Acceptance rates of African-American versus white consumers of vocational rehabilitation services: a meta-analysis

Journal of Rehabilitation, July-Sept, 2005 by David A. Rosenthal, James Micheal Ferrin, Keith Wilson, Michael Frain

A recent study conducted by Allen, Parnell, Crawford, and Beardall (2000) demonstrated the importance of geographic region and service location when examining equitable treatment in the rehabilitation process. The authors asserted "Although significant differences between Whites and African Americans in terms of expenditure and cases closed as rehabilitation were found on a state-wide basis, statistically significant differences did not exist in all districts" (p. 16). Future research might investigate RSA by regions to determine which ones are most likely to reveal discrepancies in VR acceptance (Wilson, 2002).

Lastly, this study was limited to African Americans and Whites, excluding the experiences of individuals within important groups such as Native Americans/Alaskan Natives, and Asians/Pacific Islanders who sought VR services in the United States. Continued investigation of the experiences of all minority consumers requires further examination.

Conclusion

Causation cannot be discerned within the data accumulated regarding VR acceptance and race. However, one can safely determine that race and VR acceptance are not independent phenomenon, and that it appears, over the time period spanning between 1984 and 1998 there was a discernable and robust pattern of acceptance with Whites more likely to be accepted for services than African Americans. Within the 1992 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act it was stated that:

   Patterns of inequitable treatment of minorities have been
   documented in all major junctures of the vocational
   rehabilitation process. As compared to Whites, a larger
   percentage of African American applicants to the
   vocational rehabilitation system is denied acceptance. Of
   applicants for service, a larger percentage of African-American
   cases are closed without being rehabilitated.
   Minorities are provided less training than their White
   counterparts. Consistently, less money is spent on
   minorities than their White counterparts (p. 4364).

The assertions within the Rehabilitation Act Amendments (1992) were based on archival research studies of state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agency data suggesting the existence of inequitable patterns of VR service delivery for African American consumers. Given the results of this meta-analysis, it appears these concerns remain as important today as when written.

References

Allen, T. B., Parnell, L., Crawford, R., & Beardall, R. L. (2000). Equitable treatment in the rehabilitation process: Implication for future investigations related to ethnicity. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66(2), 14-18.

Atkins, B. J., & Wright, G. N. (1980). Three views vocational rehabilitation of African Americans the statement. Journal of Rehabilitation, 46(2), 40, 42-46.

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

Boski, P. (1988). Cross-cultural studies of person-perception. Effects of ingroup/outgroup membership and ethnic schemata. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 287-328.