Title Page

Quantitative Intersectionality: Imperatives and Opportunities for Advancing

Social Equity

Authors
Dr. Geoffrey Whitebread, Gallaudet University

Dr. Stephanie Dolamore, Gallaudet University

Dr. Brendan Stern, Gallaudet University

Dr. Geoffrey Whitebread - is an assistant professor of public administration and MPA program
director at Gallaudet University. His research explores intersectionality, social equity,
and inclusion in the public sector. He has a multi-disciplinary interest in matters directly
affecting the Deaf community, including pedagogy and communication.
Email: geoffrey.whitebread@gallaudet.edu

Dr. Stephanie Dolamore is an assistant professor of public administration at Gallaudet

University. She teaches in American Sign Language and English for the bilingual Master of
Public Administration program for D/deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing students. Her research
explores the intersection of social justice and organizational culture in the public sector with a
dedicated research stream focused on establishing empathy as a fundamental value for achieving
social equity in public administration.
Email: stephanie.dolamore@gallaudet.edu

Dr. Brendan Stern - is an assistant professor of government at Gallaudet University. He currently

serves as the executive director of the Center for Democracy in Deaf America.
Email: brendan.stern@gallaudet.edu

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been
through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to
differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi:
10.1111/puar.13555

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Quantitative Intersectionality: Imperatives and Opportunities for Advancing
Social Equity

Keywords

Social Equity, Intersectionality, Vocation Rehabilitation

Evidence for Practice

1. Quantitative intersectionality is a tool that offers a more complete picture of the impact

and limitations of program activities,

2. Decreasing persistent social inequities requires utilizing principles of quantitative

intersectionality to reflect the complexity of identities and oppression in public

administration.

3. Some practitioners may be concerned about privacy when performing intersectional

analysis, but there are a variety of methods that can be used while also protecting

individual privacy.

4. Quantitative intersectionality does not require a unique set of technical skills but rather a

commitment to implementation.

Abstract

Social equity is a pillar of public administration, yet its actualization remains elusive. The path

forward to closing persistent social equity gaps requires the utilization of quantitative

intersectionality in public administration. This article explores the literature related to

quantitative intersectionality and the imperative for use in the scholarship and practices of public

administration. To exemplify this concept in practice, we present a case study examining

Vocational Rehabilitation performance data reports. Findings illustrate how quantitative

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

intersectionality provides an opportunity to unpack overlapping identities for people with

disabilities whose individual characteristics include historically oppressed race/ethnicity and

gender identities. Findings assert the imperative for using quantitative intersectionality to achieve

social equity for all.

Introduction

Across the field of public administration (PA), social equity is solidifying a consistent

presence in research, teaching, policy, and programming of the public sector (Blessett et al.

2019; Gooden 2015; Guy and McCandless 2012; McCandless and Larson 2018). Social equity

involves fairness and equal treatment in service provision, outcomes, and allocation of resources,

as well as thoughtful action for the redistribution of resources to adjust for historical oppression

(Norman-Major, 2011). Though the conceptual presence of social equity is far from a perfect

measure of acceptance or praxis, it does signal that social equity, as an administrative value,

holds critical importance for our discipline. This should not surprise, given how Gooden

describes social equity as the theoretical and practical recognition of “the historical, political,

social, and economic influences that structurally influence prospects for access, opportunity, and

outcomes.” (2017, 373). Similarly, Guy and McCandless (2020) describe social equity as a moral

imperative that demands fairness in public services in regard to “access, process, quality, and

outcomes” (p. 1). What, then, are the aspects of public administration beyond the reach of social

equity? The answer: There are hardly any domains where social equity is not conceptually,

empirically, or practically relevant.

Public administration scholarship has traditionally focused on race/ethnicity, gender, or

socioeconomic class as distinct categories for analysis (see Hamidullah and Riccucci 2017 and

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Smith et al. 2020). Relying on distinct categories, as opposed to exploring how race/ethnicity

AND gender or race/ethnicity AND class, results in analyses that fail to recognize the “unique

experiences and opportunities” of people with intersecting identities that necessitates the

application of quantitative intersectionality (Browne and Misra 2003, 488). We agree with

Bearfield (2009) and other PA scholars (Blessett et al. 2019; Breslin, Pandey, and Riccucci 2017;

Gooden 2015; 2017) that cultivating awareness for the importance of intersecting identities is

imperative to promoting more inclusive and equitable scholarship, policy, and practice grounded

in the reality of people’s identities.

One way in which scholars and practitioners can actualize the goals of social equity is by

utilizing quantitative intersectionality. Conceptually, intersectionality leverages the complexity

of society to document inequalities within and between different social groups (McCall 2005;

Nash 2008). Else-Quest and Hyde (2016) define intersectionality as “the theoretical or analytical

approach that simultaneously considers multiple categories of identity, difference, and inequality

(such as gender, race, class, sexual orientation, disability, and religion)” (155). Given the number

of potential identity combinations, intersectionality conceptually requires scholars and

practitioners to recognize where systems of privilege and oppression converge to identify the

pertinent combination of identities (MacKinnon 2013). In practice, quantitative intersectionality

is a method of examining intersectional relationships using quantitative methods where identities

or characteristics are represented by numerical values or other quantitative data (Bowleg 2008;

Cole 2009; Else-Quest & Hyde 2016) to determine the impact of services, experiences, or

outcomes.

Quantitative intersectionality is a tool that can be used by public administrators to support

their knowledge and competency in managing diversity. This is needed for the field as noted by

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Sabharwal, et al. (2014) who explain that “understanding diversity and learning how to manage

its complexity are perhaps among the most important challenges” facing public administration

(p. 206). Similarly, in their introduction to the PAR Symposium on “The Future of Public

Administration in 2020”, O’Leary and Van Syke (2010) call out the need to dissolve “traditional

barrier,” including those in the scholarship and practice of diversity, in order to embrace “tension

and complexity” and transcend “old barriers” (p.57). Therefore, a useful way to promote more

inclusive scholarship and practice is to ensure data collection and analyses recognize the impact

of multiple identities and characteristics in addition to race and gender. Using quantitative

intersectionality (Hancock 2007; Else-Quest and Hyde 2016), this paper argues that there are

many possible identities and characteristics available for use in public sector research and praxis.

Through a case study of public performance reports for State Vocational Rehabilitation Centers,

we highlight how even for agencies with substantial datasets that include multiple identity

categories (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender, and disability), quantitative intersectionality is not being

implemented in analysis.

Our work is guided by three research questions:

1. Do current data and assessment practices in State Vocational Rehabilitation Centers

account for the impact of multiple, interlocking identities?

2. Using evidence from annual reports, what are the key analytical challenges Public

Administration scholars and practitioners face when conducting quantitative

intersectional work?

