes (Anderson et al., 2014) . C ase study design ena bles replication in order to 35 independently confirm emerging constructs and identify complementary aspects , which are analyzed within and across settings (Anderson et al., 2014) . This type of study can be beneficial in understanding the issue being studied . Based on the RSA data in Appendix I , 13 state - federal VR directors of general or combined higher - performing agencies from around the country have been identified . Of those 13 identified s tate - federal d irectors, 12 of the 13 s tate - federal d irectors agreed to participate in the study, returning their signed informed consent document. The response rate was 92.3%. All 12 of the state - federal VR directors participate d in a Zoom interview , in which the interviews were audio reco rded , video recorded or both . The interviews utilize d a structured interview guide to solicit inf ormation from the participants. Procedures This study utilize d a qualitative case study design with 12 of the identified 13 state - federal VR agency directors serv ing as the individual case sites . These cases were selected intentionally rather than randomly to examine the particular research question comprehensively and in greater depth . The state - federal VR agency directors, from both urban and rural s tates in the continental United States, were selected to participate . VR agency directors were chosen from agencies based on federal indicator data for FY 20 1 1 , FY 201 2 and FY 201 3 . The s elected state - federal agency directors agencies mu st have passed the RSA federal indicator data by passing with at least one six and no less than five of six federal performance indicators used to measure agency performance over fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013 , indicating higher performance levels of the se agencies over a three - year period of time ( Appendix I ) . Consistent with the protocol recommended by Yin (2009), the same 36 methodological framework was used across the cases in order to enhance representativeness and robustness w hen consistent findings emerge across sites . After IRB approval of this exempt study was approved ( Appendix A ), t o begin the qualitative research process, the researcher contact ed both the Council of State Administrators of Vocatio nal Rehabilitation ( CSAVR ) for their approval, and the identified state - federal VR directors across the country for buy - in and to obtain their informed consent to be involved in this study . The researcher arrange d for a time to speak with each of the 12 s elected state - federal directors who agreed to take part in the study . The structured interview questions were sent out to participants approximately five days prior to the telephone interviews . Each interview was recorded using the Zoom platform to captu re audio , video or both. Not all of the state - federal di rectors had access to the video - recording features in Zoom and for that reas on only the audio portion of those recordings were utilized so that consistency was obtain ed in the data. Upon completi on of the interviews, the MP4 audio recording was sent to a third party for trans cription . Transcripts were then up loaded in Dedoose, a qualitative cloud - based software package used to code and analyze the content of the data collected . The qualitative cont ent analysis of the data collected include d : (1) identi fying the research questions , (2) determinin g the analytic categories, (3) using the data collect ed to establish categories , (4) determin ing objective criteria for the categories, (5) sort ing the data into the various categories, and (6) consider ing the patterns that might offer an explanation for the findings. 37 Figure 5 . Visual Model for Qualitative Research Design Instrumentation A multiple case st udy design (Yin, 2009) was used for selecting and analyzing the qualitative data . Based on RSA 911 federal indicator data, 13 state - federal VR directors around the country from higher - performing agencies were selected to participate in a Zoom interview . The researcher requested that the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) support the research study , which CSAVR agreed to do ( Appendix B ), by sending out an email introducing the study to the 13 selec ted agency directors ( Appendix C ) . Once the CSAVR email was sent out to the identified state - federal VR directors, the research er sent each director an introductory email ( Appendix D ) inviting them to part icipate in the study by returning the attached informed consent form ( Appendix E ) . A second email was sent out two weeks later to those who had not yet sent in the informed consent. 38 Of the 13 selected directors, 12 agreed to parti cipate in the study by returning their signed informed consent document. The response rate for the study was 92.3%. The interviews utilize d a structured interview guide to solicit information from the participants. The interviews were recorded via audio , video or both , once permission to record was obtained, and transcribed verbatim (Creswell, 2009) . Steps in the qualitative analysis include d : (1) Preliminary exploration of the data through use of audio - recorded interviews, using a semi - structured inter view guide and notes; (2) Once the interviews were recorded, the MP4 audio file was sent to a third party for transcription; (3 ) Once the transcript was received, it was sent to each state director for verificati on of accuracy of the interview; nine of the state directors verified the accuracy of the transcript , while three did not respond, of which two had retired since the interviews took place; (4) T ranscripts were imported into Dedoose, a cloud - based qualitative software package , and coded ; (5 ) T ranscri pts were sent to two outside coders for verification of the data codes through inter - coder agreement check; (6) T hemes were developed by aggregating similar codes using c onnecting and interrelating themes; and (7) A case study narrative was constructed com posed of cross - case thematic analysis (Creswell, 2009; Glesne, 2011). The credibility of the findings was enhanced by member checking, inter - coder agreement, and use of an auditor (Creswell, 2009; Glesne, 2011; Yin, 2009) . An external auditor, who is a P h . D . - level educator/researcher, was selected to review the entire project to provide an assessment of its accuracy and to ask clarifying questions throughout the study process (Creswell, 2009). The data was coded and themes developed with the assistance o f two Ph . D . - level educators/researchers doing independent coding of the transcripts . The accuracy of the data was accomplished through member - checking, where participants confirm ed accuracy by reviewing 39 their own transcript and commenting on themes and th e report findings . Inter - r ater reliability was addressed by asking three points in the coding process. Rater #1 and Rater #2 reviewed each transcript before it was coded to minimize confirma tion bias, and then reviewed the coded transcript. Once the transcripts were coded, the external auditor on the project reviewed the coded transcripts . The researcher reviewed the comments of each rater and the external auditor as they were provided , and made The semi - structure d interview guide ( Appendix F ) consist ed of a demographic section and seven questions, with sub - questions to be asked of each selected s tate - federal VR director. The structured interview guide address ed the research question of How do state - f ederal VR directors view the future of the public rehabilitation program and what resources do they believe they need to c reate or enhance their age success in light of the changes occurring in the field? Participants Once the I nstitutional R eview B oard (IRB) approved the study as exempt , t he Council of State Agencies of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) was contacted to provide the researcher with approval for the study . CSAVR sent each of the identified participants an email supporting the study and encouraging each state - federal VR director to participate . The 13 selected state - federal VR agency directors , from across the continental United States, were then contacted for participation in the study . Selection of the participants was based on the 2011, 2012 and 2013 RSA federal indicators of state - federal VR agencies, who over that three - year time period scored at least one six and no less t han a five of the six required federal indicators , as outlined in Table 1 . Achieving at least one six and no less than a five for passing scores out of six of the federal 40 indicators over the three year - time period ind icates the higher performance of that state - federal VR agency. These agency directors wer high performance on th e RSA federal indicators. High - performing agencies most often exhibit a culture of adhocracy , where the organ ization is externally focused and emphasizes flexibility, adaptability and change. As a result, leaders in adhocracy cultures value innovation and building partnerships with external partners (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Sherman et al., 2014, p.118). The lead ership of an organization, through strategic and operational decisions, particularly at the chief executive or director level, forms the basis of culture (Giberson et al., 2009). Of the 13 state - federal directors contacted, 12 agreed to participate by sending back to the researcher their signed informed consent document. Once the informed consent was received by the researcher, interview dates and times were set up. Approximately five days prior to the interview, each state - federal director was sent the questions on the semi - structured guide and an invitation to the Zoom interview session ( Appendix G ) so they could access the program by logging in on a computer with a mic rophone and camera (video/audio recording) or dialing in (audio recording) on their telephone. Each interview lasted between 60 to 75 minutes in length. Table 1 . Higher - Performing State - Federal VR Agencies by Federal Fiscal Year State 2011 2012 2013 Alaska 6 6 5 Iowa 5 6 6 Kentucky 6 5 6 Mississippi 6 6 6 Nebraska 6 6 6 New Hampshire 6 5 6 Oklahoma 6 5 5 Oregon 6 6 6 South Dakota 6 6 6 41 Table 1 . ( ) Utah 6 5 6 West Virginia 6 5 5 Wisconsin 6 5 6 Wyoming 6 6 5 Role of the Researcher In qualitative research, the researcher that is the instrument and t he credibility of the research (Patton, 2002) . Researchers using this type of methodology need to be both researcher and learner to be effective (Glesne, 2011) . All r esearchers are susceptible to bias . All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim , by a third party, to facilitate accuracy of the data . T o check for accuracy and increase reliability of the data collected , a Ph . D . - level e ducator/ researcher was utilized as an auditor to review the various stages of the study . Limitations of Study This study sought to understand the challenges and needs of th e state - federal VR program VR program . There are several limitations to be noted . First, this study look ed at the perspectives of 12 out of 49 (includes the District of Columbia) state - federal VR directors of general and combined ag encies located in the continental United States . The study only include d higher - performing general and combined agencies base d on published data from the FY 2011, 2012 and 2013 RS A federal indicators . Therefore, caution should be used in making interpretations or general izations beyond those agencies. Qualitative research, in general, is subject to personal biases and this study is no exception . The researcher conducting the stud y worked for over 28 years in the state - federal VR pr ogram and was in management at a state - federal VR agency for 20 of those years . The 42 researcher discuss ed personal biases regularly with her advisor and mentor to assist with recognition of her biases . Additionally, two Ph . D . - level educators /researcher s were enlisted to help with independent coding of the data collected , as well as theme develop ment, an d a Ph . D . - level educator/researcher audit ed the study process . 43 Chapter 4 Results Participant D emographi cs Twelve directors , out of 13, agreed to participate in the study . The response rate was 92. 3 % . The participants interviewed consisted of nine men and three wom e n. These state - federal VR directors were from across the continental United States and were leading either combined or general VR agencies. The direct ors had varying lengths of time as their agency head . Of the 12 directors, one has since retired. Another director was serving in an acting capacity and has been replaced since the interview too k place. Three of the directors interviewed ha ve been in place less than a year. Titles of state - federal directors The 12 state - federal VR agency leaders held a number of job titles , the most prevalent being Director, with five holding that title. Three were called Administrators and three held the title of Executive Director. In addition to the title of Director, one also held the co - title of VR Field Services Administrator. At the time of the interview, one state - federal VR leader was an Acti ng Direct or and has since left the position. One of the Executive Directors has al so retired since the interview t ook place. Type of state - federal VR agency The 12 state - federal VR leaders interviewed were made up of seven from combined agencies that serve both general and blind clients and five from general agencies that serve all disabilities, except for individuals who are blind or visually impaired . 44 Table 2 . States by Program Type Combined (7) General (5) Alaska Mississippi New Hamp shire Oklahoma West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Iowa Kentucky Nebraska Oregon South Dakota Years in current position The state - fede ral VR directors interviewed had var ying lengths of time on the job. The newest director had been there for only three mont hs, while the most senior director had been in his position for 18 years . Figure 6 . Years in Position by State Previous position titles The previous positions of the state - federal VR directors included two who had previously served as Deputy Director of the VR agency. Other job titles for previously held positions 45 included being an Administrator of another agency, an Ad ministrative Operations Manager, Assistant Bureau Chief, Assis tant Director of Field Services, Bur eau Director for Field Services, Executive Director of another agency, Modernization Director in the DSA, VR Supervisor in the central office, and an Administrative Services Director. State departmental locations Names of the various Designat ed State Agencies (DSA) , where the agency is housed, varied. Three were located in the Department of Education. Two agencies were each located in the Depar tment of Workforce Development, t he Department of Human Services, and the Department of Rehabilitat ion Services. The other state - federal VR agencies were located in the Cabinet of Education and Workforce, Secretary of Education and Arts, and the Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Figure 7 . Designated State Agenci es Distribution D esignated state unit locations State - federal VR a gencies went by a number of names, including six agencies that were called the Division of Rehabilitation Services. Three state - Designated 46 State Units (DSU) were called Vocational Rehabilitation Services, two were named Department of Rehabilitation Services , and one was called the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation. Y ears with current VR agency Years with the current agency varied in length of time. The ranges includ ed one director that had been there for four and a half mon ths to another director that had been with the agency for 43 years. The breakdown for length s of time with the agencies is in Figure 8 . Figure 8 . Years with Current Agency Years in public rehabilitation The years in public rehabilitation, with the current agency or another rehabilitation organization, showed one director who had been in public rehabilit ation for a total of four and a half months, the shortest length of time, all the way to another director who had been working in rehabilitation for 43 years , the longest length of time . The breakdown of years in public rehabilitation is located in Figure 9 . 