With Rehabilitation Counseling, as with all professions, continuous review of salary distribution within a given discipline allows current and aspiring professionals to make informed decisions about pursuing or continuing within a given profession. This allows for consideration of return on investment, identifying compensation discrepancies within and between sectors, and the provision of a benchmark to allow for self-advocacy and negotiation in considering new or ongoing employment options. Collecting and considering these data over time also enables Rehabilitation Counselors and researchers to see trends and changes. Similar surveys have been completed by the American Counseling Association (ACA) and the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC), most recently in 2024 and 2021, respectively. This paper seeks to build upon this precedent by conducting a salary survey specific to rehabilitation counselors who belong to the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP) and build upon similar data collected in 2016-2017 by the same principal researcher (Beveridge & Glickman, 2019).
Commission On Rehabilitation Counselor Certification Survey
The CRCC (2021) Salary Report is an update from a previous report in 2008. This updated report included data from 4,550 respondents with Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC) Certifications, representing 33.25% of CRC holders. The survey was distributed by email. The number of items on this survey was not reported and unavailable. The data collected was based on salary ranges for 2019, or “a full year of wages for CRCs pre-pandemic” (CRCC, 2021), though data was collected in the fall of 2021.
The results of the CRCC (2021) survey indicated the mean wage of Certified Rehabilitation Counselors (CRCs) working full time was $73,851. Salaries for CRCs were found to increase with both age and experience, consistently correlated with other employment fields (CRCC, 2021). Salaries within the Northeast region of the United States were found to provide significantly higher wages for CRCs as compared to the rest of the country. The average salary for a CRC was $76,000 in the Northeast, $71,300 in the West, $70,000 in the Midwest, and $64,000 in the Southeast.
By far, the most common employment setting for CRCs was identified as State/Federal VR Agencies, accounting for 1448 responses, or 31.8% of all responses. For context, the second most common employment setting was for profit businesses and college/university student services centers, with 457 and 418 responses respectively, each accounting for roughly 10% of the total responses. The most common job title was reported to be Rehabilitation Counselor, followed by administrator, manager, and supervisor (CRCC, 2021). The most profitable wages for CRCs were reported in private practice and for-profit business settings, with average salaries of $93,973 and $82,458, respectively. In the most common setting for CRC employment, the average salary of a CRC working at a state/federal VR agency was found to be $56,324.
In considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CRCC Salary Report (2021) indicated approximately 75% of respondents say their income changed between 2019 and 2021, with 62% reporting an overall increase in their salaries.
At the time of data collection, approximately 25% of respondents reported being in their present position for less than five years. Another 23% reported five to nine years in their current position, while 25% reported being in their current position for 10 to 19 years. The CRCC further notes that 95% of respondents reported plans to keep their CRC active for their entire career. Unlike the 2008 version of the CRCC salary survey, further demographic breakdown of respondents (such as ethnicity, disability status, and gender identity) were not reported in the 2021 release of survey data.
The most recent information on salaries for American Counseling Association (ACA) members continues to be their 2024 salary survey, as of the date of this manuscript construction. This survey included 46 items and was also distributed electronically. The sample included approximately 11,226 mental health counselors, school counselors, rehabilitation counselors, and counselor educators, among other counseling professionals. The ACA (2024) also reported reaching out to clinicians who were not members of the ACA to minimize bias.
The results of the ACA (2024) survey indicated an average salary of all counselors in their survey was $71,000, $66,469 for mental health counselors, $68,154 for school counselors, $65,721 for public rehabilitation counselors, $70,062 for rehabilitation counselors in the private sector and $77,171 for counselor educators.
To assess the utility of the counseling salary survey data which began collecting data in 2008, considering the changes across both the 2014 and 2024 ACA studies as well as the 2008 and 2021 CRCC studies to establish a chronological relationship. The evolving salary of the rehabilitation counselor over time is as follows:
-
2008: $50,000 (CRCC)
-
2014: $53,561 (ACA)
-
2021: $73,851 (CRCC)
-
2024: $70,062 private rehabilitation and $65,721 pubic rehabilitation (ACA)
Additional findings from the ACA (2024) report indicated counselor compensation also varies substantially across practice settings. Counselors working in the federal government reported the highest average salary of $83,243. Private practitioners also received salaries that are higher than the overall average, at $79,605 per year. Conversely, counselors working in community mental health centers and public counseling agencies (e.g., state VR) reported the lowest average salaries of $66,469 and $65,721, respectively.