3. In light of the challenges above, what strategies can Public Administration scholars and

practitioners use to manage the data challenges associated with quantitative

intersectionality in publicly reported data to advance social equity?

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 This paper begins with an overview of quantitative intersectionality and explores the

opportunities available for use in public administration. Then, we present a case study on the use

of intersectional data in the annual report on program outcomes for state Vocational

Rehabilitation centers. The case study highlights both the opportunities and challenges for using

intersectional data analysis in public organizations. Finally, we close with recommendations for

future use of quantitative intersectionality in public administration.

Review of the Literature on Quantitative Intersectionality

Quantitative intersectionality is an analytical tool that can be used to understand the

impact and limitations of program activities on different groups served by public agencies.

Quantitative intersectionality highlights inequities not previously identified in analyses of race,

gender, or disability alone, including inequities in the justice system, policy preferences, and

political participation (Bedolla and Scola 2006; Berg 2010; Best 2011). The foundation of

quantitative intersectionality rests on three key attributes modifying how scholars and

practitioners treat identities in their analyses. The three key attributes are: systems of

privilege/oppression affect outcomes, identities/characteristics are fluid and dynamic, and

identities/characteristics1 are interconnected. These are explored below.

The first key attribute, that systems of privilege/oppression affect outcomes, is grounded

in the notion that privilege and oppression are connected to systems of power (Else-Quest and

Hyde 2016). The systems of privilege and oppression can be viewed as a system in three

dimensions, with the axes of the system representing three distinct characteristics (e.g., race,

gender, and disability). An individual is placed in locations along each axis, indicating the

privilege or oppression associated with that characteristic. The approximate sum of a person’s

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

experience with privilege/oppression is then represented by a single point within the three-

dimensional cube. The position on the matrix is a visual representation of how different groups

experience oppression differently (McGinley & Cooper 2013, Collins 2008).

The different placement on that visual matrix also illustrates that each groups’ challenges

may require some targeted efforts to increase social equity. This matrix allows a person to

express multiple salient characteristics simultaneously. Some characteristics may experience

privilege and some may experience oppression (Collins 2008). Within that matrix, individuals

with identities that are white, male, heterosexual, able-bodied have combined privileged

placement. Whereas individuals with identities as people of color, women, LGBT+, and disabled

persons have combined disadvantaged placement on the matrix. A white male with a disability

has two advantaged characteristics and one disadvantaged characteristic, resulting in a unique

placement. A Black woman with a disability has three disadvantaged characteristics, also

resulting in another unique placement on the matrix. These characteristics, in turn, affect how

individuals connect with formal and informal organizations in society as well as the resources

and opportunities available to them (see Collins 2008). Given their unique placement on the

matrix, each of these groups experiences oppression in distinct ways.

The second attribute is that characteristics are fluid and dynamic (Else-Quest and Hyde

2016; MacKinnon 2013). This is different from approaches that treat characteristics as static

across time or context. In the intersectional framework, salient characteristics are context-driven.

Different agencies, different localities, and different populations provide a context in which

individuals may express prominent characteristics. For example, intersectional analysis involving

Vocational Rehabilitation, Social Security Disability Insurance, or special education will likely

include disability in their analyses because these programs are targeted to individuals with

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

disabilities2. On the other hand, more general programs such as Social Security, Unemployment

Insurance, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program serve large populations from

different backgrounds—including those with disabilities. Intersectional analysis in these more

general programs is likely dependent on a variety of factors regardless if these programs also

serve people with disabilities. The impact of strategic objectives or potential gaps in services

highlighted by employees or stakeholders plays a role in the context-driven analysis and

corresponding attention to characteristics.

The third attribute is that characteristics are interlocking, mutually reinforcing, and

operate simultaneously (Hancock 2007; Nash 2008). Interlocking identities are intertwined to

each other in such a way that the identities influence each other to create a unique perspective

fundamentally distinct from both identities individually. For example, we cannot predict or

describe the relationship between race/ethnicity and gender: the individual characteristics of

race/ethnicity and gender cannot be disaggregated from this new whole. Current approaches to

data collection often treat race and gender as separate and unrelated. Black women are counted

separately as “Black” and “women.” But the unique experience of being a “Black woman” is not

captured. Referring back to this intersectional matrix, Black women’s placement on the

intersectional matrix is distinct from Black men and white women. By treating race and gender

as separate variables, scholars and practitioners fail to differentiate the experience of being a

Black woman from being a Black man or white woman.

The third attribute challenges scholars and practitioners on how to best use quantitative

data. The tendency to consider identities and characteristics as separate analytic categories is

strong (Breslin, Pandey, and Riccucci 2017), yet we argue that revisiting this tendency is

necessary to accurately report on the progress toward social equity necessary for today’s public

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

administrators (see Guy, 2019). In our view, capturing the unique experience of those with

multiple salient characteristics in intersectional coding is best done by treating each combination

of characteristics (such as Black women) as a single dichotomous variable, instead of attempting

to use interactive terms, hierarchical data, or other attempts to capture the relationship between

race and gender (Whitebread, 2022). These methods impose an artificial mathematical

relationship between the characteristics that may not be accurate (Best et al. 2011).

Based upon this discussion, we see the opportunity to refine analytical practices in public

administration to include these interlocking characteristics. We assert that doing this will lead to

a better distribution of services and resources and will advance the goals of social equity. The

first attribute of systems of privilege and oppression reinforces the administrative value of social

equity because it highlights how administrative systems include systems of privilege and

oppression. We assert that quantitative intersectionality, therefore, presents an opportunity to

understand these systems through the analysis of program data. The second and third attributes

mean that we need to reconsider traditional analytical tools. Traditional mechanisms of analysis

are not sufficient to capture the complexity inherent in individuals with multiple salient

characteristics. If the data used for analysis is poorly conceived, then the conclusions derived

from that data will be suspect. We assert that quantitative intersectionality provides a useful

analytical tool for scholars and practitioners to examine program data that achieves the fullest

picture of the impact of services and program outcomes.

Case Study on Quantitative Intersectionality in Data Reporting at State Vocational

Rehabilitation Centers

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 In searching for how to show quantitative intersectionality in public administration, we

went looking for publicly available data that reflects multiple interlocking identities. Our search

led us to State Vocational Rehabilitation Centers, the state agencies that implement employment

support services for people with disabilities with funds from the federal Rehabilitation Services

Administration. In the context of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR), the intersection of disability,

race, and gender has important implications for employment opportunities and income equality

(Balcazar et al. 2009; Randolph 2004; Sevak et al. 2015; Shaw et al., 2012; Smith & Strauser

2008; Stuart 1992) making this selection relevant and appropriate for our analysis. In addition,

State Vocational Rehabilitation Centers provide publicly available annual performance reports,

although states have substantial discretion about what data to include in the reports.