47 Figure 9 . Years in Public Rehabilitation Educational backgrounds and degrees The educational background of the 12 directors show ed that eight of the directors had m s and four of the directors had b degree breakdown showed that two directors each had master degrees in E ducation and two in Rehabilitation Counseling. Other master degrees were in Counseling, Rehabilitation Counseling Psychology, and Personnel Services. The four directors with bach elor degrees were degrees in Accounting, Finance and Accounting, Sociology, and Business. Licenses or certification held Five of the state - federal VR directors held no licenses or certifications. Of those directors that did hold licenses or certificatio ns, four were Certi fied Rehabilitation Counselors (CRC). Of the remaining directors, one each held a Microsoft Certification, one was a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) , and one was a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC). 48 Themes and Categories After e informed consent was received by the researcher, the 12 interview dates and times were set up. Approximately five days prior to the interview, each state - federal director was sent the questions on the semi - structured guide and an invitation to the Zoom interview session so they could access the program by logging in on a computer with a microphone and camera (video/audio recording) or dialing in (audio recording) on their telephone. Each interview lasted between 60 to 75 minutes in length. The interviews, once recorded, were sent to a third party for transcription services. Once the interviews were transcribed, the transcripts were loaded int o Dedoose, a cloud - based qualitative software package. The transcripts were coded inside of Dedoose by the researcher. Two Ph . D . - level educators/researchers each went into Dedoose and coded the transcripts separately to e nsure inter - rater reliability. Themes were then identified that emerged from the data. A Ph . D . researcher was utilized as an audito r on the study and she reviewed the entire project after coding by all parties was completed. The results of the finding s and the themes on the future of the state - federal VR program are discussed below. F uture of the Vocational Rehabilitation Program Per spectives o f the VR program in the next decade State - federal VR directors see increased collaboration with partners outside the agency, especially workforce partners and school systems. One state - federal VR director offered this view : onnect with our business partners and our community providers so it is about building relationships . will require stronger cross - agency partnerships leading to better outcomes for people with disabilities. Statements such as h better place for people with disabilities because they will earn higher wages, they will be more 49 programs. Respondents note that shifting demographics will drive the changes , a n overarching theme surrounding the current challenges with WIOA and the dramatic change s required . and having will into jobs . - federal VR directors believe the combined state plan will become the norm for VR agencies and workforce partners. In the future, one state - federal VR director believe s es will have . consideration. While one director believes we are in the mos the WIOA that we have seen in 40 years nother Creating future A strong theme of collaboration among state agencies, school systems and employment organizations was noted by the directors . Agency directors view being the impetus for moving forward with the theme of collaboration. Two director s discussed and two other directors discussed the need to on the changes . , mitment and ownership on all our program goals . T mentioned by two directors , as well as Two other directors stated that outcomes/numbers might go down as the agencies focus on specific disability mandates. Two d irectors thought that staff may be doing less counseling and less physical restorations. One di rector stated that staff members need 50 , while another director offered that VR programs need to begin customer service experience . The directors consistently stated that the future will bring W orkforce partners together to work ro shared resources. While one director anticipates that uality will go up , two other directors expressed concerns uld be cut if numbers decrease , ed focus on schools and youth. State director concerns about the future Two state - federal VR directors were concerned abo ut the need to reserve 15% of the budget for transition and p re - employment training services (PET S ). One director summed up the concern with the follow ing statement : M y concern over really the expansion of the transitioning youth services in VR is a real transitioning youth for a long time. About 30% of our caseload and funding has been spent on gen eralized PET services, pre - ? t these concerns around the . ut it this way : I f I had a concern, it would be within - employment transition services requirement of re serving 15% of our total budget . together 51 - than sending everyone who mentions a disability down the hall to the VR progra m. Another . performance measures will be handled was another concern, along with the unfunded th disability training to Workforce partners , was thought to be necessary by two of the directors. Funding concerns mentioned by the directors , , third - party contracts for funding (MOE) and concerns. One director surprisingly had no concerns about the future. Rehabilitation L egislation Improving the service delivery system for PWD in light of WIOA In o rder to improve the service delivery system to meet the needs of peopl e with disabilities, most s tate - federal VR directors and have earlier involvement with school systems. To do this, there should be an effort to focus outward, not inward on the agency. One direc tor put it this way: W e have to look outward, we have to really kind of practice what we preach in that we have to look at how we can deliver services that do impact individuals with disabilities rather than being as worried about the Division of Rehabili tation Services being an entity in and of itself . . we would like to see a common intake established out here so that if a person walks in, mental health or Department of Family Services or whatever, they would complete an intake form, and if they were in the wrong spot, they could just walk over to VR and we would have that information available and be able to identify him or her ea rly on . 52 Five of the directors mentioned that the dual customer approach will improve the system , as will working with advocacy groups and having closer ties with the State Rehabilitation Council ( SRC ) g of what state - federal VR agencies . One d irector specifically mentioned that it would be helpful for RSA to provide more guidance in order for agencies to better focus on quality outcomes. Cha nges from WIOA a ffecting state - federal VR agencies The state - federal VR directors discussed how WIOA would affect their organizations and offered some specific examples. Closer connections to business was mentioned, reallocation of resources to PET, and c ommon performance measures were thought to be some of the effects of WIOA implemen tation. One director commented: Businesses are driving the conversation right now . - utside of Workforce one - stops. The need for additional business a c count m anagers or consultants was seen as necessary to support the system under WIOA by two of the directors . Partnerships under WIOA were seen as affect ing for recogniti by Workforce partners. One director mentioned that t Workforce environment. Concerns ranged from administrati ve burdens to changes in providing PET S , perhaps fewer resources. There were thought to be additional pressures on partnerships , and perhaps that waiting lists might be ne cessary , as the agencies try to focus on the transition mandates. Geographic challenges remain a concern with limited staff , because it is hard to get full - time 53 equivalent (FTEs) positions. Increased use of technology was thought to be necessary to be ab le . A gency A ctions Maintaining the v alues of the rehabilitation process Agency directors offered thoughts on ways their programs can maintain the values of the rehabi litation process while working in the larger context of collaboration and partnership as part of the integrated W keep ourselves focused on those that we serve and keep that as our front focal point, we wil l maintain the mission of this agency . Maintaining agency focus and funding in order to create value for customers w ere mentioned as ways to help maintain the values of the rehabilitation process. Providing services that are individualized is seen as a strength of the VR programs. Three directors mentioned the need to provide statewide in - service training about the VR program to all professional partners and that it will be necessary to do this to assure partner understanding of the VR program. Three d irectors also mentioned that be ing the experts on disability, assistive t echnology (AT), and competitive integrated employment should assist VR with the challenge of not being absorbed into the larger Workforce system. Actions by state - federal VR director and resources needed Additional funding, along with the ability to increase administrative staff , would help most VR agencies, since administrative positions have been cut as dollars have tightened. Actions state - federal VR directors have taken to strive to make their agencies performance what they believe it should be include discussing maintenance of effort (MOE) with legislators , training staff on the WIOA regulations , changing business processes to meet the WIOA regulations , and educating Workforce pa rtners. Other directors have used coaching as a 54 leadership skill r encouraging change with staff, - to - date case management syste ms , establishing leadership councils , and going on listening tours to assist in making the program what they believe it should be. One director has mentioned by one director as a way to hear customer input. Investments in training , such as sending staff to the Interwork leadership training that is put on by San Diego S tate, as well as designing and implementing field - based quality assurance (QA) teams , are other ways directors see themselves supporting their agencies. A state - federa l really have good metrics, good data, behind you so you can not, then being able to pivot and have some other options, so ha ving that quarterly business review, which we do for our entire department, for Department of Human Services, but also in system basically at the local level and the district level as well. And so, b y having that line of sight so every counselor and every Human Services assistant can see how their work impacts the larger goals of the program . while most of the . Resources needed to maintain and increase levels of success In order to maintain the levels of success directors are experiencing today and to bring those levels up to a higher degree of success, three state - federal VR directors felt they need to maintain or increase their FTEs , and where they are not permanent, make their Business Consultant positions permanent. Some directors mentioned that they could use more transition staff , others m ore administrative staff . One director offered : This program has kind of been 55 right away hopefully is free some efficiencies into our structure as much as possible . irector mentioned they need more staff with rehabilitation backg rounds to replace the retiring b aby b oomers. It was noted that m ore frequent discussions wi th Workforce partners and better utilization of collective ( i.e., partner ) res ources could be of assistance to VR agencies. One director mentioned the need for more community resources, such as rehabilitation centers, especially in the more rural areas. One state - caseload to a workload model . Overall, seven state - federal VR agencies were maximizing all their state funds and five had obtained re - allotment funds , which are funds other agencies are not able to access that become available for other state - federal VR agencies to bring into their budgets if they have enough state match dollars . Six of the state - federal VR director s mentioned the need to increase federal funding levels, especially to b ring on more staff. Societal Advancements for People with Disabilities Positioning the agency to create a better world for people with disabilities Outreach and working with advocacy groups was noted by five directors as a key to positioning the agency to influence and create a better world for people with disabilities, instead of just reacting to outside forces. One director offered : W e put a lot of stock in our state rehabilitation council. We also put a lot of stock in consumer surveys. But we have a third Those are local groups from local cities . market our program in that it s . The re was a consistent theme of 56 collaboration and education to include g overnors and state legislators as directors see s to spread the word about what VR does. Directors also meet with other agency directors, as one state - federal director mentioned , at the state level, I try to meet with those individuals from other programs, you know, to kind of set the stage . success stories, state - federal VR directors sought to be proactive in creating change for people with disabilities. One VR director addressed the National Governors Association, while others were involved with CSAVR initiatives. Some of the directors were interested in technology and discussed the need for better client information systems , while a nother director offered that they - active on social media . Using the director position to create a better world for people with disabilities The top thing that state - federal VR directors believe they need to do in using their position to create a better world for people with disabilities is to share success stories with their w the lieutenant governor drink s the Kool - Aid of the program and we do that with the stories. We are sending up the phenomenal stories of how lives are transformed, individuals that were on SSI, SSDI, or had no hope and then they connect with DVR and they have a future, they have jobs . directors mentioned attending conferences and sharing i nformation; having high expectations of their staff , being in leadership positions with organizations such as CSAV R , being fiscally responsible, c reating in - house training such as new VR counselor training , expanding programs by doing things such as crea ting ad ditional Project Search sites , and d eveloping grant opportunities with partners. Bein g transparent and doing no harm was the motto of one director my personal mission is to do no harm and to really make sure that we are staying true to our mission but also doing, you know, we have some very specific core values 57 transparent as possible, honoring, respecting, being responsible, being fiscally responsible and sure that our decisions are not harming other individuals . - federal VR directors were using their position s to develop m emorandums of u nder standing (MOU) for fund - sharing with programs such the Veterans Administration (VA). Directors were attending meetings with partners, meetings about the unified state plan, pulling Workforce partners together to help them understand partner programs, serv ing on committees throughout the state, modeling what is expected of staff, and being a strong advocate. As one director stated about using the ir position : - cr eate that better world for people with disabilities. State Director Activities Resources needed to be a successful state director A recurring theme has been the lo ss of the Technical Assistance and Continuing Education Centers (TACE). Directors mourn the loss of the TACE centers and would like help with additional technical assistance. One director summed it up this way: R eally appreciated the fact that we had [a regional TACE] , when we had our regional partners I could call up and the [ TACE ] office if we needed to [talk through an issue] see that anymore . One d irector would like to see faster , more accurate responses from RSA. Some of the directors would like to see regional forums developed where they can talk with other state - federal VR directors in thei r regions. The ability to attend trainings and conferences was seen as a plus. Support internally was seen as critical in many ways, including for the ability to increase match to bring down federal funds. 