An additional source of information about vocational expert work is the Expert Witness Fees and Practice Survey, most recently updated in 2021 (ExpertPages), a non-academic report compiled by Advice Company in partnership with DeBow Ltd. Following over a decade of similar surveys, ExpertPages (2021) indicated data collection from over 400 respondents. ExpertPages found the median level of experience was 10-19 years, but the most common response was over 20 years of experience. The report additionally found that only 19% of respondents worked full-time in a firm primarily involved in expert witness work, and 43% of all respondents were semi or fully retired from their “normal” profession. The report notes that the median percentage of time spent doing expert witness or litigation consultation work was 33-66% of the time, which the report notes is double the median figures from both 2017 and 2019. The report additionally indicates that 98% of respondents charge either an hourly fee (88%) or a combination of hourly fee and flat rate 10%), consistent with reports from 2017 and 2019, and that the average hourly rate was $391. The report authors indicate this figure is up from $367 in 2019 and $341 in 2017. Finally, the report notes that the majority of respondents (71%) indicated spending less than 10% of their time away from their workplace on assignment.
Method
A descriptive, convergent parallel mixed-methods research design was implemented for the current study. This approach utilized quantitative and qualitative approaches to develop the model that would drive the research questions. In this design, the researchers aimed to collect both the quantitative and qualitative data from participants simultaneously. Both sets of data (quantitative and qualitative) were analyzed separately for possible themes and findings.
The Delphi method utilizes consultation from a panel of experts in order to actively participate in the process of developing the instruments to be disseminated among participants and research questions for investigation (Vázquez-Ramos et al., 2007). The Delphi method was originally formulated to address an issue at the Rand Corporation in the 1950s (Hsu & Sandford, 2007). When the method was developed, the goal was to form a group consensus with the intention to predict both the present findings and future trends. By discussing future trends, researchers could seek findings that would develop innovation by hypothesizing the outcomes of specific changes in practice. The intention of using the Delphi method is to address a particularly complicated issue, which uses the group opinion of experts in a particular field. The reasoning behind operating within a group consensus is to prevent biased perspectives from the researchers and influencing views from the participants within the development of the study. During the process, the opinions held by the panel of experts are treated to several rounds of review and feedback, which would refine the consensus of the opinions (Hsu & Sandford, 2007; Vázquez-Ramos et al., 2007). Forming these several consensus opinions would allow for further exploration of alternatives to form resolutions for the specific issue addressed (Hsu & Sandford, 2007).
The construction of the survey instrument was based on items from the 2008 CRCC and 2014 ACA studies. Additionally, two open-response prompts were included to allow for a qualitative inquiry as to rehabilitation counselor experiences with the COVID-19 pandemic and any perceived effects of the merger on future income, or any financial impact of significant life events, such as a disability as defined by the American Community Survey (2014) including hearing, vision, ambulatory, cognitive, self-care, and independent living. The preliminary instrument was provided to a Delphi panel of ten experts with a mean of 31.13 years of experience who provided three rounds of feedback on the creation and revision of the IARP salary survey instrument. The final IARP salary survey instrument contained 26 items. This process followed the accepted peer-reviewed methodology common for Delphi consultation (Hsu & Sandford, 2007; Vázquez-Ramos et al., 2007).