We maintain that relying only on analyses of single characteristics (for clarity, we utilize

the previous conceptualization of a three-dimensional matrix and refer to this unitary form of

analysis as “single-dimension analysis”) will impair inclusive and equitable delivery of services.

Instead, we recommend developing a process for using intentional intersectional analysis, or for

looking at the combined effect of two or more characteristics (again, for clarity, we refer to the

process of examining two or more characteristics as “multi-dimensional analyses”), to uncover

areas for improvement overlooked in current data structures. In the Vocational Rehabilitation

context, descriptive information about the clients, services, and outcomes are important metrics

about providing equal access across social groups. The annual reports published by the State

Vocational Rehabilitation Centers already include these data. In this case study then, we seek to

understand the current practices and then provide a roadmap for more granular analyses of these

data. This would allow Public Administration scholars and practitioners to be able to answer

questions of interest to different VR stakeholders. For instance: how do the weekly wages of

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Black women with disabilities compare to Black men, white women, and white men of that same

disability? Are programs designed to help rehabilitate people with disabilities perpetuating race

and gender-based income inequality?

Practitioners face the need to demonstrate the effectiveness of services at a time when

social movements are demanding better progress and reporting of social equity and public

organizations are facing increasing limitations on resources and scrutiny of their delivery. These

two developments together accentuate the need for publicly available data that is better suited for

intersectional analysis. In this case study, we look to find the attributes of quantitative

intersectionality in State Vocational Rehabilitation Centers data reports, including recognizing

the privileged and disadvantaged nature of different characteristics, the importance of context,

and the interconnectedness of multiple salient characteristics. First, we will analyze states’

annual reports to document current practices with reporting equity data. After reporting the case

studies, we will discuss the different options available in producing reports that accurately report

social equity data for today’s climate while also contending with the challenges present in

quantitative intersectional work.

Background of Vocational Rehabilitation in the United States

The history of Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) varies in different countries, but we

present this overview from the United States relying on the work of Elliot and Leung (2005).

Following the First World War, the United States Government signed the Soldier’s

Rehabilitation Act in 1918 to provide VR services to returning veterans. Two years later, the

Civilian Vocational Rehabilitation Act, or the Smith Fess Act, expanded VR services to the

broader population in 1920. These services were permanently codified when the Social Security

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Act of 1930 passed and signed into law. In 2014, the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act

(WIOA) expanded VR services to provide support for employment in high-quality jobs for

people with disabilities.

Vocational Rehabilitation services are for an individual who “has a physical or mental

impairment which constitutes or results in a substantial impediment to employment for the

individual; and requires VR services to prepare for, secure, retain, advance in, or regain

employment” (“RSA: Frequently Asked Questions About RSA” 2017). State agencies provide

VR services funded by grants from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) under the

US Department of Education (“About RSA” 2017). In terms of scope, the RSA reported serving

more than 1 million individuals in FY 2016, the most recent year for which program data are

publicly available, through their programs in the states and territories of the United States (Office

of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 2019).

In keeping with budgetary trends of other social safety net programs, the federal

appropriations for VR services have grown exponentially since its inception. In 1930, when the

Social Security Act codified VR services, the appropriations for VR services were $2 million. In

2019, the federal appropriations were $3.6 billion, with the vast majority ($3.3 billion) going to

56 different states and territories in the United States. These grants “provide individuals with

disabilities, particularly individuals with the most significant disabilities, the services they need

to obtain competitive integrated employment” (“Rehabilitation Services Fiscal Year 2020 Budget

Request” 2020, 10). The allocation of state grants uses a formula to account for the state’s

population and median income. The remaining portion of the VR budget, $300 million, smaller

state grants for client assistance and supported employment, training, protections, and advocacy

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

of individual rights, independent living services for older blind individuals, and the Helen Keller

National Center.

Case Study Methods & Data.

For the case study, we examined how State Vocational Rehabilitation Centers use data in

their annual reports from 2018 – 2019 available to the public via state websites. The annual

reports published by State Vocational Rehabilitation Centers are useful for two reasons. First,

annual reports highlight publicly available data that state agencies have at their disposal. These

reports serve as the public’s window into their operations, but also provide the public and

stakeholders with important information about demographics and client outcomes. Second, these

reports are widely shared among agency employees, stakeholders, and legislators. As a widely

shared document, these reports can serve as an impetus for conversations about not only agency

accomplishments and challenges from the preceding year, but also goals in the coming year.

There were 41 annual reports published by state VR agencies in 2018 – 20193. Within

these reports, some are narrative-driven (n=6), while others rely on quantitative information

(n=35). There were nine states with no reports. These reports were available to the public via the

states’ Vocational Rehabilitation Center web pages. We categorized the data reported by states.

We identified the demographic information included in the reports such as race/ethnicity, gender,

disability type, age, and intersection. “Intersection” for demographic data is the combination of

two of these, for example, age and disability type. We also identified outcomes data, including

wage, hours, successful employment, occupation, and intersection.

We conducted a holistic case study as described by Yin (2015). In technical terms, the

holistic element is data utilization in Vocational Rehabilitation, and the subunits are the

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

individual State Vocational Rehabilitation Centers states. Our presentation of the findings

includes two subunits that are embedded in the overall case study. We present two illustrative

examples of the subunits because, as noted by Creswell and Poth, “researchers need to be

cognizant of the amount of description in their case study versus the amount of analysis and

interpretation” (2016, 248). Vignettes (Merriam, 1988) and comparative cases (Yin, 2015),

called illustrative examples in this article, are well suited for case studies because they afford the

reader a conceptual tool to understand and compare qualitative examples. Given the context of

this case study and the type of data we have analyzed, the illustrative examples included here

offer a comparison of the types of reporting evident in the annual reports.

We established selection criteria for two illustrative examples of the subunits to provide

greater examination for our case study. The illustrative examples needed to have reports with

sections that described the clients served, services delivered, and outcomes in a comparable

format. Illustrative examples also needed to report characteristic data such as race, ethnicity, and

gender in some way. From this, we selected the two states that best fit these criteria. Both Texas

and Missouri publish relatively in-depth annual reports that describe the demographics of their

respective clients, such as race/ethnicity, disability type, gender, and age. Both states also

describe the services they provide to clients, but they also have different ways of reporting

outcomes data. In addition to these desired characteristics, the reports for Texas and Missouri are

both publicly accessible via the internet. These two reports share similarities but still have

differences that are illustrative for understanding current data reporting practices as well as

envisioning what future data collection might look like going forward.

