Accountability in Vocational Rehabilitation: Difficulties with the “26 Closure” as a Criterion

The authors draw on their experience in vocational rehabilitation and as continuing educators to look at the task of accountability in vocational rehabilitation. The “26 closure” is recognized as a usual criterion in State V. R. agencies. While not suggesting that the “26 closure” is a completely ineffective criterion, the authors see it as a problem and look at the various aspects and implications of the problem for counselors. The problem is also analyzed from the standpoint of those who must deal with it, namely administrators, supervisors, and educators. Many, often unwittingly, contribute to the problem because of legislative pressures, trends to measure and demon state effectiveness, and differing philosophical points of view. The authors conclude by offering some ameliorative approaches that include employing better-chosen terms; more open communication that explains agency, counselor, and client needs; in-service and continuing education to foster better understanding and improving practice skills; and the development of a multiple-measure system that would reflect a counselor's quantitative performance by counting the number of clients found eligible or ineligible, the number started in rehabilitation service programs, the number rehabilitated, and the number served but not rehabilitated. The multiple criteria for effective counseling would measure the client's movement through the case process rather than merely reflect the completion of the process as a rehabilitated client.