The sample for this study consisted of 200 participants who were all current members of the IARP. A total of 230 IARP members began the survey with 200 completing it and 30 partially completing the survey resulting in an 86.96 completion rate. Participants were recruited via the secure email invitation program provided by Alchemer, one of the country’s leading professional, web-based survey providers. In order to protect confidentiality of participants, we revised the Alchemer application to refrain from storing or collecting Internet protocol (IP) addresses, e-mail addresses, or any identifying information. Furthermore, data was kept confidential in a password-protected and encrypted file to protect the information. IARP sent out the secure survey link to their listserv in order to promote participation in the survey. The average time it took participants to complete the survey was 16 minutes. Prior to sending the invitations and recruiting the participants, the researchers obtained Internal Review Board (IRB) approval from The George Washington University Office of Human Research and the IRB of the IARP. Participation in the study consisted of reviewing the informed consent web page, clicking on a link and then providing quantitative and qualitative answers to the online questionnaire.
Responses were downloaded from Alchemer as an Excel spreadsheet. The quantitative data was cleaned and imported into SPSS version 26 while the qualitative data was imported into Atlas.ti version 23.2.3 for analysis. The demographic variables included age, gender, race/ethnicity, disability status, temporary disability status, highest level of education, practice setting, primary geographic region, region according to US census, employment classification, pay rate, years practicing, and license and certification status.
Qualitative data included answers to two open-ended questions, one about the impact of COVID-19 and the other on the experience of significant life events (including disability). Responses were analyzed using open coding and descriptive analysis to determine the frequency of each code, in line with recommendations by Creswell and Poth (2018). No higher-level qualitative analysis was done using Atlas.ti. For a detailed list of qualitative codes found, please see Appendix tables 6-7.
Results
This longitudinal study, which examines rehabilitation counselor salaries, is grounded in the survey data collected by the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP) in 2021-2022. The follow-up study included 200 IARP members who helped provide an up-to-date industry perspective. In addition to querying classic interests, like income and years of experience, the most recent survey aimed to quantify how the pendulum of practice has swung in light of the pandemic.
The survey results revealed that participants reported a wide salary range, with the lowest recorded income being $9,100.00 and the highest being $856,062.00. The reported average income for the sample was $145,135.17, whereas the median income was $110,000.00, which indicates a crucial positive skew of the income distribution; this is also confirmed by a skewness value of 2.619. The standard deviation of $114,735.08 from the mean concerning salaries also reveals economic heterogeneity between one rehabilitation counseling professional and another.
Seven participants did not report total income. There were several high reports from survey participants (two above $500,000) as there were in prior IARP salary survey research efforts, although there was not sufficient justification to remove them as outliers. As a result, due to several participants who were earning very high levels of compensation in their practice, there was a strong positive skew of the income data.
Regarding age demographics, the average participant was 59.62 years old, with the age range extending from 27 to 78 years. The age data exhibited a slight negative skew (-0.824) and a kurtosis of 0.057, suggesting a broad distribution across the surveyed cohort. When looking at professional experience, respondents had an average of 30.88 years in practice, with the span of experience varying from 2 to 54 years. This aspect of the data also showed a mild negative skew (-0.590) and a kurtosis of -0.316, reflecting a moderate clustering around the average number of years in practice.
Compared to the initial salary survey completed by the George Washington University and IARP in 2016-2017, the distribution of current members’ ages increased to about 80% of participating members over the age of 50 (from 70% in the first study). This resulted in a positive skew of the reported age of participants towards the older age brackets.
In examining educational attainment among rehabilitation professionals, we found that the majority of respondents, 78.3%, possessed a master’s degree, with these individuals reporting an average salary of $136,052.15. On the other hand, those holding a Doctorate, a distinctly smaller subset of the survey, commanded a notably higher average salary of $210,052.74. Statistical analysis confirmed the significance of this discrepancy in earnings, with a mean difference of -$74,000.59 (t(188) = -3.130, p = .002 for equal variances assumed; t(33.125) = -2.871, p = .007 for equal variances not assumed).
The gender distribution within the sample was skewed towards male respondents, who constituted 53.9% of the sample and reported an average salary of $172,495.96. Females constituted 45.2% of the sample, returning an average salary of $129,755.86. The t-test shows a significant difference in the mean salaries against genders, with a mean difference of $42,740.10 (t(197) = 2.587, p = .010 for equal variances assumed; t(108.964) = 2.317, p = .022 for equal variances not assumed).Ethnic diversity within the sample was limited, with Caucasian respondents representing 89.0%. Other ethnic groups were present in smaller proportions, including Hispanic Latino at 3.8%, African American at 2.4%, and Asian American at 0.5%. Multiracial individuals and other ethnic classifications accounted for the remaining 1.0% of the survey population. This 2021 sample was slightly more diverse than the last IARP Salary Survey in 2016-2017 that had 91.5% Caucasian participants.