As with all research, this work has limitations that are important to address. Recall that

data utilized for the holistic case study provides insight into how the subunit State Vocational

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Rehabilitation Centers publicly report their performance data collectively. As such, our analysis

is limited to publicly available vocational rehabilitation annual reports. This study did not

examine internal (non-public) data for the application of quantitative intersectionality, which

may show that agencies engage in these activities internally. This study also did not survey

public data reporting methods at other public organizations in those states, which might also

reveal a commitment to quantitative intersectionality. These limitations provide opportunities for

future study.

As we proceed through our case study of the states’ annual reports, we concentrate our

observations to reflect our research questions to inform and highlight how states can use data to

report social equity data.

4. Do current data and assessment practices in State Vocational Rehabilitation Centers

account for the impact of multiple, interlocking identities?

5. Using evidence from annual reports, what are the key analytical challenges Public

Administration scholars and practitioners face when conducting quantitative

intersectional work?

6. In light of the challenges above, what strategies can Public Administration scholars and

practitioners use to manage the data challenges associated with quantitative

intersectionality in publicly reported data to advance social equity?

Findings on Quantitative Intersectionality in Vocational Rehabilitation Reports

Table 1 shows the states that included demographic data of vocational rehabilitation

clients in their annual report. Our investigation of the reports found that 23 states include

demographic data. We also found that 15 states report race and ethnicity data, nine states report

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

gender, 22 states report disability type, 11 states report age. Only Georgia looks at the

intersection of two or more demographic categories, age, and gender.

[Insert Table 1 about here]

Table 2 shows how the states report outcomes data (n=33). Twenty-two states report

wages or earnings of clients who gained employment and 11 states report the average number of

hours clients worked. In addition, 25 states report their rates of successful employment and 11

states report the occupations clients entered. Of the most interest to our research, there are six

states that report outcomes by different demographic characteristics. This includes Georgia with

wages/earnings by disability type; Washington with served and employment rates by disability

type; Missouri and New Jersey report numbers served and employment rates by race and

ethnicity; Arkansas reports successful employment by gender; Illinois reports rehabilitation rate

and earnings by race and ethnicity; Texas reports employment rates by gender.

[Insert Table 2 about here]

Illustrative Example #1: Missouri’s State Vocational Rehabilitation Council (SVRC).

Missouri is a useful illustrative example because the state’s annual report models single-

dimension data analysis. Their case is relevant since many reporting structures rely on this type

of analysis. Missouri’s SVRC mission statement includes a brief mention of social equity,

including providing “culturally specific” services (Missouri State Rehabilitation Council 2019).

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Missouri reports broad categories of disabilities, developmental, autism, other, and mental

health.

[Insert Table 3 about here]

Table 3 reports the demographics of clients served in Missouri. A majority of the

vocational rehabilitation clients in Missouri are white (69%) followed by Black (26%). Fifty-six

percent of clients are male. Missouri also reports disability type using successful outcomes only.

The total number or percentage of clients of disability types served is not available in this report.

The majority of clients have mental health disabilities (32%). Other significant disabilities

include physical disabilities, intellectual disabilities, deafness/hearing loss, and Autism. The

disability with the lowest successful employment rates is traumatic brain injury.

Missouri reports outcomes and costs related to employment outcomes by client. The

average cost of services per person is $1,742. The average hourly wage is $9.42 with clients

working an average of 24 hours a week. In terms of overall outcomes, clients saw an average of

$279 a week increase in earnings, with a total annual increase of $66.5 million statewide. The

rate of successful employment is 53%, with 1,505 successful outcomes and 2,842 total

participants. Most clients gained employment in service or office/administrative support

positions, accounting for 68% of total successful outcomes. Other popular careers for clients

include industrial careers (18%) and professional or management careers (13%).

Illustrative Example #2: Texas’s State Vocational Rehabilitation Council (SVRC).

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 The Texas case is interesting because, while grounded in the single-dimension analysis

common in administrative reporting, the state has also moved toward the beginnings of an

intersectional analysis by examining two dimensions. Unlike Missouri, Texas’ SVRC mission

statement does not include specific mention of social equity, but their values statement

emphasizes “the worth and dignity of each individual” (Texas State Rehabilitation Council

2019). Like Missouri, Texas reports demographic statistics of their clients in the past year along

single dimensions.

[Insert Table 4 about here]

Table 4 shows the demographics of clients served in the state of Texas. Texas does not

report the number of cases for each group, only the percentages. Texas served a total of 94,476

clients. The largest race/ethnicity served are whites (39%), followed by Hispanics (29%) and

Blacks (24%). Fifty-five percent of clients are male. Unlike Missouri, Texas reports the total

number of clients with each disability served. The most common disabilities served by the SVRC

in Texas are Neurodevelopmental Disorders (32%), followed by Neurological/ Musculoskeletal

(20%), Mental/Emotional/Psychosocial (19%), and Deaf/Hard of Hearing (17%).

The report further details the services provided to clients, the number of clients

employed, and the occupation of former clients. Like Missouri, the majority of Texas’ vocational

rehabilitation clients are employed in service or administrative support positions (55%), followed

by Education, Legal, Community Services, Arts, and Media (10%), and Transportation &

Material Moving (10%).

Texas’ successful outcomes reporting also utilizes emerging intersectional data reporting

by connecting outcomes with social characteristics. Texas reports its employment rates by

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

gender. Of clients employed, 46% were female and 54% were male, similar to the percentages of

each gender served by SVRS. For youth under 22, the gender gap widens with men having 64%

employment rate and women 36%. Unlike Missouri, Texas does not report the average hours of

employment for clients, average salary wages, or weekly wage changes. Instead, Texas measures

the success of its outcomes via a survey sent to former clients with specific questions about job

satisfaction.

Texas continues to explore intersectional reporting by reporting demographic statistics on

their customers with visual disabilities, including race and ethnicity. Texas reports that clients

who are blind are female (48%) and male (53%). The gender composition of clients is different

for those under the age of 22: 45% are female and 55% male. Similar to their general population,

Texas reports employment rates by gender for clients with visual disabilities. For all ages, the

employment rates for men and women appear consistent with the overall demographics of clients

served (47% female and 53% male). For clients under 22, only 25% of employed clients were

female and 75% were men. Using both gender and visual disabilities as two categories suggests

an emerging awareness of the importance of intersectional analysis. This early attempt clarifies

where additional work is needed to improve VR services to women with visual disabilities.

Case Study Discussion: Unpacking the Challenges in Quantitative Intersectionality

The previous section addressed our findings for the first research question on the status of

quantitative intersectionality in the State Vocational Rehabilitation Centers. In the following

section, we present our findings for our second research question: What are the key challenges

Public Administration scholars and practitioners face when conducting quantitative

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

intersectional work? Our discussion below is informed by the findings from in the previous

section.