58 Direct ors mentioned training in a number of ways. One director talked about needing new models that connect the agency with the outside world and inside the agency; another mentioned the leadership program at Interwork from San Diego State University s New Director training. A quote from one a nything that looking and scanning for models tha t transfer over to VR services, t hat kind of out - of - the - box thinking. So I like to challenge myself, as well as staff with that kind of thinking. So resources are what help me access that information. Resources for training all staff were mentioned as a need. Other directors discus sed needing to obtain mentors, surrounding themselves with others in the field who know more than they do, protecting the resources they have and acquiring more money for training. One director said he has all the resources and training he needed. Activit ies for agency success Training , in order for the agency to be successful , was mentioned by a number of the dir ectors. One director put it this way: I think that is criti cal that people partake in that . Development of a p re - employment training program for customers was thought to be helpful in carrying out agency activities by another director . Other directors mentioned colla borating with disability groups, and one director reported having access to the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI) and their Job - Driven Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center (JDVRTAC), which resides in their region. With the closing of the TACE centers, that state - federal VR director was grateful that one of the new centers was close enough for them to utilize. Collaborating with other state directors was seen as helpful. Assuring consistent statewide policy interpretation , understan ding partner roles and services, consistently educating legislators for help with additional match , and promoting the advancement of people with disabilities has 59 helped with agency success. One dir ector offered on this topic: Resources are not diminishing, relationships with those folks that are he re . S tate - federal VR director training and learning communities Learning from other state - federal VR directors was seen as a necessary form of training. - on - one training and have cr eated kind of my own little cohort of other state directors that I reach out to on a pretty consistent basis Five out of the 12 directors have at tended the CSAVR New Directors t raining, three attended training put on by their TACE center in the past, an d three have attended leadership training put on by Interwork in San Diego . Directors were highly complim entary of both the CSAVR New Directors t raining and the leadership training put on by Interwork . A few of the directors obtain information from exper ienced staff. There was concern that there is no one place to go for training anymore, referring to the closing of the TACE centers. Another received no tr aining. Decision - making over personnel and finances Eleven of the 12 state - federal VR director s believe they have decision - making authority over personnel and budget. One state - federal VR director believed they have influence, but not direct authority o ver personnel and budget matters. Agency P olicies Upholding the letter and the spirit of the law The majority, nine out of 12 , of directors believe their age the law and regulations and also benefit the person receiving the services. In terms of policy, 60 one state director summed it up by saying , So to answer your question, ye , is to serve Two of the directors thought their policies are written to suppor t the Some other you ( i.e., customers) where you one - driven and one sai d that there is a financial needs test as part of their policy . One agency director mentioned developing policy around braided funding with behavioral health. Another director mentioned he writes all the policy for the agency and bases it on the federal law. The 15% set - aside for transition services was seen as a policy concern by four of the 12 directors interviewed . Factors related to development of financial policies Stakeholder involvement in policy decisions was mentioned by two director s . Two of t he directors shared that they developed their policies in - house. Directors were trying to be creative While one director writes the policy for his agency, other directors offered that t hey develop policy by bring ing together committees of various staff. Efforts around localizing decision - making In the majority of agencies, eight out of 12, VR c ounselors have the authority to determine client authorizations. Four of the agencies allow VR counselors to authorize only up to a certain amount before requiring approval from a supervisor. Three directors said that the 61 ability to authorize funds for client services depend s on the level of the counselor. One state - federal VR director signs of f on all post - secondary educational plans that are written by her staff. One director disperses client services money regionally via q uarterly allocations . Four of the agencies hold their budget s at the state level to draw from, while others provide bud gets to districts or regions and some directly to the VR counselor. One state - federal VR director put it We track the budget at the state level. We have one state overall budget of case services, so each area office provides services until we cut off statewide Staffing and Training Attitudes, knowledge, skills and abilities needed by staff Seven out of 12 of the state - federal VR directors would like staff they can train i nto pos itions. Almost half, five out of 12 of the Four directors hire at the bachelor s level and of those that hire at that level, three require those As one director put it, senior CRC certification Another dir A different state - federal VR director mentioned a preference for the LPC for counseling staff . A director summed up her thoughts this way , we do not have an absolute standard that they have a master s and then have the CRC. We do have some bachelor - level counselors Several of the d irectors offered thoughts on the knowledge, skills and attitudes they would l ike staff to have . Tho se include , having a positive outlook, be ing public service - minded, 62 and having good communication , as well as having good computer skills. One director mentioned that they need staff who are willing to go above and beyond. As one d irector put it , I think in terms of counselors, I love for them to have, you know, really open minds. I love for them to have really positive outlooks. I like them to have really good problem - solving skills. I like them to be fair ly quick thinking on t heir feet Common sense was also mentioned as a necessary attribute. C ertification of VR c ounselors Half , six out of 12 , of the VR agency directors said that being a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC) was not required. Of those, two directors sa id they had no training dollars available to support the staff being CRC or CRC eligible. Three directors mentioned that counselors should be CRC, three directors said it should be a goal to strive for and two others erred O ne director though t having the CRC should be part of a career ladder for counselors. Support and funding for training and personnel development Four state - federal VR directors allocate a training budget each year for staff training. Three direct or s use regular 110 dollars , state - federal allotments, for training , and three other directors said their agency invests in training for a career ladder for staff. One director offered bsorb that [training] in our general fund, which is what w lucky. We have a very decent training and travel budget. We have a training staff Not all directors had those kinds of resources and one used cost - reimbursement dollars to fund training at their agency. Another director admitt ed they need to do more planning around training issues. Two directors offered that it is a challenge to provide support for training. One director said that 63 he funds motivational interviewing in this agency and another offered that the DSA invests in le adership training for staff. 64 Chapter 5 Discussion The purpose of this study was to provide an in - depth examination of the research question , tate - federal VR d irectors view the future of the public rehabilitation program and what resources do th ey believe they need to crea success in light of the changes occurring in the field? Simon (1991) wrote that the question needing to be nsure that most or all ( i.e., consumers) can perform these critical jobs when they enter them and throughout p.2 09). He went on to say, rehabilitation efforts to fulfill its function to the ful lest lies with creating capable, effective Participants identified for inclusion this study came state - federal VR directors leading higher - functioning VR agencies, based on three year s of RSA 911 data, from combined or g eneral VR agencies in the continental United States . Thirteen state agencies were identified meeting the establish criteria. Of those, 12 directors agreed to participate. A semi - structured interview guide was used to guide the interviews. Vision of th e Future under WIOA The responses to the research question in this study, How do s tate - federal VR d irectors view the future of the public rehabilitation program and what resources do they believe they need to cre ate or to enhance their agencies n light of the changes occurring in the field? were examined to first look at the director responses and the themes coming from those responses , and then to consider the implications of the responses in light of the vision of the future that the federal f unding partner, RSA, has put forth for state - federal VR agencies to meet in order to be in compliance under WIOA legislation moving into the future. 65 In order to continue to address the employment the outlook for people with disabilities, in 2014 Congress passed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (H.R. 803, 2014). Title IV of the WIOA legislation authorizing state - federal VR agencies is overseen by the Rehabilitation Services Administration. The RSA technical assistance ci rcular, RSA - TAC - 15 - 01, discussed the spirit and intent of WIOA , and the characteristics required of VR agencies have been grouped into three functional categories. Those categories are ( 1) Customer Service, ( 2) Innovation and Service Design, and (3 ) Systems Integration and High Quality Staffing. In the interviews, the state - federal VR directors address ed their vision of the future of the VR program . The implications of the director responses were examined and those themes that were addressed by the directors during the interview s generally fell in line with the functional categories outlined by RSA . The implications of this study will be examined in light of the data collected from the state - federal VR directors that speak to the future of the VR program , including are as that were addressed that can also be found in the technical assistance circular. RSA is encouraging states to adopt the vision outlined in the RSA - TAC - 15 - 01 and build - sto p delivery system On August 13, 2015, after the interviews for this study were completed, OSERS through RSA sent out to state - federal VR agencies Technical Assistance Circular RSA - TAC - 15 - 01 ( Appendix H One - Stop Delivery System under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Separate guidance will be issued by the Department of Career, Technical and Adu lt Education to their grantees who are partners in the workforce accountability of core WIOA programs, including the VR program, to place emphasis on 66 promoting bette r alignment among Federal job training programs This vision reinforces the findings from the state - federal VR director interviews that partnerships and strategies are necessary for one - stop centers to provide job seekers and workers with the high - qualit y career services, education and training, and supportive services they need to obtain good jobs and stay employed; and to help businesses find skilled workers and access other supports, including education and training for their current workforce During the interviews, the state - federal VR directors were acutely aware of looking at their agencies in light of the new WIOA legislation. Their responses took into consideration the changes their agencies are undergoing to position their agencies to be respon sive to the new mandates of WIOA. It was evident during the interviews that directors are immersed in finding ways to be su ccessful and manage their staff and partnerships in light of what they are expecting is the new normal and this appeared to heavily influence the conversations . This new normal includes changing their organizational culture to move from operating as hierarchical entities that are focused on the internal organization and control (Millington & Schulz, 2009) to agencies that create learn ing environments that support staff in implementing best practices that lead to greater organizational success (Tuft, 2012). These state - federal VR directors are attempting to become transformational leaders who see a need for change, create a new vision and obtain a commitment from followers for organizational change (Rijal, 2010). C ustomer S ervice State - federal VR directors believe they serve two sets of customers, the consumer with the disability and businesses looking for trained employees. he development and enhancement of public policies promoting workforce development and employment participation over the past three decades, individuals with disabilities continue to experience disparate 67 workforce participation rates and lower earnings than their non - 2012, p. 16). As one VR director stated, it is about how we connect with our job candidates and relationships In d iscussing customers, there was recognition that in order to meet the mandates of WIOA some agencies need to focus more on business customers to be successful in a o ne - s top environment. An example of recognition of that fact came from a director who stated , we have learned going back to CSAVR a couple of months ago and going to D.C. was that we really need to rethink that empha sis in WIOA [is] on treating employers as customers as well as people with disabilities is a positive Increased collaboration with partners and helping staff take ownership of the changes occurring through WIOA was a recurrent theme in the interviews th at fall in line with the RSA guidance to develop, offer, and deliver business services that assist specific businesses and industry sectors in overcoming the challenges of recruiting, retaining, and developing talent for the regional economy - TAC - 15 - 01, 2015) . Nine o f the 12 directors felt a stronger connection with the business community, while maintaining a focus on people with disabilities creates a positive outlook for state - federal VR programs. In terms of customer services one director suggest ed that i t was important to focus on providing an empowering, effective and efficient customer service experience While VR agencies in the past primarily focused on the individual with the disability, all of the state - federal VR directors emphasized wit h new urgency on the need to work with the business customers. Agencies expressed need for increasing the number of staff who work with recognition that serving client s with disabilities is the reason the agency exists and their mandate 68 of increasing services for transition customers. In an age of increased accountability, directors realize they must create organizational cultures that lead to learning organizations th at utilize evidence - based practices in serving both types of customers (Daniels, 1997). Innovation and Service Design Changing the internal culture of the VR agency was thought to be necessary to create an environment open to innovation and the ability to affect effective service designs. Culture is the 2009). In an age o f accountability, state - federal VR directors must develop organizational climates that create learning organization and utilize evidence - based practices (Daniels, 1997). Schultz (2008) noted that culture was the collective practices of the organization. He stated that, - in, creativity, and personal involvement of professional staff (p. 40). Organizational culture is one of the management tools available to leaders of organizations that can shape employee performance (Giberson et al., 2009; Lincoln, 2010; Sherman et al., 2014 ) . and what is not important, it allows an individual to develop knowledge that can impact organizational learning, and it creates processes by which knowledge is created, approved and Executive leadership sets the tone to create cultures that have the potential to transform agencies into learning organizations and that empower sta ff towards innovation. Leadership continuity will also become a highly significant factor in the sustainability of these types of enabling organizational cultures. State - federal VR directors understand that staff roles must be clearly defined within the o ne - stop system and training of VR staff not only on the WIOA legislation but on workforce 69 physical space of the one - stop centers. One director had a goal of no l onger having standalone VR offices. In developing the required service design , one director offered, we endorse the sharing of resources not just in mone y but in people and how we work As state - federal VR agencies become increasingly involved with one - stops within a workforce environment, t ransitioning state VR agencies from administrative entities (Herbert, 2004; Herbert & Trusty, 2006; Schultz, 2007; Schultz, 2008; Bezyak, Ososkie, Trice & Yeager, 2010) into learning organizations that dev elop and pr omote evidence - based service delivery pra ctices is necessary to enhance program outcomes and create environments that facilitate innovation . Learning organizations develop new knowledge and insight fr om the common experiences of their employees and ha ve t capabilities (Sanz - Valle, Naranjo - Valencia, Jimenez - Jimenez & Perez - Caballero, 2011) . Seven of the 12 s tate - federal VR directors are preparing for common indicators by working on c reating computer systems that allow for common intake, with one director stating , we would like to see a common intake established out here so that if a person walks in, mental health or Department of Family Services or whatever, they would complete an in take form, and if they were in the wrong spot, they could just walk over to VR and we would have that information available and be able to identify him or her early on. , I really see the VR program taking advantage more of technolo gies The RSA - TAC - 15 - 01 circular mentions using an integrated and expert intake process for all customers. State - federal VR directors will need to lead their agencies to develop software solutions not just internally and among workforce partners, but al service delivery that is both virtual and center - based. 