In this study, a significant portion of the participants, precisely 40% (N=80), reported having a temporary disability and an average salary of $150,467.01. In contrast, the 60% (N=116) without a temporary disability had a mean salary of $142,827.62. A t-test to compare these groups indicated that the difference in average salaries was not statistically significant (Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances: F = 5.775, p = .017; T-Test: p = .647 for assumed equal variances). In addition, 33 respondents, who accounted for about 16.5%, had a permanent disability but realized an average income of $142,305.39, while 160 respondents, who accounted for about 80%, did not have any permanent disability and realized an average income of $148,329.44; the difference was also not statistically significant (Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances: F = .416, p = .520; T-Test: p = .786 for assumed equal variances).
When considering significant life events, including temporary disabilities, the open-ended responses revealed additional insights. About 32% of participants indicated experiencing a disability as defined by the American Community Survey (ACS). This discrepancy suggests that some participants might not have considered specific temporary disabilities when answering the initial survey item but included them in their responses to the open-ended question. Additionally, write-in comments indicated that some respondents perceived the initial question as only about permanent disabilities, further supporting the need for clarity in survey questions.
Consistent with the trend observed in the 2019 Beveridge & Glickman survey, a significant proportion of respondents in our study reported working in urban settings, precisely 42.4% (n=84), with a mean salary of $160,052. This percentage is slightly lower than the previously reported 60% in urban settings. However, there was a noticeable increase in those working in suburban settings, now at 36.4% (n=72), with a mean salary of $129,886. Additionally, 9.6% (n=19) of respondents reported working in rural settings, with a mean salary of $122,894. Furthermore, 11.6% (n=23) of respondents indicated working in multiple geographic areas, with a mean salary of $169,371.
This shift may be associated with broader trends, such as the transition to digital service delivery, which the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated. Despite these variations, the ANOVA analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in mean salaries across these geographic settings (F(4, 193) = 1.333, p = .259), suggesting that while location impacts reported mean salaries, it does not do so significantly within this sample.
The regional distribution of the respondents was led by the South Atlantic, with 23.7% (n=49) hailing from states such as Delaware, D.C., Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. The Pacific region followed with 15.9% (n=33) of respondents, encompassing Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington state.
The practice setting of the respondents was predominantly in private practice, with 83.2% (n=173) reporting this as their work setting. Other settings included private nonprofit rehabilitation companies (3.4%, n=7), state or federal rehabilitation facilities (1.9%, n=4), colleges or universities (1.4%, n=3), insurance companies (3.8%, n=8), and various other settings (5.3%, n=11). A small fraction of the sample was missing from the data.
When comparing average salary with results found in other surveys (e.g., ACA, CRCC), this may partially account for the significantly higher average salary found in this research effort. Most IARP members are currently working full time (63%). Some write-ins included working 25-30 hours a week, being self-employed, and a few indicated that they were currently searching to find work. Most individuals appeared to be paid via billable hours (70%), which is interesting to consider in the context of most respondents also report working full-time hours (at least 40 hours per week). Furthermore, the average salary for participants who reported being paid hourly for total hours worked was ($189,005.20), those having a billable hour rate by case was $155,807.10, those who report a set annual salary ($117,075.90), and participants who wrote in their answer ($96,185.88).
The average number of years practicing was 31 with a standard deviation of roughly 11 years. Compared to data collected in the 2016-2017 IARP Salary Survey, this distribution is nearly identical. The high level of clinical experience is a likely contributor to the relatively higher average salary found in this study when compared to other research on counselors’ salaries (ACA and CRCC). The majority of participants reported having over twenty years of experience (79%), there appeared to be a relatively similar number of professionals working in each experience band (3% 16-20 years, 2% 11-15 years, 1% 6-10 years, 0.9% 2-5 years, and 0% less than one year).