In transitioning from single-dimension reporting to intersectional reporting, Public

Administration scholars and practitioners will encounter obstacles. The three primary challenges

faced in quantitative intersectional analysis are (1) numerous possible demographic

combinations, (2) data availability, and (3) privacy related to data/sample sizes. Each of these

plays a complicating role in conducting multi-dimension intersectional analyses. We can use the

Missouri case study as an example. The data by multiple dimensions is not made available to us,

but we can make some assumptions to estimate what these numbers might look like, assuming

the distribution is the same across groups.

In thinking about possible two-dimensional analyses, we first consider data size and

privacy race/ethnicity and gender. The first column of Table 5 displays the population count of

the two-dimensional analysis of race/ethnicity and gender. Please note that we have constructed

Table 5 with illustrative data. The first analysis looks at the number of people served by VR in

2018.

[Insert Table 5 about here]

Missouri has 1,950 white clients, with 56% identified as male. The gender numbers are

not reported by race/ethnicity, but if we assume the percentage of men is constant across races

and ethnicities, we calculate there are 1,092 white men and 858 white women. The size of both

groups is relatively large. Looking to the second largest race or ethnic group, we calculate that

there are roughly 415 Black men and 326 Black women. Again, the numbers for each group are

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

large enough to ensure privacy. Now consider the smallest race or ethnicity, Hawaiian/Pacific

Islander. There are only three individuals who identity by this race or ethnicity. Using gender as

a second-dimension analysis with this particular group is not possible in a public domain in order

to ensure the privacy of the three individuals.

Gender is traditionally coded dichotomously as ‘male’ or ‘female,’ although gender is

now understood to be fluid and more varied than traditionally envisaged (Valocchi 2005;

Wilchins 2004). The second-dimension analysis with the traditional two-gender coding presents

only a few minor complications for groups with a low headcount since the count is only being

divided into two categories. Please note that we have constructed Table 6 with illustrative data.

[Insert Table 6 about here]

A more complicated second-dimension analysis would be to use race/ethnicity and

disability type. Table 6 also shows the expected disability count by Black and white races. Here

again, privacy appears to be only a small concern, with only Blacks with traumatic brain injury

and other disabilities with a count below 50. If we included Asians in this example, with their

count of only 17, this analysis would result in low counts based on disability type and likely

jeopardize privacy. Furthermore, even if privacy could be ensured, conducting quantitative

analysis using such small sample sizes also warrants the more practical consideration if any

findings would be meaningful. We believe that qualitative observations may be more useful in

situations like this and we discuss this below in our recommendations.

Another difficulty to note from this exercise is how quickly this information gets

‘clunky.’ Imagine this analysis with a third- or fourth- dimension to the analysis (e.g.,

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

race/ethnicity plus gender plus disability type). Without a considered process for narrowing

down which demographics and combination(s) of demographics to report, the combinations of

data analyses available for the report become overwhelming. We believe that this process could

be best informed through consultation with stakeholders and reviews of qualitative data related

to participant experience. This consideration process, built on relationships with the public,

would be beneficial for informing data collection choices and maintaining legitimacy in the

evaluation process. But, is also serves a practical purpose; too much data limits the usefulness of

the report and negates the advantages of intersectional analysis.

Scholars and practitioners need to be aware of the challenges illustrated above to conduct

better intersectional analyses. Each challenge is surmountable but requires careful attention on

the part of the architect of the analysis. Circling back to our discussion of the three challenges

with intersectional analysis, the first challenge is that there are a wide number of social

characteristics operating within an individual at any given moment. The number of possible

characteristics themselves is quite large, and this number becomes exponentially larger when

accounting for all possible combinations of characteristics (Dhamoon 2011; MacKinnon 2013).

To the untrained practitioner, the number of possible characteristics can appear near infinite.

However, recall that quantitative intersectionality supports analysis that adapts to particulars of

context, such that in each context there are characteristics that are salient or most relevant to a

particular analysis. Practitioners select the relevant characteristics and limit their analysis to

those characteristics and salient combinations. For example, the focus of this case study is

race/ethnicity, gender, and disability. The analysis omits other disadvantaged characteristics

yielding unequal outcomes, such as LGBTQ+, immigration status, or religion. There are finite

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

limitations to any useful analysis, and architects need to construct cogent data analysis within the

confines of what is feasible.

A second theme in the challenges presented for quantitative intersectionality is data. This

theme is encompassed in several interrelated difficulties, including data availability, sample size,

and privacy. Intersectional data is only as good as the available data. In planning for

intersectional analyses, scholars and practitioners need to ensure that the data needed are

available. In some cases, data are limited to questions only deemed directly relevant in an earlier

time period and these data collection processes are not updated regularly. In other cases, some

data collection coding is so vague as to be unhelpful. For example, some federal datasets such as

the Federal Employee Values Survey (FEVS) code underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as

“minority.” This broad categorization falsely equates the experiences of all underrepresented

racial and ethnic groups as equal, and is only of limited use in conducting intersectional analysis

(Breslin, Pandey, and Riccucci 2017). Additionally, there are challenges about sample size

resulting from data availability (Bedolla and Scola 2006). Particularly for data that will be used

for statistical analysis and tests of significance, intersectional analysis requires larger data sets.

This is because when separating racial and ethnic identities by gender, the n-value for each of the

characteristics becomes considerably smaller. Data availability and size are integrally connected

to the third challenge of privacy, particularly for small n datasets (Hamidullah and Riccucci

2017). In deciding which characteristics to use in the analysis, practitioners/scholars must also

ensure detailed analyses maintain privacy.

Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Use of Quantitative Intersectionality

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Efforts to improve social equity will only be effective if scholars and practitioners have a greater

understanding of the complexity of identities and their relationship to social inequalities. These

inequalities are not fully captured using traditional unidimensional analyses examining one

identity characteristic in isolation, such as race OR gender OR disability. Instead, understanding

complex social inequities requires analysis of multiple, interlocking characteristics such as race

AND gender or race AND disability. In this complex reality, quantitative intersectionality

provides a necessary tool for scholars and practitioners to increase the effectiveness of services

and improve the efficiency of resource allocation.

In our analysis of vocational rehabilitation agencies, we find that states typically utilize

unidimensional analysis in public program reports, although some states like Texas are moving

towards multidimensional analysis. More organizations will look to multidimensional analysis as

they encounter the need to increase or improve the effectiveness and efficiency of public

services. The challenges associated with multi-dimensional analysis necessitate close

collaboration with public groups. In particular, scholars and practitioners should work closely

with the public and advocacy groups to identify imperative concerns, identify the types of data

needed for analysis, and strategies for protecting privacy while not overgeneralizing.