70 Half of the directors were concerned abo ut lack of technical assistance due to the loss of their regional TACE center, which could impact s vision particularly around implementation of innovative and evidence - base d delivery models. As a director said , we have somebody in office if we needed to, It will become increasingly important for VR agencies to create cultures of adhocracy that recognize that innovation and change are necessary in order to enable organizations to take charge of shaping their own futures (Gib erson et al., 2009). Systems Integration and High - Quality Staffing Collaboration and partnership were consistent theme s among the directors interviewed. Vision, values and creativity should be used in setting direction by leaders (Daniels, 1997). The R SA - TAC - 15 - 01 circular also outlines a vision that reflects the establishment of partnership among partners. One director noted that his ag ency is moving out of our isolated silos and really talking about how are we part of, how are we integrated into a l arger system and are we creating value for that system Another director summed it up this way , agencies are going to for students with disabilities and becom e more intrinsically involved with the workforce investment system as well as the educational system A director mentioned the need to connect with our job candidates and how we connect with our business partners and our ut building relationships State - federal VR directors are increasing their collaborations and partnerships with one - stop partners and other partners such as those in the business community, educational and mental health systems. 71 Four of the directors m entioned partnering to increase efficiencies . One director discussed his goal of completely moving h is offices in to the o ne - stops and developing opportunities to share resources and equipment such as copiers for the office, not tied to any one program. Four directors in this study are beginning to look at how this might work for their agencies, especially for those staff located within one - stops. The RSA c ircular includes a vision that partners in the o ne - stop organize and integrate services by function . Providing training to partners was seen as critical in developing joint service strategies as provide them with training and understanding so they Two of the dir ectors interviewed for this study mentioned needing additional business account managers or business consultant staff and this would tie into the RSA vision of developing business services teams . Concerns around the one - stop partners included fears they w individualized services . Five of the d irector s are looking at ways to update their case - management systems. A variety of systems are in use, including individually developed single - state systems. One dire ctor is working on creating an integrated case - management system with workforce partners that is in line with of developing an integrated case - management system that allows the sharing of customer information among the partners working with t he individual - TAC - 15 - 01) . A director of one state - federal VR agency offered his vision as it relates to integrated computer systems and common intake : W e would like to see a common intake established out here so that if a person walks in, mental health or Department of Family Services or whatever, they would complete an intake form, and if they were in the wrong 72 spot, they could just walk over to VR and we would have that information available and be able to identify him or her early on Given the variety of computer and case - management systems that VR agencies have, it will take a concerted effort, as well as funding, to develop updated systems that interact seamlessly with Workforce partners . Providing additional funding to make need ed IT infrastructure and software upgrades is something that RSA might consider to help implement its vision. Though costs have increased, since the early 1990 s state - federal rehabilitation agenc ies have essentially been level - 09). State - federal VR agencies have limited resources and the 12 agencies interviewed ranged from one director needing no additional resources to other agencies that feel stretch ed to capacity. need to balance existing need again Common performance indicators were mentioned by directors and in the RSA circular. Concerns around implementation were expressed by one director . Six of the 12 directors felt they could use more guidance from RSA around changes that need to be implemented. accurate responses from RSA Training for VR agency staff and Workforce partners was thought to be necessary by a number of the state - federal VR directors . Assuring all one - stop center st aff is cross - training is a goal in is a concern. As one director put it , it is kind of an irritant for me . The relationship we had with our TACE was really remarkable, as with the R CEP S before that, but TACE especially, a couple of the staff of the TACE were retired state administrators that I knew and they provided an awful lot of our training at the in - services, but they were just an excellent resource if we had questions or wanted to, you know, just round - table an issue. And losing the TACE was a big blow While three of 73 the directors mentioned hav ing some training staff, one director stated that he has one staff member who did training for the entire a gency. In the age WIOA, training dollars used for staff 15% is now required to be set aside for pre - employment transition services (Schroeder, 2014). When asked how they currently fund training, one agency director said it was a work in progress, a few others plan to set money aside in their budgets, while another director us es reimbursement dollar from S ocial S ecurity to fund training in his agency. The VR direc tor s said that they are working to educate W orkforce partners about VR and people with disabilities at the meetings they have been attending. Thought and planning will need to go into how trainings for VR staff and partner s are funded and what resources a re needed to best provide the necessary training both internally and externally . Today, state - feder al VR directors must find creative ways to fund the programs and training opportunities they need and inspire their staff. Creation of a culture that promo tes a learning organization is necessary to bring out the best in employees and encourages staff to enhance their skills and performance, which encourages shared knowledge and expertise to improve the organization. Implications for State - Federal VR Directo rs Collaboration and partnerships were consistent themes expressed by the directors interviewed for this study. The T echnical Assistance Circular RSA - TAC - 15 - 0, release d in August 2015 , provides vision for collaboration and partn ership in a seamless operating o ne - stop center, having both in - person and virtual services for customers, which incorporates the services on all core WIOA partners. In order to meet their expectations under WIOA, most of the directors in this study have already begun meeting with partners to work out MOUs and , in some case s , the physical space requirement s to co - locate. State - federal VR directors around the 74 country need to take on the challenges of WIOA, as they work together with partners on a combined state plan and common performan ce indicators. Integrated case - management systems for one - stop access will require VR agencies review their IT systems and , in many instances , fund and acquire more up - to - date systems and software. ip travels and impacts organizational In order to make the changes in their agencies , some of the directors in this study discussed the need to change the internal cultures of the organizations they lead. Leadership that facilitates a culture that allows for the creation of a learning organization encourages the development, acquisition, transformation, and dissemination of new knowledge that can foster inn ovation , leading to ef fective best practices (Rijal, 2010). To succeed, director s must look at creating adhocracy cultures that are externally focused and emphasize flexibility, adaptability and change. This is the type of culture where teams are formed around projects and communication flows up the chain of command. The RSA vision , outlined in their technical assistance circular, directs VR agencies, where they can, to organize and integrate services by function rather than by program. To do this, eigh t of the directors in this study mention ed the need for additional FTE s to hire more permanent business account consultants . Culture change, as some directors pointed out, also requires training of both staff and partners, which requires funding and train ing resources. All the directors in this study expressed the need to work with two sets of customers, the person with a disability and the employer community. VR agency directors should focus on and develop effective ways to interact and partner with the business community. Some VR agencies, by their own admission, seemed to do a better job with this than others. Clearly, the intent of the 75 WIOA legislation is to create stronger ties with the business community and the RSA - TAC - 15 - 01 vision states that pro hire skilled workers and access other supports, including education and training for their current workforce VR directors need to find ways to obtain the resources needed within their budgets to effective ly . The state - federal VR directors in this study all agreed that trai ning for directors sho uld be on going . The loss of the regional TACE centers has create d a void in a place where directors could go for knowledgeable advice and training. Director s should continue to stay involved with CSAVR training act irec tor training. The VR directors interviewed who had been through the CSAVR New Director training all thought highly of it and believed it had been worthwhile. Implications for Rehabilitation Counselor Educators Training for staff has been problematic , du e to the loss of the TACE centers, with no readily available nearby resour ces for most but not all agencies. Directors continue to value staff for VR counselor s . While the CRC is not required in half the agencies interviewed, most thought it was a good idea. One - third of There is a need for staff with a background in rehabilitation counseling. Four of the 12 hired with mast 76 opportunities for those individuals to obtain the needed courses in order to be eligible for the CRC exam. While at least two directors pr eferred hiring those wit h a CRC , three directors believed it should be a goal for which counselors strive. Funding for master s degrees, obtaining and maintaining the CRC and continuing education for certification maintenance continue to be concerns for many VR agencies. Becaus e a culture of continuous learning is necessary for (Schultz, 2007), e ducator s should work with s tate - federal VR directors on developing programs and funding for needed coursework to assure VR agency staff have the knowledge needed to successfully work with individuals with disabilities. Educators should consider work ing with VR agencies on developing educational programming for individuals hired at the bachel level as business consultants, as they are responsible for creating employment opportunities with business customers. One VR director said he developed a list of knowledge, skills and abilities he would like for his staff to have. The other directors identified specific attributes they value in employees , such as being open - minded, having good communication skills, be ing pub l ic service - minded, be ing fairly quick - thinking on their feet, having common sense, hav ing problem - solving skills, hav ing compute r skills and be ing willing to go above and beyond in their jobs. One director also mentioned a need to have a more diverse workforce in the agency . Because culture change is an integrative process, successful state - federal agencies will need to consider moving from traditionally hierarchical culture , with a focus on control , to a culture of adhocracy where the focus is on flexibility, risk - taking, partnerships and innovation (Sherman et al., 2014). 77 Implications for Policymakers and Funders Though costs ha ve increased, since the early 1990 s state - federal rehabilitation agenc ies have essentially been level - ). Some state - federal VR directors are experiencing difficulty with implementation, as well as administrative burdens, due to PET. The 15 % set - aside affects some agencies more than others. Clarity is need around how the 15% set - aside for transition services will be measured. Additional concerns were around being level - funded and budget constraints, maintenance of efforts re quirements and state match concerns. In the study interviews, there were also some concerns about unfunded WIOA requirement s , and concerns with sub - minimum wage requirements. Working with WIOA partners and providing those partners with trai ning and educat ion on disability were items that most agency directors felt they needed to be sure were , more resources were seen as needed by most of the state - federal VR directo rs in order to meet the goals of WIOA. Concerns about lack of technical assistance in complying with common performance measures were mentioned , as was getting WIOA partners to service people with . More accurate and faster responses from RSA would be appreciated by VR directors , as all the directors interviewed have initiatives under way to meet the mandate s of the new WIOA legislation. Technology was a theme in terms of creating integrated syste ms for use in a one - stop envir onment. VR agencies use a wide variety of IT and case - management systems , and many will need to be upgraded in order to comply with WIOA. Funding for IT will be critically important to enable IT infrastructure and case - manag ement system upgrades capable of capturing all the needed WIOA data elements and allow for common intake with WIOA partners . The vision for WIO A outlined in the TAC - RSA - 78 15 - 01 also includes VR agency ability to provide customer access to services in one - st op centers and virtually . Funding may be needed to bring computer systems up - to - date for case - management systems and IT infrastructure that will allow for client access , where appropriate. Currently, state - federal VR agencies are working with limited fun ding t o make those computer system up grades and changes. RSA should consider ways to help state - federal VR agencies acquire funding to upgrade or replace out - of - date computer and case - management systems with W IOA - compliant systems . Training is another are a where many, but not all, agency directors are struggling to find funding and resources. The closing of the regional TACE centers was a recurring theme. VR director s discussed feeling the loss of having nearby expert technical assistance that is no long er available and has not been replaced. In addition to losing the training grants for staff training, the loss of this resource has been especially difficult as directors seek assistance with WIOA implementation. As one director put it , centers was a blow to training Directors are looking at inno vative ways, such as using cost reimbursement , to fund training initiatives. Much training need s to be done with internal staff and external partners rega rding WIOA. Creating cultures that tr ansform agencies into learning organizations will be a necessary step for state - federal VR agencies in empowering staff towards innovation. While only half the agencies interviewed require a CRC for counseling staff, most directors saw value in staff obta , and certification as a CRC was preferred. Agencies hiring at the bachelor s level would like additional funding to help their staff in obtain ing higher education in rehabilitation counseling. The Rehabilitation Services Administr ation and other funders should consider ways to help state - federal VR agencies with funding for training activities, including training for internal staff, external partners and the funding of m 79 counseling. Additional cons ideration should be given to funding and maintenance activities for staff to obtain and maintain their Certified Rehabilitation Counselor Certification, the identified gold standard for rehabilitation counselors working with people with disabilit ies. Impli cations for Rehabilitation Research ers . Fiscal, legislative , and leadership changes at the state and federals levels have over time changed the field of rehabilitation services (McFarlane et al., 2011) . 