The survey revealed a range of professional licenses and certifications obtained by the respondents. The Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification is the most commonly held, which numbered 181, 87.02% of the sample. Another 53 obtained the Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC & LCPC) credential, which is 25.48%. In contrast, 49 claimed to have each the American Board of Vocational Experts (ABVE) and Life Care Planner, accounting for 23.56%.Regarding professional credentials, the survey found that 60 respondents (30%) hold one or more professional licenses, earning an average salary of $139,903.40, while 138 respondents (69%) without licenses reported an average salary of $149,511.49. The independent samples t-test showed no significant difference in mean salaries based on the possession of professional licenses (Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances: F = .377, p = .540; T-Test: p = .588 for assumed equal variances).Concerning CRCC credentials, after excluding the invalid cases, our data showed that 173 respondents (86.5%) who provided valid income data held the CRCC credential, with an average salary of $147,946.76. In comparison, 25 respondents (12.5%) without a CRCC credential had a lower average salary of $137,280.00. However, the difference in mean salaries was not statistically significant (Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances: F = 1.292, p = .257; T-Test: p = .664 for assumed equal variances).
The Certified Disability Management Specialist (CDMS) credential was held by 44 respondents (21.15%), and 38 (18.27%) were Certified Case Managers. Rehabilitation Provider credentials were reported by 23 participants (11.06%), and Case Manager certifications by 16 (7.69%). The Certified Vocational Evaluator (CVE) certification was held by 17 respondents (8.17%) and the National Board Certified Counselor (NBCC) by 14 (6.73%).
Less prevalent certifications and licensure included Psychologist, with 7 participants (3.37%), Certified Brain Injury Specialist (CBIS) with 3 (1.44%), and Licensed Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor with 2 (0.96%). A single respondent (0.48%) reported holding a Global Career Development Facilitator (GCDF) credential.
A notable proportion of the sample, 47 respondents (22.60%), was categorized under ‘Others,’ which included a variety of specialized credentials that were less common among the survey population. This category encompassed those with unique or less frequently reported credentials adjusted for specific write-in counts. See Table 1.
The data illustrates the breadth of qualifications within the rehabilitation counseling profession and highlights the prevalence of specific credentials, such as the CRCC, which is widely recognized in the field. It also underscores the existence of a subset of professionals who hold various other qualifications, reflecting the diverse competencies present in this sector.
For participants who reported holding a professional counseling license (LPC/LCPC), a diverse geographical spread of licensure was observed. Some respondents were licensed in multiple states, often within the same regional clusters, illustrating a trend towards multistate practice capability. While several individuals indicated a “national” license, it should be clarified that this term may reflect multiple state licenses or a conflation of licensure with certification, as the United States does not currently offer a national-level license for counselors.
The state with the highest number of licensed participants was California (CA), with 7, followed by Pennsylvania (PA) and Florida (FL), each with 6 participants holding licensure. Other states with multiple licensees included Massachusetts (MA), Minnesota (MN), and Virginia (VA), with five each: Maryland (MD), Wisconsin (WI), Illinois (IL), North Carolina (NC), and New Jersey (NJ) each reported four licensed individuals. The data reveals that licensure is maintained across various states, underscoring the geographical mobility and reach of the profession’s practitioners. See Table 2.
A multiple linear regression was conducted to assess various demographic factors’ impact on rehabilitation counselors’ total earnings. The model accounted for 9.5% of the variance in total earnings (R^2 = .095) and, after adjustment for the number of predictors, explained 6.5% of the variance (Adjusted R^2 = .065). The F-statistic for the model was significant (F(6, 185) = 3.227, p = .005), indicating that, collectively, the predictors provide a reliable estimate of total earnings.
Within the model, the level of education was a significant indicator of the total earnings (B = 29,086.55, t = 2.518, p = .013), confirming the correlation of educational attainment with income. Gender approached significance (B = -33,961.76, t = -1.972, p = .050) and posits a possible effect on earnings, with females probably earning less than their male counterparts in this sample. Other factors, including race/ethnicity, practice setting, temporary disability status, and holding a CRCC credential, were not significant predictors in this model, with their respective p-values exceeding the conventional threshold for statistical significance. However, the practice setting showed a trend towards significance (B = -8,107.58, t = -1.746, p = .082), hinting at its potential influence on income that may warrant closer examination in future studies.