The first research question asked whether current data practices in State Vocational

Rehabilitation Centers accounted for the impact of multiple, interlocking identities. The case

study shows that generally VR agencies do not do this, although a couple VR agencies have

taken first steps towards public intersectional analysis. The second research question asked about

the challenges to conducting quantitative research, which was discussed in the previous section.

We now turn to the third research question, which asks how scholars/and practitioners can

manage the challenges associated with intersectionality? We offer three action areas that

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

scholars and practitioners can implement to accelerate the adoption of multi-dimensional,

intersectional analysis in their organizations. These action areas may be familiar to public

administrators as mechanisms of good data analysis. These recommendations do not require a

unique set of technical skills, but rather require implementation within existing organizational

reporting structures.

The first action area is to identify imperative comparisons, not just interesting ones. How

do public administrators identify imperative characteristics? The best way to do this is to lean on

feedback structures already in place to identify potential problem areas or groups of interest. The

feedback available from advocacy groups and public feedback is essential to guiding analysis

using an intersectional model. In the quest for data, public servants must avoid imposing

additional administrative burdens on specific populations and front-line workers. One way to do

this is by planning the analysis in advance, thereby strategically deciding which data would be

most helpful to collect. Also, public servants should consider alternative sources for data that

may not be available within the existing agency data. Collaborate with other organizations to

utilize existing datasets such as the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS),

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and a variety of other potential data sets available in

schools, state health agencies, and so forth.

The second action area is to pursue analysis strategies that decrease privacy issues.

Privacy is frequently cited as a reason for not undertaking multi-dimensional analyses. While

privacy is a major concern, scholars and practitioners have a variety of tools available to ensure

accurate reporting. One solution may be to aggregate several years of data to increase the number

of data points. If a strict time period is not necessary, this is often a useful way to get more data

with little extra work. Scholars and practitioners should ensure the combined years are relatively

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

similar and are comparable for that particular analysis. For example, combining 2019 and 2020

datasets may not be useful given the unique effects of COVID-19 on many aspects of society.

Another example to ensure privacy is to use higher-level classifications of characteristics

to increase sample size. In the previous case studies, Texas and Missouri used different

approaches to categorizing disability. While there is some loss of accuracy in this approach (each

disability is unique and encompasses distinctive considerations), a broader categorization may

allow more public analysis of data while maintaining privacy. In such an approach, scholars and

practitioners should ensure the higher-order categorizations still include similar groups. Work

with advocacy groups and stakeholders to broaden the categories to avoid overgeneralizations

that make subsequent analyses suspect.

An additional strategy is to concentrate public intersectional analyses on data with larger

sample sizes, though not neglecting smaller groups. It would be advisable to use multi-

dimension analyses on races or ethnicities with greater than some established number of

individuals. For example, the US Department of Education focuses on sample sizes above 25 and

does not disaggregate data under that threshold. While this approach may not fully capture the

experience of all groups of interest, even sharing limited intersectional analyses can go a long

way towards addressing the public’s call for greater equity in services, while also steering the

conversation about strategies and resources. This strategy also allows analysts to exclude

information that may jeopardize privacy, such as zip codes or employer information.

Finally, the third action area is to continue single-dimension and qualitative analyses.

Single-dimension analyses provide an overview of equity within an organization. These are

indicators that are easy for the public to understand and consume. The need for more multi-

dimensional analysis does not mean organizations should stop single-dimension reporting.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Rather, organizations should consider supplementing this data with purposeful intersectional

reporting to address problem areas, increase equity, and maximize efficiency. One way to do this

is to build robust qualitative data collection systems such as regular focus groups with targeted

groups or open-ended surveys using telecommunication systems such as telephones, cell phones,

text messaging, and emails. The value of qualitative data, while not in the scope of this paper, is

worth discussing here. Qualitative data supports interpreting and fine-tuning quantitative

analyses as well as building community trust and support. We assert that quantitative

intersectional research should, and must, draw upon the lived experiences of groups with

multiple identities qualitatively. Through community input, focus groups, and interviews, public

organizations can incorporate data about the lived experiences of groups with multiple identities

in decision-making processes. The utilization of qualitative and quantitative data together

support humanizing the citizen-state encounter (Guy 2019) as well as the empathic

responsiveness of public organizations (Dolamore 2019; Dolamore et al. 2020).

Notes

1. The intersectionality literature generally uses the term “identities” to refer to dominant or

marginalized groups. The term identity implies individual determination in social group

affiliation. “Characteristics” is a broader term encompassing important groups, such as

some groups of people with disabilities that may not necessarily include a social identity.

For example, some people are deaf/hard of hearing (characteristic) and some people are

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 culturally Deaf (identity). A disability may also incur a disadvantaged status even without

being a salient social identity. In the context of disability work involving an agency

specifically charged with providing support to those voluntarily seeking assistance for

disabilities—and expected to provide equitable services across disability types—this term

is appropriate. However, this terminology should not be applied without careful

consideration given the history of dominant groups “assigning” characteristics to a

targeted underrepresented group for the purposes of oppression and exploitation.

2. Vocational Rehabilitation defines disability as “a physical or mental impairment that

constitutes or results in a substantial impediment to employment for the applicant”

(Frequently Asked Questions—United States Department of Labor). The authors

recognize this is a limited definition not shared by scholars of disability justice. It is

included here for contextualization related to the case study on Vocational Rehabilitation.

3. Several states had reports available from previous years but did not post an annual report

for 2018 or 2019. Other states (n=9) did not have any public annual reports. We are

unable to investigate qualitative intersectionality usage in states without an annual report.

References

“About RSA.” 2017. About the U.S. Department of Education. Rehabilitation Service

Administration. US Department of Education (ED). July 3, 2017.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/rsa/about.html.

Balcazar, F., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Taylor-Ritzler, T., & Keys, C. (2009). Race, Culture and

Disability: Rehabilitation Science and Practice: Rehabilitation Science and Practice.

Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Bearfield, Domonic A. 2009. “Equity at the Intersection: Public Administration and the Study of

Gender.” Public Administration Review 69 (3): 383–86.

Bedolla, Lisa García, and Becki Scola. 2006. “Finding Intersection: Race, Class, and Gender in

the 2003 California Recall Vote.” Politics & Gender 2 (01).

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X0606003X.

Berg, Justin Allen. 2010. “Race, Class, Gender, and Social Space: Using an Intersectional

Approach to Study Immigration Attitudes.” The Sociological Quarterly 51 (2): 278–302.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2010.01172.x.

Best, Rachel Kahn, Lauren B. Edelman, Linda Hamilton Krieger, and Scott R. Eliason. 2011.

“Multiple Disadvantages: An Empirical Test of Intersectionality Theory in EEO

Litigation: Multiple Disadvantages.” Law & Society Review 45 (4): 991–1025.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00463.x.