1997, p. 251) is critical to moving rehabilitation agencies forward . Shaw, Leahy and Catalano (2006) cited in the rehabilitation counseling literature With the passage in 2014 of the new WIOA legislation, state - federal VR agencies will be required to increase col laboration and partnerships at a time of level or decreasing funding for agencies. At the same time, two of the 12 agency director s have already left or retired and a third director will be retiring in the near future. Changes are occurring in the make - u p of directors , as more will continue to retire and be replaced with newer, less experienced directors. New D irector training Interwork program are valued by directors, who hope they will continue. As changes c ome to state - federal VR agencies and directors are replaced, it is important to study what these changes mean to the field of rehabilitation and what training and education will be needed by the VR directors of the future. Few studies have been done speci fically looking at state - federal VR directors and how they view the VR program. The need for more studies with VR directors and their implementation of the new WIOA legislation is necessary to determine the impact of WIOA on VR agencies and those they ser ve. There is a need for more research on 80 evidence - based practices and how VR agencies can utilize and monitor the effectiveness of EBP in practice in order to achieve more successful outcomes, particularly with the increased emphasis on transition. Resea rch will be needed to measure effectiveness of the culture change occurring within state - federal VR agencies in order to provide the empirical evidence needed to determine if changes in the VR program are leading to greater agency success. Study Limitati ons This study look ed at 12 state - federal VR directors, those individuals charged with carrying out the mandates and goals of the s tate - f ederal VR program , from general or combined agencies in the continental United States. The agency directors selected f or this study lead VR agencies defined as higher - performing, based on published data from the FY 2011, 2012 and 2013 RSA federal indicators. This study sought to understand the challenges and needs of the state - ective and to determine how these directors see the future of the public VR program. There are several limitations to be noted. The study has addressed the perspective of only 12 state - federal VR directors leading agencies in the continental United States . While these 12 directors are or were in charge of the identified higher - performing agencies, it must be noted that not all of the directors interviewed were leading their agencies during the time of the three years of data used to define the sample for this study. In addition, two of the directors interviewed are no longer leading their agencies. One director has retired since the interview and one director was in an acting capacity and has since been replaced. T he perspectives of the director s interv iewed cannot be generalized as the perspective of all directors leading state - federal VR programs. The RSA Technical Assistance Circular (R SA - TAC - 15 - - stop s ystem under WIOA came 81 out on August 13, 2015 , and therefore was not available as a roadmap for agencies at the time the interviews took place. The researcher conducting the study worked for over 28 years in the state - federal VR program and was in management at a state - federal VR agency for 20 of those years. Qual itative research design allows the researcher to be highly involved in the actual experiences of the participants and develop a level of detail about an individual or place. Qualitative research, in general, is subject to personal biases and this study is no exception. Because the researcher was familiar with state - federal VR agency operations, the respondents may have felt more comfortable in sharing information they knew would be understood. Familiarity with state - federal agency operations may have ena bled the researcher to ask probes to questions that other researchers may not have asked due to researcher familiarity. On the other hand, because the researcher was known as a former state administrator, there may have been answers to questions that were not given depending on the comfort level of the director. The researcher discussed personal biases regularly with her advisor and mentor to assist with recognition of her biases. T wo Ph . D . - level educator s /researcher s were enlisted to help with independen t coding of the data collected, as well as theme development, to increase reliability and validity of the research findings. A Ph . D . - level educator/researcher audited the study throughout the process, providing feedback on the entire study. Conclusion Thi s study sought to understand the challenges and needs of the state - federal VR program VR program. McFarlane, Schroeder and Enriquez (2014) wrote that the cha llenge is to ensure continuity in our government support systems for workforce development that addresses both the 82 unique needs of the individual with a disability and the organizational systems through which public policies are carried out . The findings from this study may be able to assist stakeholders in understanding and developing resources and supports that state - federal VR directors believe are needed in order to successfully operate public VR programs into the future. The study may be useful in he lp ing administrators of state - federal VR agencies gain insights that could potentially enhance the future of the public rehabilitation program . It will be important to continue to examine How do s tate - f ederal VR directors view the future of the public re habilitation program and what resources do they believe they need to create or to enhance their success in light of the changes occurring in the field? as WIOA implementation continues. Sherman et al . found that l eaders of successful VR agenci outcome - focused business models by adopting organizational innovations and harnessing advances in information technologies to deliver outcomes that individuals, communities and . Several directors interviewed for this study believe that culture change will need to occur within their agencies to set the stage for innovati ve service delivery within the W orkforce system. Executive leadership sets the tone to create cultures that h ave the potential to transform agencies into learning organizations and that empower staff towards innovation . VR directors will need to look at how their agencies, as part of a one stop - service delivery system, can best provide evidence - based services to two sets of customers in order to increase successful outcomes, with metrics to measure results. Funding continues to be a concern facing s tate - f ederal rehabilitation agency directors. T raining grant dollars previously used for staff development will n ow be come part of an . More train ing is needed for VR staff and W orkforce partners at a time when training budgets have merged into agency general budgets and regional TACE centers 83 are no longer being funded. It will be importan t to develop resources for training and technical assistance that will allow expert advice by entities that understand the various VR agencies specific needs. VR agencies are now required to set aside 15% of their budgets for p re - employment transition ser vices (Schroeder, 2014) . Several directors discussed their concerns over WIOA services Funding may be needed for hiring additional staff, including business consultants , to work more closely with employer customers. Technology improvements will be needed by many state - federal VR agencies in order to meet the RSA vision in TAC - RSA - 15 - customers enterin g the one - stop centers Systems that collect the necessary RSA data, allow for common intake, and that can be accessed by customers in a virtual environment are improvements expected by the Rehabilitation Services Administration. Today, many state - feder al VR agencies are using a variety of case - management and IT infrastructure systems, be expensive purchases for VR agency budgets. Thought and planning will need to go into the funding and updating VR agency IT hardware and software systems. Collaboration an d partnership development were theme s throughout the VR director interviews . McFarlane et al . suggest that the leadership que stion of our time is about how s tate - f ly challenging fiscal realities of VR agencies that those agencies participate in partner s The VR directors in this study discussed the need for many collaborative partnerships with not only 84 WIOA partners, but also with school systems and vendors who provide services to VR customers. Providing VR agencies with technical as sistance i n their collaboration efforts , and the training of their partners , should be part of any plan to assist VR agencies in successfully implementing the WIOA vision and creating a sustainable future for state - federal VR programs. VR agencies w ould be well serv ed by developing an organizational culture of adhocracy that facilitate s transformational learning , creating learning organizations, particularly given the increasing complexity of service provision and the increasing demands for successful outcomes. Cult when the organizational culture facilitates buy - in, creativity, and personal involvement of profe . 40). T aviors on organizational (Sherman et al., 2014, p. 115) . Transformational leaders can change and expand the interests of their followers, and generate awareness and acceptance of the purpos e and mission of the organization. The creation of such leadership for state - federal VR agencies should enhance the ability of the organizations to develop the infrastructure necessary to develop staff, create working partnerships and improve customer out comes. Conceptual Framework w ith Findings Given the findings of this study, the original framework was modified to be more consistent with observations and comments provided by the state directors. Figure 10 represents a revise d depict ion of the initial conceptual framework which shows how funding and expectations flow through legislation to fund state - federal VR agencies, from various state, federal and private stakeholders, and those agencies expectation s of accountability fo r funding and service provision. In order to obtain funding, there are expectations for accountability that 85 flow to the state - federal VR agency , can create a learning organization that may enable staff to provide evidence - based services to agency customers , thereb y facilitating the opportunity ( i.e., successful) outcomes, which in turn can provide the accountability funders are expecting for continued financial support of the legislation , enabling VR agencies to continue to provide services to agency customers. Revisions of this framework with the findings of this study show that technology will be an influence on the organization. Culture change will affect the entire organization as collaborati on and partnerships increase and there is increased pressure to provide services as part of the one - stop services delivery system. Figure 10 . Conceptual Framework w ith Findings 86 APPENDICES 87 Appendix A. Institutional Review Boards Approval Figure 11 . Institutional Review Board Online Form 88 Figure 12 . IRB Approval Lette r Email 89 Appendix B. CSAVR Agreement to Support Study Figure 13 . CSAVR Agreement to Support Study Email 90 Appendix C. CSAVR Research Endorsement Figure 14 . CSAVR Research Endorsement 91 Appendix D. Study Participant Invitation Letter to VR Directors Figure 15 . Study Participant Invitati on Letter to VR Directors 92 Appendix E. Research Consent Form Research Consent Form You are being asked to take part in a research study on state - federal VR director perceptions of the future of the VR program and its challenges and needs. We are asking you to take par t in this study because you have been identified as a state - federal VR director in charge of a high performing agency. Please read this form carefully and email me any questions you may have before agreeing to take part in the study. What the study is ab out: The purpose of this study is to learn how state - federal VR directors from high performing agencies view the future of the public rehabilitation program and your perspective on the resources needed to create or enhance agency success in light of change s occurring in the field. You must be over 18 and a state - federal VR director of a higher performing program to participate in this study. What we will ask you to do: If you agree to be in this study, I will conduct an interview with you using Skype or Zoo m. The interview will include questions about your perceptions of the future of the VR program over the next decade and the resources needed to achieve that future. The interview will take about 1 hour. With your permission, I would also like to tape - recor d the interview. You will have the opportunity to comment on information we discuss once it is written up. Risks and benefits: I do not anticipate any risks to you participating in this study other than those encountered in day - to - day life. There are no b enefits to you. My hope is that this study will lead to further research and identification of resources to help state - federal VR agencies create or enhance their agency successes. Compensation: There will be no compensation provided for participation in this study. Your answers will be confidential. The records of this study will be kept private. In any sort of report we make public we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify you. Research records will be kept in a locked fi le or on the cloud; only the researchers and a transcriptionist will have access to the records. After we tape - record the Skype or Zoom interview, we will destroy the tape after it has been transcribed, which we anticipate will be within six months of its taping. Taking part is voluntary: Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. You may skip any questions that you do not want to answer. If you decide not to take part or to skip some of the questions, there will be no consequences. If you decide t o take part, you are free to withdraw at any time. 93 If you have questions: The researchers conducting this study are Susan Sherman and Dr. Michael Leahy. Dr. Sara Johnston, Dr. Mary Barros - Bailey and Dr. Cayte Anderson will assist Susan Sherman in reviewin g the information collected from the transcript to insure accuracy of the data. Please feel free to email Susan at sherm221@msu.edu with any qu estions you might have. This study is part of a dissertation being done at Michigan State University. The researcher, Susan Sherman, retired as an Assistant Director with over 28 years of service in the public rehabilitation program. If you have questions later, you may contact Susan at sherm221@msu.edu . You can reach Dr. Michael Leahy at leahym@msu.edu . If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a subject in this study, you may contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 517 - 355 - 2180, email them at irb@ msu.edu or access their website at http://www.humanresearch.msu.edu . You will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records. Please email Susan Sherman with your signed consent form at sherm221@msu.edu . Statement of Consent: I have read the above information, and have received answers to any questions I asked. I consent to take part in the study. By continuing with the interview, I voluntarily consent to participate in the research study and the taping of the interview. _____________________________________________________ ___________________ Participant Signature Date This consent form will be kep t by the researcher for at least three years beyond the end of the study and was approved by the IRB on May 18, 2015. 