Despite the model’s statistical significance, many individual predictors did not significantly impact total earnings, indicating that additional variables not included may play a role in determining income levels. The findings suggest that further research is needed to explore these relationships more deeply. See Table 3.
Further analysis explored the influence of education level, gender, and their interaction on income. The initial model showed that the level of education was a significant predictor of income (p = .003). The subsequent model, including both education level and gender, found that both predictors were significant, with education level remaining a strong predictor (p = .014) and gender also contributing significantly (p = .031). In the final model, which considered the interaction between education level and gender, the main effects were not statistically significant, and the interaction effect did not significantly predict income. The detailed results of these analyses are presented in Table 4 below.
The researchers employed a series of multiple linear regressions to explore the influence of practice setting and gender on the earnings of rehabilitation counselors. Prior to the analysis, preliminary checks were conducted to ensure no violations of the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity, or homoscedasticity occurred. The models were deemed robust, with acceptable levels of these statistical assumptions.
Model 1 examined the predictive power of practice setting on earnings. The model indicated that practice setting was a significant predictor, accounting for a notable proportion of the variance in earnings (β = -.151, t = -2.140, p = .034). This suggests that the context in which counselors practice is related to their compensation.
Adding gender to the regression in Model 2 revealed that gender significantly predicted earnings (β = -.178, t = -2.541, p = .012), with practice setting also approaching significance (β = -.133, t = -1.906, p = .058). Including gender in the model highlights potential disparities in income related to gender in the field.
Model 3 introduced an interaction term between practice setting and gender. While the interaction itself did not significantly predict earnings (β = .174, t = 1.063, p = .289), the main effects of practice setting (β = -.267, t = -1.855, p = .065) and gender (β = -.248, t = -2.582, p = .011) were significant, indicating that both practice setting and gender independently relate to income differences among counselors.
Although the interaction term was insignificant, the consistent significance of the main effects in Model 3 suggests that practice setting and gender independently contribute to income variation. See Table 5.
A Pearson correlation analysis was conducted, and in the current sample, there were many significant relationships between factors related to total income and professional development in rehabilitation counseling. Age had a robust positive correlation with years of practice, meaning that generally, with rehabilitation professionals, the older the age, the more experience in the field. Intuitively, the relationship reflects the case for natural career progression over time. Gender appeared to play a substantial role in income differences, with a significant negative correlation suggesting that income disparities exist between genders within the profession. This finding points to a potential systemic issue that warrants further examination and possible intervention. Total income had a moderate, positive correlation with the levels of education; the investment in educational advancement may indeed have had a return in higher earnings, therefore likely to uphold the perceived value of formal qualifications within this sector.
Interestingly, practice setting was negatively correlated with total income, highlighting the work environment’s impact on earning potential, where specific settings may offer less financial reward than others. Additionally, possessing licensure was positively correlated with having a CRC credential, which may suggest that professionals seeking licensure are also more inclined to acquire additional certifications, perhaps as part of a broader strategy to enhance their qualifications and, by extension, their career prospects. These significant correlations paint a picture of a profession where experience, gender, educational attainment, workplace setting, and professional credentialing intertwine to shape the economic realities of practitioners.
For the qualitative open-ended response to how the COVID-19 pandemic affected income (N=200), about a third of participants indicated that the pandemic had no effect on their outcome. It appears that the majority of participants reported that the pandemic affected their income a little bit (42.1%). Several participants reported that COVID had no effect on their income (32.1%), while a number of participants reported that their income increased (4.9%). Other responses included receiving Paycheck Protection Program funds in response to the pandemic and feeling uncertain of the effect on their income. Regarding the impact of COVID-19 on income, some stated that their income decreased as much as 50% or more, with one participant stating that their income decreased by 70%. While another participant stated their income increased and they were able to go into private practice and work from home, avoiding paying office space overhead. Please refer to Table 6 in the Appendix for full list of qualitative codes regarding the effect of COVID-19 on income.