Blessett, Brandi, Jennifer Dodge, Beverly Edmond, Holly T Goerdel, Susan T Gooden, Andrea

M Headley, Norma M Riccucci, and Brian N Williams. 2019. “Social Equity in Public

Administration: A Call to Action.” Perspectives on Public Management and Governance,

October, gvz016. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvz016.

Bowleg, Lisa. 2008. “When Black + Lesbian + Woman ≠ Black Lesbian Woman: The

Methodological Challenges of Qualitative Research and Quantitative Intersectionality

Research.” Sex Roles 59: 312–25.

Breslin, Rachel A., Sheela Pandey, and Norma M. Riccucci. 2017. “Intersectionality in Public

Leadership Research: A Review and Future Research Agenda.” Review of Public

Personnel Administration 37 (2): 160–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17697118.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Brown, Nadia E. 2014. “Political Participation of Women of Color: An Intersectional Analysis.”

Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 35 (4): 315–48.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2014.955406.

Browne, Irene, and Joya Misra. 2003. “The Intersection of Gender and Race in the Labor

Market.” Annual Review of Sociology 29: 487–513.

Cole, Elizabeth R. 2009. “Intersectionality and Research in Psychology.” American Psychologist

64 (3): 170–80.

Collins, Patricia Hill. 2008. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the

Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.

Creswell, John, and Cheryl Poth. 2016. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing

among Five Approaches. Sage Publications.

Davis, Lennard. 2016. Enabling Acts: The Hidden Story of How the American’s With Disabilities

Act Gave the Largest US Minority Its Rights. Beacon Press.

Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2020. “Enable: Fact Sheet on Persons with

Disabilities.” Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.

https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/resources/factsheet-on-persons-with-

disabilities.html.

Dhamoon, Rita Kaur. 2011. “Considerations on Mainstreaming Intersectionality.” Political

Research Quarterly 64 (1): 230–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912910379227.

Dolamore, Stephanie. 2019. “Detecting Empathy in Public Organizations: Creating a More

Relational Public Administration.” Administrative Theory & Praxis.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1700458.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Dolamore, Stephanie, Darrell Lovell, Haley Collins, and Angela Kline. 2020. “The Role of

Empathy in Organizational Communication during Times of Crisis.” Administrative

Theory & Praxis, October, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2020.1830661.

Drum, Charles, Monica R McClain, Willi Horner-Johnson, and Genia Taitano. 2011. “Health

Disparities: Chart Book on Disability and Racials and Ethic Status in the United States.”

Durham, NH: UNH Institute of Disabilities.

https://iod.unh.edu/sites/default/files/media/Project_Page_Resources/HealthDisparities/he

alth_disparities_chart_book_080411.pdf.

Elliot, Thomas, and Paul Leung. 2005. “Vocational Rehabilitation: History and Practice.” In

Handbook of Vocational Psychology, 3rd ed., 318–44. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Else-Quest, Nicole M., and Janet Shibley Hyde. 2016. “Intersectionality in Quantitative

Psychological Research: I. Theoretical and Epistemological Issues.” Psychology of

Women Quarterly 40 (2): 155–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316629797.

Erevelles, Nirmala, and Andrea Minear. 2010. “Unspeakable Offenses: Untangling Racea Nd

Disablity Discourses of Intersectionality.” Edited by Lennard J. Davis, Rebecca Sanchez,

and Alexander Luft. Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies 4 (2): 127–45.

Fernandez, Sergio, William G. Resh, Tima Moldogaziev, and Zachary W. Oberfield. 2015.

“Assessing the Past and Promise of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey for Public

Management Research: A Research Synthesis.” Public Administration Review 75 (3):

382–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12368.

Frequently Asked Questions—United States Department of Labor. (n.d.). Retrieved March 24,

2022, from https://webapps.dol.gov/dolfaq/go-dol-faq.asp?faqid=67&topicid=11&subtopicid=165

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Gooden, Susan T. 2015. “PAR’s Social Equity Footprint.” Public Administration Review 75 (3):

372–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12346.

———. 2017. “Social Equity and Evidence: Insights from Local Government: Social Equity and

Evidence: Insights from Local Government.” Public Administration Review, September.

https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12851.

Guy, Mary E. 2019. “Expanding the Toolbox: Why the Citizen-State Encounter Demands It.”

Public Performance & Management Review, October, 1–18.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1677255.

Guy, Mary E., and Sean A. McCandless. 2012. “Social Equity: Its Legacy, Its Promise.” Public

Administration Review 72 (s1): S5–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

6210.2012.02635.x.

———. 2020. Achieving Social Equity: From Problems to Solutions. Melvin & Leigh,

Publishers.

Hamidullah, Madinah F., and Norma M. Riccucci. 2017. “Intersectionality and Family-Friendly

Policies in the Federal Government: Perceptions of Women of Color.” Administration &

Society 49 (1): 105–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399715623314.

Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2007. “When Multiplication Doesn’t Equal Quick Addition: Examining

Intersectionality as a Research Paradigm.” Perspectives on Politics 5 (01).

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592707070065.

MacKinnon, Catharine A. 2013. “Intersectionality as Method: A Note.” Signs 38 (4): 1019-1030.

McCall, Leslie. 2005. “The Complexity of Intersectionality.” Signs: Journal of Women in

Culture and Society 30 (3): 1771–1800. https://doi.org/10.1086/426800.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

McCandless, Sean, and Samantha June Larson. 2018. “Prioritizing Social Equity in MPA

Curricula: A Cross-Program Analysis and a Case Study.” Journal of Public Affairs

Education 24 (3): 361–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2018.1426429.

Merriam, Sharan. 1988. Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. Jossey-

Bass.

McGinley, A. C., & Cooper, F. R. 2013. Identities Cubed: Perspectives on Multidimensional

Masculinities Theory. 13, 15.

Missouri State Rehabilitation Council. 2019. “2019 Annual Report.” https://dese.mo.gov/adult-

learning-rehabilitation-services/vocational-rehabilitation/publications.

Nash, Jennifer C. 2008. “Re-Thinking Intersectionality.” Feminist Review, no. 89: 1–15.

Norman-Major, Kristen. 2011. “Balancing the Four E s; or Can We Achieve Equity for Social

Equity in Public Administration?” Journal of Public Affairs Education 17 (2): 233–52.

Office of Special Education And Rehabilitative Services. 2019. “Rehabilitation Services

Administration Report for Fiscal Year 2016.” U.S. Department of Education.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/rsa/2016/rsa-2016-annual-report.pdf.

O’Learly, R., & Van Slyke, D. (2010). Introduction to the Symposium on the Future of Public

Administration in 2020. Public Administration Review, S5–S11.