94 Appendix F. Semi - Structured Interview Guide Demographic Section Name: Title: State: Years in position: Previous position: Years with current agency: Years in public rehabilitation: Highest level of education: Degree(s): Certifications/licenses held: 1. Future of the VR Program a. Where do you see the VR program going in in the next decade and what will it be like? b. What will it take to get there? c. Are there a ny concerns? 2. Rehabilitation Legislation a. In light of the recently reauthorized Rehabilitation Act as Title IV of WIOA, how can the service delivery system be improved upon to meet the needs of people with disabilities? b. Do you see changes in the WIOA affect ing your organization? If so, please discuss the different ways you believe these changes will affect your agency. 95 3. Agency Actions a. In what ways can does or can your agency maintain the values of the rehabilitation process, while working in a larger context of collaboration and partnership as part of an integrated workforce system? b. W hat actions have you take n in striving to make your agency performance what you believe it should be? What additional resources would assist you? c. What resources (funding, partne rships, training, additional staff, etc.) do you believe your organization needs to: 1 ) maintain the level of success you are experiencing today, and 2 ) move your organizations to a higher degree of success 4. Societal Advanceme nts for People with Disabilities a. In what ways have you, or are you , positioning your agency to influence and create a better world for people with disabilities, instead of just reacting to outside forces? b. In what ways do you use your position as State Dire ctor to create a better world for people with disabilities? 5. State Director Activities a. What resources (funding, partnerships, training, education, certifications, etc.) do you feel you need for yourself to continue being successful in your position as a Sta te Director? b. What specific activities have you undertaken to position your agency to be successful in a time of diminishing resources? What types of resources or assistance do you believe would benefit you in carrying out those activities? 96 c. Since becoming a State Director, what training have you received? Who provided the training? Do you believe training as a state director should be time - limited or on - going? 6. Agency Policies a. When policy is created in your organization, is it designed to help the organizat ion conform to a law or regulation or is it designed to benefit the person receiving the services or both? Please provide some specific examples . b. How are financial policies for the authorization of consumer services developed and what factors are conside red when making such policies? c. What efforts, if any, are there to provide financial or other decision making at the local level? 7. Staffing and Training a. When selecting personnel to work in your agency, what do you believe should be the necessary attitudes, k nowledge, skills and abilities? b. Do you believe your VR counseling staff should be certified as Certified Rehabilitation Counselors? Why or why not? c. How do you support and fund training and personnel development in your organization? 97 Appendix G. Zoom Invitation Figu re 16 . Zoom Meeting Invitation 98 Appendix H. RSA - TAC - 15 - 01 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CIRCULAR RSA - TAC - 15 - 01 DATE: August 13, 2015 ADDRESSEES: STATE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AGENCIES STATE REHABILITATION COUNCILS CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS SUBJECT: Vision for the One - Stop Delivery System under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) PURPOSE: This Technical Assistance Circular (TAC) lays out the vision for the one - stop delivery system under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and links to key technical assistance resources to support States and local areas as they integrate this vi sion into their one - stop delivery system. Separate guidance is being issued by the Department of grantees who are par tners in the workforce development system. It was developed in collaboration with these agencies, as well as with the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. WIOA, which was signed into law on July 22, 2014, is d esigned to help job seekers access employment, education, training, and support services to succeed in the labor market and to match employers with the skilled workers they need to compete in the global economy. WIOA supersedes titles I and II of the Workf orce Investment Act of 1998, and amends the Wagner - Peyser Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Departments of Labor and Education published a set of proposed regulations for implementing WIOA in five Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) in the Fed eral Register on April 15, 2015, with a 60 - day public comment period. The Departments will review, analyze, and consider the thousands of comments received in response to the NPRMs. The Final rule will be published in 2016. In order to assist States in im plementing the requirements of WIOA prior to the Final rules, RSA will issue a series of operating guidance in the 99 form of TACs, such as this, which will assist the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agencies with the important planning and organizational wo rk necessary to comply with the WIOA statutory requirements. The operating guidance TACs will provide a framework for program activities until the regulations are finalized. REFERENCES: See Attachment 1. BACKGROUND: The vision for the one - stop delivery system contained in this TAC reflects the long - standing and ongoing work of dedicated workforce professionals around the country to align a wide range of publicly and privately funded education, employment, and training programs while also providing high - quality customer service to job seekers, workers, and businesses through the one - stop delivery system. The creation of one - stop centers (currently branded as American Job Centers) was a cornerstone of WIA when it passed in 1998. In the years between the passage of WIA and WIOA and longer for those communities that piloted one - stop centers under the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 the workforce system has tested a variety of approaches to maximize the benefits of one - stop centers to its direct cus tomers and their communities. In the last 10 years, technological advancements have opened up new avenues of service delivery, and the increased availability of evidence - based models has strengthened our shared understanding of the best of these approaches . In addition, the Obama Administration worked intensively with federal agencies in 2013 and 2014 to reform federal employment, education, and training programs to create a more integrated, job - driven service delivery system. A job - driven service delivery diverse talent with employers and businesses. As a result of this work, one - stop centers continue to be a valued community resource, known both locally and nationally as an important source of assistance for those looking for work or workers, and those looking for opportunities to grow their careers. WIOA recognizes the value of the one - stop delivery system, and provides the workforce system with important tools to enhance the quality of its one - stop cent ers. The law strengthens the ability of States, regions, and local areas to align investments in workforce, education, and economic development to regional in - demand jobs. It also places greater emphasis on achieving results for job seekers, workers, and b usinesses. Finally, it reinforces the partnerships and strategies necessary for one - stop centers to provide job seekers and workers with the high - quality career services, education and training, and supportive services they need to obtain good jobs and sta y employed; and to help businesses find skilled workers and access other supports, including education and training for their current 100 workforce. 101 Since the one - stop delivery system was established, technology has made lasting changes to our economy and soc iety. Mobile workers and businesses with regional and national footprints that cross municipal borders are much more common. For that reason, there is an increased customer demand for consistent, high - quality education, employment, and training services ac ross the country. The passage of WIOA supports the workforce system in meeting that demand, and the adoption of a national vision for the one - stop delivery system and its one - stop centers is an important first step in that work. VISION FOR THE ONE - STOP C ENTERS UNDER WIOA: The publicly funded workforce system envisioned by WIOA is quality - focused, employer - driven, customer - centered, and tailored to meet the needs of regional economies. It is designed to increase access to, and opportunities for, the employment, education, training, and support services that individuals need to succeed in the labor market, particularly those with barriers to employment. It aligns workforce development, education, and economic development programs with regional economic development strategies to meet the needs of local and regional employers, and provide a comprehensive, accessible, and high - quality workforce development system. This is accomplished by providing all customers access to high - quality one - stop centers that connect them with the full range of services available in their communities, whether they are looking to find jobs, build basic educational or occupational skills, earn a postsecondary certificate or degree, or obtain guidance on how to make career choices , or are businesses and employers seeking skilled workers. Under WIOA, partner programs and entities that are jointly responsible for workforce and economic development, educational, and other human resource programs collaborate to create a seamless custo mer - focused one - stop delivery system that integrates service delivery across all programs - stop delivery system includes six core programs (Title I adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs; Title I I adult education and literacy programs; Title III Wagner - Peyser program; and Title IV vocational rehabilitation program), as well as other required and optional partners identified in WIOA. 1 1 I n addition to the core programs, required partners include the Senior Community Service Employment Program; job counseling, training, and placement services for veterans authorized under chapter 41 of title 38; career and technical postsecondary education programs authorized under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006; Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs; employment and training activities carried out under the Community Services Block Grant; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De velopment (HUD) employment and training programs; Unemployment Compensation programs; programs authorized under the Second Chance Act of 2007, Section 212 (reintegration of ex - offenders); and programs authorized under the Social Security Act Title IV, 102 Thr ough the one - stop centers, these partner programs and their service providers ensure that businesses and job seekers a shared client base across the multiple programs identified above have access to information and services that lead to positive employ ment outcomes. Under WIOA, one - stop centers and their partners: provide job seekers with the skills and credentials necessary to secure and advance in employment with family - sustaining wages; provide access and opportunities to all job seekers, including individuals with barriers to employment, such as individuals with disabilities, to prepare for, obtain, retain, and advance in high - quality jobs and high - demand careers; enable businesses and employers to easily identify and hire skilled workers and access other supports, including education and training for their current workforce; participate in rigorous evaluations that support continuous improvement of one - stop centers by identifying which strategies work better for different populations; ensure that hi gh - quality integrated data inform decisions made by policymakers, employers, and job seekers. The management of the one - stop delivery system is the shared responsibility of States, local boards, elected officials, the core WIOA partners, other required pa rtners, and one - stop center operators. The Departments encourage all of these entities to integrate the characteristics below into their work, including developing state, regional, and local strategic plans; establishing one - stop center certification crite ria; examining the state, regional, and local footprint of one - stop centers; conducting competitions for selecting one - stop center operators; developing local Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs); updating other one - stop center policies and procedures; and op erating and delivering services through the one - stop centers. Part A (TANF), unless the Governor determines that TANF is not a required partner. Optional partners may include, with the approval of the local board and ch ief elected officials, the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) employment and training program (i.e. Ticket to Work programs); Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP) employment and training programs; the Vocational Rehabilitation Client Assistance Program; National and Community Service Act Programs; and other employment, education, or training programs such as those operated by libraries or in the private sector. 