by requirements for the degree of (Education) - NCRTM

eferral. Therefore, those referrals coded 53- prior to 1967-68 would not
appear on the computer printout until eloigibility was determined and ac-
ceptance declared, at which time the level of retardation was documented
and the specific code (530, 532, or 534) applied. This explanation for
the discrepancy appears to be the most l.ogical one, yet it is based on
conjecture. An important consideration for this study is that the infor-
mation for this group of 101 was not lost, it was just not available at
the time of referral. It eventually became available when the 53- ch .anged
to 530, 532, or 534.
By way of a double check on the 1338 total, an information card was
kept on each of the 2638 EMR students listed by DHC. The card of each
student whose name also appeared on the DVR printouts of all MR's was
marked. The total number of marked cards was 1295, 43 cases less than
the 1338 stated above. This difference can be accounted for by those in-
dividuals who received services more than once (there is a slight error
since Table IV indicates that 45 people had received previous services).
the actual number of EMR students referred to DVR for services
Therefore,
to June 30, 1969 was 1295, or 49% of the total population of 2638.
prior
However, the 1338 figure will be used throughout the study because it
represents the total number of cases referred for services.
The following referral information is based on 824 people who were
referred during the 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 fiscal years. Not .in-
cluded are the 413 people referred prior to 1966-67 and the 101 people
coded 53- prior to 1967-68. Information on these people was available
at time of closure and is, therefore, included in the sections on
closures.
47