Randolph, Diane. 2004. “Predicting the Effect of Disability on Employment Status and Income.”

Work 23 (2): 257–66.

“Rehabilitation Services Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request.” 2020. Washington D.C.: U.S.

Department of Education.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget20/justifications/i-rehab.pdf.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Riccucci, Norma M., and Gregg G. Van Ryzin. 2017. “Representative Bureaucracy: A Lever to

Enhance Social Equity, Coproduction, and Democracy.” Public Administration Review

77 (1): 21–30.

“RSA: Frequently Asked Questions About RSA.” 2017. FAQs; Offices. Rehabilitation Service

Administration. US Department of Education (ED). June 20, 2017.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/rsa/faq.html.

Sabharwal, Meghna, Imane Hijal-Moghrabi, and Marcene Royster. 2014. “Preparing Future

Public Servants: Role of Diversity in Public Administration.” Public Administration

Quarterly; Randallstown 38 (2): 206–45.

Sevak, Purvi, Andrew Houtenville, Debra Brucker, and John O’Neill. 2015. “Individual

Characteristics and the Disability Employment Gap.” Journal of Disability Policy Studies

26 (2): 80–88.

Shaw, Linda, Fong Chan, and Brian McMahon. 2012. “Intersectionality and Disability

Harassment: The Interactive Effects of Disability, Race, Age, and Gender.”

Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 55 (2): 82–91.

Smith, A. E., Hassan, S., Hatmaker, D. M., DeHart-Davis, L., & Humphrey, N. (2020). Gender,

Race, and Experiences of Workplace Incivility in Public Organizations. Review of Public

Personnel Administration. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X20927760.

Smith, Diane, and David Strauser. 2008. “Examining the Impact of Physical and Sexual Abuse

on the Employment of Women with Disabilities in the United States: An Exploratory

Analysis.” Disability and Rehabilitation 30 (14): 1039–46.

Stuart, O. 1992. “Race and Disability: Just a Double Oppression?” Disability, Handicap &

Society 7 (2): 177–88.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Texas State Rehabilitation Council. 2019. “Rehabilitation Council of Texas 2019 Annual

Report.” https://www.twc.texas.gov/agency/rehabilitation-council-texas.

UN General Assembly. 2007. “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”

Valocchi, Stephen. 2005. “Not yet Queer Enough: The Lessons of Queer Theory of the

Sociology of Gender and Sexuality.” Gender & Society 19 (6): 750–70.

“VR100.” 2020. U.S. Department of Education. August 10, 2020.

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/rehab/vr100/index.html#intro.

Whitebread, G. (2022). Seeing through the Haze: Using Intersectionality to Reveal Systemic

Differences in Support for Marijuana. In N. Angeuelov & J. Moyer (Eds.), Stoneover:

The Observed Lessons and Unanswered Questions of Cannabis Legalization (pp. 43–60).

Lexington Books.

Wilchins, Riki. 2004. Queer Theory, Gender Theory: An Instant Primer. Alyson Books.

Yin, Robert. 2015. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. Guilford publications.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Table 1: Demographic information in State Vocational Rehabilitation annual reports
Race/ Ethnicity Gender Disability Type Age Intersection
State
Alaska x x
Arkansas x x x x
Colorado x x x
Connecticut x x
Florida x x x
Georgia x x x x x
Idaho x x
Illinois x x x
Massachusetts x x x x
Minnesota x x x x
Missouri x x x x
New Jersey x x
New Mexico x
New York x x x
North Dakota x
Oregon x x x
Rhode Island x x x
Texas x x x
Utah x
Virginia x
Washington x x
Wisconsin x
Wyoming x

Table 2: Outcomes data in State Vocational Rehabilitation annual reports

Wages / Hours Successful

Earnings Worked Employment Occupation Intersection
State
Alaska x
Arizona x x
Arkansas x x x
Colorado x x x
Connecticut x x x
Delaware x x
Florida x x x
Georgia x x x
Idaho x x
Illinois x x x
Iowa x
Massachusetts x x
Missouri x x x x x
Montana x

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Nebraska x x x x
Nevada x x
New Jersey x x
New Mexico x x x
New York x
North Carolina x x x
North Dakota x x x
Ohio x
Oregon x x
Rhode Island x x x
South Carolina x
South Dakota x x x
Tennessee x x x
Texas x x
Utah x
Virginia x
Washington x
Wisconsin x x x x
Wyoming x

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Table 3: Missouri Vocational Rehabilitation demographic statistics in 2019
# of cases % of cases
Race/Ethnicity
White 1,950 69%
Black 741 26%
Asian 17 <1%
Hispanic 85 3%
Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 3 <1%
Gender
Male - 56%
Disability Type (successful outcomes only)
Alcohol / drug dependency 238 5%
Autism 442 10%
Deafness/hearing loss 520 11%
Intellectual disabilities 643 14%
Mental health disabilities 1,470 32%
Other disabilities 186 4%
Physical disabilities 692 15%
Specific learning disabilities 307 7%
Traumatic brain injury 91 2%

Table 4: Texas Vocational Rehabilitation demographic statistics in 2019

# of cases % of cases
Race/Ethnicity
White - 39.10%
Black - 24.30%
Asian - 1.60%
Hispanic - 29%
Hawaiian / Pacific Islander - <1%
Gender
Male - 55.30%
Disability Type
All other impairments - 0.24%
Cardiac/ Respiratory/ Circulatory - 1.83%
Traumatic Brain Injury/Spinal Cord Injury - 2.24%
Substance Abuse - 1.82%
Other Physical Debilitation or Impairments - 5.88%
Deaf & Hard of Hearing - 17.16%
Mental/ Emotional/ Psychosocial - 18.88%
Neurological/ Musculoskeletal/ Orthopedic - 20.19%
Neurodevelopmental Disorders - 31.76%

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Table 5: Calculated two-dimensional analysis using race/ethnicity and gender in Missouri
Number of clients by race/ethnicity
& gender
Men Women
Race/Ethnicity n=2,796
White 1092 858
Black 415 326
Asian 10 7
Hispanic 48 37
Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 2 1
Note: These data are not official programmatic statistics and derived for illustrative purposes.

Table 6: Calculated two-dimensional analysis using race and disability type in Missouri
Number of clients by
race/ethnicity & disability type
White Black
Disability Type (successful outcomes only) n=4,589
Alcohol / drug dependency 164 62
Autism 305 115
Deafness/hearing loss 359 135
Intellectual disabilities 444 167
Mental health disabilities 1014 382
Other disabilities 128 48
Physical disabilities 477 180
Specific learning disabilities 212 80
Traumatic brain injury 63 24
Note: These data are not official programmatic statistics and derived for illustrative purposes

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.