103 CHARACTERISTICS OF A HIGH - QUALITY ONE - STOP CENTER: The characteristics ide ntified below, consistent with the purpose and authorized scope of each of the programs, are designed to reflect elements that the Departments believe contribute to a high - quality one - stop delivery system. They demonstrate the spirit and intent of WIOA, an d the Departments believe they will strengthen the successful integration and implementation of partner programs in one - stop centers. For clarity and readability the characteristics have been grouped into three functional categories: (a) Customer Service; (b) Innovation and Service Design; and (c) Systems Integration and High - Quality Staffing. a. One - Stop Centers Provide Excellent Customer Service to Job Seekers, Workers, and Businesses . Meeting the needs of job seekers, workers, and businesses is important in developing thriving communities where all citizens succeed and businesses prosper. High - quality one - stop centers: Reflect a welcoming environment to all customer groups who are served by the one - stop centers . All one - stop center staff are courteous, polite, responsive, and helpful to job seekers, businesses, and others who visit the one - stop centers, either in person or by telephone or email . Moreover, one - stop center staff are sensitive to the unique needs of individuals with disabilities and are pre pared to provide necessary accommodations. Develop, offer, and deliver quality business services To support area employers and industry sectors most effectively, one - stop center staff identify and have a clear understanding of industry skill needs, identi fy appropriate strategies for assisting employers, and coordinate business services activities across one - stop center partner programs, as appropriate. This includes the incorporation of an integrated and aligned business services strategy among one - stop c enter partners to present a unified voice for the one - stop center in its communications with employers. Additionally, one - stop centers use the forthcoming performance measure(s) on effectiveness in serving employers to support continuous improvement of the se services. Improve the skills of job seeker and worker customers . One - stop centers offer access to education and training leading to industry - recognized credentials through the use of career pathways, 104 apprenticeships, and other strategies that enable customers, including economy. They provide businesses with access to the quantity and quality of talent they need and support upskill/backfill strategies that expand job opportunities in t he community. Create opportunities for individuals at all skill levels and levels of experience by providing customers, including those with disabilities, as much timely, labor market, job - driven information and choice as possible related to education and training, careers, and service delivery options, while offering customers the opportunity to receive both skill - development and job placement services. Provide career services that motivate, support, and empower customers , including individuals with dis abilities, to make informed decisions based on local and regional economic demand and effectively attain their personal employment and education goals. Value skill development by assessing and improving each lity skills. b. One - Stop Centers Reflect Innovative and Effective Service Design . High - quality one - stop centers: Use an integrated and expert intake process for all customers entering the one - stop centers . Frontline staff are highly familiar with the functi ons and basic eligibility requirements of each program, and can appropriately assist customers and make knowledgeable referrals to partner programs, as needed and as appropriate given the authorized scope of the program. Design and implement practices tha t actively engage industry sectors and use economic and labor market information, sector strategies, career pathways, Registered Apprenticeships, and competency models to help drive skill - based initiatives. Balance traditional labor exchange services with strategic talent development within a regional economy. This includes use of market - driven principles and labor market information that help to define a regional economy, its demographics, its workforce and its assets and gaps in skills and resources. En sure meaningful access to all customers . One - stop centers must be physically and programmatically accessible to all customers, including individuals with disabilities. In so doing, one - stop centers use principles of universal design and human - centered desi gn, such as 105 flexibility in space usage; the use of pictorial, written, verbal, and tactile modes to present information for customers with disabilities or limited English proficiency; providing clear lines of sight to information for seated or standing us ers; providing necessary accommodations; and providing adequate space for the use of assistive devices or personal assistants. One - stop centers use assistive technology and flexible business hours to meet the range of customer needs. Include both virtual and center - based service delivery for job seekers, workers, and employers. Both methods of delivery support the talent needs of the regional economy, although each may better serve different customers with different levels of service needs at any given tim e. The one - stop delivery system can expand its reach by delivering robust virtual services and increasing the accessibility of those services through community partners, such as libraries, community and faith - based organizations, and other partners. Incor porate innovative and evidence - based delivery models that improve the integration of education and training, create career pathways that lead to industry - recognized credentials, encourage work - based learning, and use state - of - the - art technology to accelera te learning and promote college and career success. c. One - Stop Centers Operate with Integrated Management Systems and High - Quality Staffing . High - quality one - stop centers: Reflect the establishment of robust partnerships among partners . The one - stop cente r operator facilitates an integrated, co - located partnership that seamlessly incorporates services of the core partners and other one - stop center partners. Organize and integrate services by function (rather than by program), authorizing statute and as appropriate, and by coordinating staff communication, capacity building, and training efforts. Functional alignment includes having one - stop center staff who perform similar tasks serve on relevant functional teams, e.g. Skills Development Team, Business Services Team. Service integration focuses on serving all customers seamlessly (including targeted populations) by providing a full range of services staffed by cross - functional teams, consistent with the purpose, scope, and requ irements of each program. Develop and maintain integrated case management systems that the integrated system and allow information collected from customers at intake to be captured once. C ustomer information is properly secured in accordance with personally identifiable information 106 guidelines, and facilitated as appropriate, with the necessary memoranda of understanding or other forms of confidentiality and data sharing agreements, consiste nt with federal and state privacy laws and regulations. Data, however, would be shared with other - stop system only after the informed written consent of the individual has been obtained, where required . Develop and implement operational policies that reflect an integrated system of performance, communication, and case management, and use technology to achieve integration and expanded service offerings. Use common performance indicators to ensure that federal investments in employment and training programs are evidence - based, labor market driven, and accountable to participants and taxpayers. Center performance is transparent and accountable to the communities and regions served; data entry staff are tr ained and understand the importance of data validation, data collection processes, and the importance of accurate reporting. Train and equip one - stop center staff in an ongoing learning process with the knowledge, skills, and motivation to provide superio r service to job seekers, including those with disabilities, and businesses in an integrated, regionally focused framework of service delivery. Center staff are cross - trained, as appropriate, to increase staff capacity, expertise, and efficiency. Cross - tra ining allows staff from differing programs to understand every program and to share their expertise about the needs of specific populations so that all staff can better serve all customers. Center staff are routinely trained and are keenly aware as to how their particular function supports and contributes to the overall vision of the local board. Staff the center with highly trained career counselors , skilled in advising job seekers of their options, knowledgeable about local labor market dynamics, aware of available services inside and outside the one - employment success. RESOURCES: Along with the resources provided at the WIOA collections page at http://wioa.workforce3one.org , the following technical assistance tools are support 107 state and local areas in the adoption of the vision for the one - stop centers under WIOA. a. Provide Ex cellent Customer Service to Job Seekers, Workers and Employers . Opening Doors for Everyone: Providing Outstanding Customer Service at One - Stop Career Centers : This toolkit is designed to provide one - stop center staff members an enhanced level of comfort w hen providing service to customers with a diverse array of backgrounds and needs. https://wioa.workforce3one.org/view/2001501480321360042/info Expanding Business Engagement : WIOA makes significant changes the sector strategies approach throughout and requiring regional planning and alignment with local labor market needs for in - demand sectors and occupations . The Expanding Business Engagement (EBE) - Technical Assistance (TA) Initiative will support the strategic planning and implementation of revitalized or enhanced business engagement activities within states, regions, and local areas. http://businessengagement.workforce3one.org b. Reflect Innovative and Effective Service Design . One - Stop Service Design : The resources section contains a variety of curated technical assistance tools, best practic es, replicable models, implementation plans, recorded webinars, videos, research documents, and data reports to support innovative and effective one - stop center service design. https://wioa.workforce3one.org/ws/wioa/pages/resources.aspx?pparam s=1001501462393639983 Legacy Disability Training: Und erstanding Disability : The purpose of this introductory course is to provide practical learning experience, toward acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to provide quality workforce development services to persons with disabilities. https://wioa.workforce3one.org/view/4011507054815454755/info c. Integrated Administrative Systems and High - Quality Staffing . Integrated Service Delivery Toolkit : This toolkit provides ideas, strat egies and resources for integrating service delivery in the public workforce system. https://wioa.workforce3one.org/view/2001508963127430705/info 108 Effective Case Management : Th is site contains resources and tools designed to help system administrators, local leaders and staff to support high - quality case management in the workforce system. https://eff ectivecasemanagement.workforce3one.org/index.aspx d. Other One - Stop Vision Technical Assistance Tools . One - Stop Career Centers Fact Sheet : Provides highlights of WIOA reforms for one - stop centers. https://wioa.workforce3one.org/view/2001507734890961606/info Quick Start Action Plan (QSAP) for One - Stop Centers : An interactive, self - paced assessment tool designed to help leaders at all levels of the public workforce system prepar e for implementation of WIOA. The QSAP helps identify areas of strength and focused areas for improvement in a state or local workforce system and connects to targeted resources that can help leaders to prepare and plan effectively. http://qsap.workforce3one.org/page/planner/OneStop/Questionnaire ACTION REQUESTED: As WIOA core programs and partners at the State and local level implement WIOA in program year 2015, the De partments encourage states to adopt this vision and build it into the policies and procedures related to the management of the one - stop delivery system. This includes developing regional, and local strategic plans; establishing certification criteria for o ne - stop centers and the one - stop delivery system; examining the State, regional, and local footprint of one - stop centers; conducting competitions for selecting one - stop center operators; developing the local MOU; and updating other one - stop center policies and procedures. SUMMARY: WIOA increases the accountability of core WIOA programs, including the VR program, to place emphasis on promoting better alignment among Federal job training programs. This vision reinforces the partnerships and strategies ne cessary for one - stop centers to provide job seekers and workers with the high - quality career services, education and training, and supportive services they need to obtain good jobs and stay employed; and to help businesses find skilled workers and access o ther supports, including education and training for their current workforce. 109 INQUIRIES: David Jones Vocational Rehabilitation Program Unit (202) 245 - 7356 david.jones@ed.gov /s/ Janet L. LaBreck Commissione r Attachment cc: Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation National Council of State Agencies for the Blind National Disability Rights Network 110 Attachment 1 - References for the One - Stop Vision WIOA (Pub. L. 113 - 128); WIA (Pub. L. 1 05 - 220), Title I; TEGL No. 3 - 14, Implementing a Job - Driven Workforce System , July 30, 2014; TEN No. 5 - 14, WIOA Announcement and Initial Informational Resources , July 22, 2014; TEN No. 6 - 14 , Information for Stakeholder Engagement for Workforce Innovation an d Opportunity Act Implementation , August 15, 2014; TEGL No. 12 - 14, Allowable Uses and Funding Limits of WIA Program Year 2014 Funds for Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Transitional Activitie s, October 28, 2014; TEGL No. 15 - 14, Implementation of th e New Uniform Guidance Regulations , December 19, 2014; TEGL No. 19 - 14, Vision for the Workforce System and Initial Implementation of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act dated February 19, 2015 http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=7353 ; and WIOA implementation dates, http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEN/WIO A - Key - Implementation - Dates_Acc.pdf Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with the Departments of Education and Labor. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; Joint Rule for Unified and Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability, and the One - Stop System Joint Provisions . Pages 20573 - 20687 [FR DOC# 2015 - 05528] (joint). Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with the Departments of Education and Labor. W orkforce Innovation and Opportunity Act . Pages 20689 - 20966 [FR DOC# 2015 - 05530] (Labor only). Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with the Departments of Education and Labor. Programs and Activities Authorized by the Adult Education and Family Literacy A ct; (Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act). Pages 20967 - 20987 [FR DOC# 2015 - 5540] (Education only). Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with the Departments of Education and Labor. State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program; Stat e Supported Employment Services Program; Limitations on Use of Subminimum Wage; Pages 21059 - 21146 [FR DOC# 2015 - 05538] (Education only). Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with the Departments of Education and Labor. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Miscellaneous Program Changes; Pages 20988 - 21058 [FR DOC# 2015 - 05535] (Education only). 111 Appendix I. 20 11 , 201 2 & 2013 RSA Federal Indicators Table 3 . 2011, 2012 & 2013 RSA Federal Indicators 2011 2012 2013 State 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Total Passed 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Total Passed 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Total Passed Alabama 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Alaska 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 American Samoa 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Arizo na 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 Arkansas 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 California 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 Colorado 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Connecticut 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Delaware 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 District of Columbia 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 Florida 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 Georgia 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 Guam 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Hawaii 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 Idaho 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Illinois 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 Indiana 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 Iowa 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Kansas 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 Kentucky 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Louisiana 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 Maine 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 112 Table 3 2011 2012 2013 State 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Total Passed 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Total Passed 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Total Passed Maryland 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Massachusetts 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 Michigan 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 Minnesota 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Mississippi 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Missouri 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 Montana 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 Nebraska 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Nevada 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 New Hampshire 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 New Jersey 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 New Mexico 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 New York 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 North Carolina 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 North Dakota 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 Northern Marianas 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Ohio 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 Oklahoma 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Oregon 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Pennsylvania 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 Rhode Island 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 South Carolina 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 South Dakota 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Tennessee 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 Texas 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 113 Table 3 2011 2012 2013 State 1 .1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Total Passed 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Total Passed 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Total Passed Utah 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Vermont 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Virgin Islands 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 Virginia 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 Washington 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 West Virginia 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Wisconsin 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Wyoming 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 114 REFERENCES 115 REFERENCES Anderson, C. A., Leahy, M. J., Del Valle, R., Sherman, S., & Tansey, T. N. (2014). Methodological application of multiple case study design using modified consensual qualitative research (CQR) analysis to identify best practices and organizational factors in the public rehabilitation program. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 41 (2), 87 - 98. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JVR - 140709 Atkinson, D. E. (1997, November). Rehabilitation managemen t and leadership competencies. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration , 41 (4), 249 - 261. Atkinson, D. E., & Bitter, J. A. (1997, November). A curriculum model for the development of rehabilitation managers and leaders. The Journal of Rehabilitation Admini stration , 21 (4), 285 - 291. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics , 13 (3), 26 - 40. Bezyak, J. L., Ososkie, J. N., Trice, A. L., & Yeager, P. (2010, winter). The importance of counseling supervision in the professional de velopment of public rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling , 41 (4), 30 - 35. Bitter, J. A., & Gay, D. A. (Eds.). (1997). Special issue on rehabilitation leadership development [Special issue]. Journal of Rehabilitation Admini stration , 21 (4). Brown, A. (1992). Organizational culture: The key to effective leadership and organizational development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 13 (13, 2), 3 - 6. Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizatio nal culture based on the competing values framework . Boston, MA: Addison - Wesley. Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework . San Francisco, CA: Jossey - Bass. Chi, H., Lan, C. , & Dorjgotov, B. (2012). The moderating effect of transformational leadership on knowledge management and organizational effectiveness. Social Behavior and Personality, 40 (6), 1015 - 1024. Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation. (2013 ). Investing in America [Press release]. Rockville, Maryland: CSAVR. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks , CA : S AGE Publications, Inc. 116 Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research De sign Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks , CA : S AGE Publications, Inc. Daniels, R. P. (1997, November). Rehabilitation leadership in the information age. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration , 21 (4), 243 - 247. De Long, D., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive , 14 (4), 113 - 127. Del Valle, R., Leahy, M. J., Sherman, S., Anderson, C. A., Tansey, T., & Schoen, B. (2014). Promising best practices that lead to employment in vocational rehabilitation: Findings from a four - state multiple case study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 41 (2), 99 - 113. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JVR - 140708 Dennison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science , 6( 5 ), 524 - 540. Dorrer, J. (2001, July). Workforce development program consolidation and service integration. Switzer Seminar Series - Emerging Workfor ce Issues: W.I.A., Ticket to Work, and Partnerships , 17 - 29. Ford, L. H. (1997, November). Measuring rehabilitation management and leadership competencies. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration , 21 (4), 263 - 272. Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., Mitchelson, J. K., Randall, K. R., & Clark, M. A. (2009). Leadership and organizational culture: Linking CEO characteristics to cultural values. Business Psychology , 24 , 123 - 137. Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers, an introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Golden, T. P., Bruyere, S. M., Karpur, A., Nazarov, Z., & VanLooy, S. (2012). Workforce development policy: Unrealized potential for Americans with disabilities. Rehabilitation Education , 26 (1), 55 - 18. Harki n, T. (2012, July). Unfinished business: Making employment of people with disabilities a national priority . Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office. Henry, G. T. (1990). Practical sampling . Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Herbert, J. T. (2 004). Analysis of clinical supervision practices as documented in rehabilitation counseling syllabi and fieldwork manuals. Rehabilitation Education , 18 (1), 13 - 33. 117 Herbert, J. T., & Trusty, J. (2006, winter). Clinical supervision practices and satisfaction within the public vocational rehabilitation program. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin , 49 (2), 66 - 80. Hooijberg, R. (1996). A multidirectional approach towards leadership: An extension of the concept of behavioral complexity. Human Relations , 49 (7), 91 7 - 947. Institute on Rehabilitation Issues. (2005). Leading and managing change in public vocational rehabilitation (31st ed.). Hot Springs, A R : University of Arkansas Currents. Latta, J. (1981, May). Toward a more effective management philosophy. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration , 5 (2), 51 - 57. Leahy, M. J., Chan, F., & Lui, J. (2014). Evidence - based best practices in the public vocational rehabilitation program that lead to employment outcomes. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 41 (2), 83 - 86. h ttp://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JVR - 140704 Leahy, M. J., Chan, F., Lui, J., Rosenthal, D., Tansey, T., Wehman, P., ... Menz, F. E. (2014). An analysis of evidence - based practices in the public vocational rehabilitation: Gaps, future directions, and recommended s teps to move forward. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 41 ( 2 ), 147 - 163. Leahy, M. J., Muenzen, P., Saunders, J. L., & Strauser, D. (2009). Essential knowledge domains underlying effective rehabilitation counseling practice. Rehabilitation Counseling B ulletin , 52 (2), 95 - 106. Leahy, M. J., Thielsen, V. A., Millington, M. J., Austin, B., & Fleming, A. (2009). Quality assurance and program evaluation: Terms, models and applications in rehabilitation administration. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration , 33 (2), 69 - 82. Lincoln, S. (2010). From the individual to the world: How the competing values framework can help organizations improve global strategic performance. Emerging Leadership Journeys , 4 (1), 3 - 9. Lui, J., Anderson, C. A., Matthews, P., Nierenh ausen, E., & Schlegelmilch, A. (2014). Knowledge t ranslation strategies to improve the resources for rehabilitation counselors to employ best practices in the delivery of vocational rehabilitation services. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 41 (2), 137 - 145. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JVR - 140706 McFarlane, F. R., Schroeder, F. K., & Enriquez, M. (2014). How should we shape future public policies and services with people with disabilities? San Diego, CA: Interwork Institute. McFarlane, F. R., Schroeder, F . K., Enriquez, M., & Dew, D. (2011). Journal of Rehabilitation , 77 (4), 4 - 12. 118 McMahon, B. T., & Chan, F. (2011). Current and future challenges in vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 35 , 189 - 191. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning t o think like an adult: Core concepts of transformational learning. Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco , CA : Jossey - Bass. Millington, M. J., & Schultz, J. C. (2009). The challenge of organizational cultu re in quality assurance implementation. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration , 33 (2), 121 - 129. program, Is there a future? Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin , 52 (2), 124 - 128. Packard, T. (2009). Leadership and performance in human services organizations. In R. J. Patti (Ed.), The handbook of human services management (pp. 143 - 164). Thousand Oaks, CA: S AGE Publications, Inc . Patterson, J. B., Bruyere, S., Szyma nski, E. M., & Jenkins, W. (Eds.). (2005). Philosophical, historical, and legislative aspects of the rehabilitation counseling profession. Rehabilitation Counseling: Basics and Beyond . Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: S AGE Publications , Inc . Pruett, S. R., Swett, E. A., Chan, F., & Lee, D. K. (2008, April - June). Empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation , 74 , 56 - 63. Quinn, R. E. (19 84). Applying the competing values approach to leadership: Towards an integrative framework. In J. G. Hunt, D. M. Hosking, C. A. S chriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.). Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership (pp. 1 0 - 27). New York , NY : Pergamon Press . Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science , 29 (3), 363 - 377. Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics. (2013). 2013 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium . West Orange, NJ: National Institute on Disability and Related Research. Rehabilitation Services Administration. (1990, Summer). The Americans with dis abilities act of 1990. American Rehabilitation , 2 - 9. 119 Rijal, S. (2010). Leadership style and organizational culture in learning organization: A comparative study. International Journal of Management and Information Systems , 14 (14, 5), 119 - 127. Rubin, S. E ., & Roessler, R. T. (2008). Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation process (6th ed.). Austin, T X : Pro - ed. Rusalem, H., & Malikin, D. (1976). Contemporary vocational rehabilitation . New York , NY : New York University Press. Saleh, M. A. (1991, Novem ber). Changes and challenges: The quest for leadership in rehabilitation for the 21st century. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration , 211 - 213. Sanz - Valle, R., Naranjo - Valencia, J. C., Jimenez - Jimenez, D., & Perez - Caballero, L. (2011). Linking organizat ional learning with technical innovation and organizational culture. Journal of Knowledge Management , 15 (6), 997 - 1015. Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review , 3 - 16. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organiz ational culture and leadership . San Francisco, CA: Jossey - Bass. Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning . Organizational Dynamics , 22 , 40 - 51. Schein, E. H. (1997). Organizational culture and leadership. Retrieved from http: //www.tnellen.com/ted/tc/schein.html Schraeder, M., Tears, R. S., & Jordan, M. H. (2005). Organizational culture in public sector organizations. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal , 26 (5/6), 492 - 502. Schroeder, F. (2014, September 4). WIOA - section by section [on line]. Retrieved from NCSAB.org Schroeder, F. (2014). WIOA analysis [Electronic mailing list message]. Retrieved from NCSAB.org Schultz, J. C. (2007). Addressing national concerns through supervision: The role of the rehabilitation agency supervisor. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling , 38 (4), 11 - 18. Schultz, J. C. (2008, spring). The tripartite model of supervision for rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling , 39 (1), 36 - 41. Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization . New York , NY : Currency Doubleday. 120 Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook . New York, N Y : Doubleday. Sessa, V. I., & London, M. (2006). Continuous learning: Individual, group, and organizational perspectives . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shahzad, F., Luqman, R. A., Khan, A. R., & Shabbir, L. (2012). Impact of organizational culture on organizational perfo rmance: An overview. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business , 3 (9), 975 - 985. Shaw, K. J. (1997, November). Future directions for rehabilitation leadership. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration , 21 (4), 293 - 298. Shaw, L. R., Leah y, M. J., Chan, F., & Catalano, D. (2006). Contemporary issues facing rehabilitation counseling: A Delphi study of the perspectives of l eaders of the discipline. Rehabilitation Education , 20 , 163 - 178. Sherman, S. G., Leahy, M. J., Del Valle, R., Anderson, C. A., Tansey, T. N., & Lui, K. (2014). Organizational and cultural factors that promote creative best practices in the public rehabilitation program: Findings from a four - state multiple case study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 41 (2), 115 - 125. ht tp://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JVR - 140710 Simon, S. E. (1991, November). Training rehabilitation administrators. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration , 209 - 210. Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus se rvant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal , 25 (3/4), 349 - 361. Tansey, T. N., Bezyak, J., Chan, F., Leahy, M. J., & Lui, J. (2014). Social - cognitive predictors of readiness to use evidence - based practice: A survey of st ate vocational rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 41 (2), 127 - 136. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JVR - 140705 Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). Mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE Publications, Inc. Technical Assistance Circular RSA - TAC - 15 - 01 , U . S . Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Rehabilitation Services Administration . ( 2015). Tuft, K. A. (2012). A research study of transfor mational leadership comparing leadership styles of the principal (Doctoral dissertation). http://www.duq.edu/documents/education/_pdf/DEFL/dissertation/20120309 - luft.pdf 121 Warrick, D. D. (2011). The u rgent need for skilled transformational leaders: Integrat ing transformational leadership and organization development. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics , 8 (5), 11 - 26. Workforce Innovation & Opportunity Act, H.R. Res. 803, 113 - 2 Cong., U . S . Government Printing Office 1 (2014) (enacted). Wright, G . N. (1980). Total Rehabilitation . Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. Yang, F., Wu, M., Chang, C., & Chien, Y. (2011). Elucidating the relationships among transformational leadership, job satisfaction, commitment foci and commitment bases in the publi c sector. Public Personnel Management , 40 (3), 265 - 277. http://dx.doi.org/ Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research Design and Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE Publications, Inc.