Finally, in response to significant life events that have affected income (e.g., temporary disability according to the ACS definition), the majority of participants did not report a significant life event that had an impact on income (67.2%). The exact wording of this open-ended question was, “Have you experienced any significant life events or situations, such as disability (as defined by the American Community Survey: hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living) that have impacted your ability to work? If so, please discuss.” There were 180 participants who provided a response to this question. It is interesting to note that these events appeared to occur at a greater level of frequency than any disclosures of disability or temporary disability from earlier items (80 respondents reported having temporary disability). Although a direct statistical comparison could not be completed due to unequal representation, it was interesting to note that for individuals who did not report a significant life event the average salary was $140,320 (95% confidence interval $107,411 - $138,248) while the average salary for individuals reporting a significant life event was $163,618 (95% confidence interval $97,846 - $153,483). There is a wider confidence interval for the significant life event group as would be expected due to smaller number, but it did generally appear that these individuals were able to return to work and obtain income similar if not higher to the no significant life event group (e.g., definition of ACS disability) group. This seems to be an argument supporting the efforts of vocational rehabilitation and rehabilitation counseling given that individuals are resilient enough to return to work following a disability according to the ACS definition and maintain a significant earning capacity. Please refer to Table 7 in the Appendix for full list of qualitative codes regarding the experiences of major life circumstances.
Discussion
The IARP longitudinal salary survey’s findings provide important insights into rehabilitation counselors’ salary distribution and demographic characteristics. Participant’s average age in this sample was 59.62 years, and average years in practice were 30.88, meaning that the field continues to be one in which seasoned professionals abound. The latter could partly result from the profession’s extensive educational and experience requirements. Compared to the initial salary survey completed by the George Washington University and IARP in 2016-2017, the distribution of current members’ ages increased to about 80% of participating members over the age of 50 (from 70% in the first study). This resulted in a positive skew of the reported age of participants towards the older age brackets. While IARP has attempted to recruit younger members through student membership statuses, whether or not these efforts have successfully diversified the age demographic the organization represents remains to be seen through future research.
A significant gender discrepancy was observed, with male respondents earning higher average salaries than their female counterparts. The average male participant (53.9%) had salaries of $172,495.96, considerably exceeding the females’ $129,755.86 resulting in a variance of $42,710.10. This is a basic overview and may still present some skew, as some highly paid males were present. More research in this area needs to be undertaken so that the gender pay gap can be addressed and fully understood.
The ethnic distribution of the sample was not well diversified, with 89.0% of respondents identifying as Caucasian. The remaining participants included Hispanic Latino (3.8%), African American (2.4%), and Asian American (0.5%). Despite these figures, the proportion of minority members has increased compared to earlier surveys. Continued efforts are necessary to enhance diversity within IARP, reflecting the populations that rehabilitation counselors serve.
The survey results reveal essential insights into the relationship between disability status, significant life events, and income among rehabilitation counselors. The lack of statistically significant differences in average salaries between those with and without disabilities suggests that the field of rehabilitation counseling might be more equitable than anticipated—however, more than this data point is needed to capture the entire narrative. The qualitative responses provide a deeper understanding of how these professionals navigate their careers despite health-related challenges.
Professional credentials, possessing the CRCC were the dominant response, yet there was no statistically significant difference in salaries among those with or without credentials. However, there was a difference in average earnings between participants who had a CRC credential ($147,946) compared to participants that did not possess a CRC ($137,280). This information can mean that credentials are widespread or that the value in terms of salary may be related to other components. More research would eventually spell out the value or lack of it for specific credentials about career advancement.
Geographic and practice setting differences significantly influenced salary outcomes among IARP members. The highest frequency of work settings was in urban areas, with 47% of participants reporting their practice in such locales. This is followed by 39% in suburban areas and 14% in rural settings, reflecting a logical distribution relative to population density. The total number of responses for this descriptive analysis was 238, with some members indicating they worked in multiple settings. The geographic distribution of IARP members closely mirrors the US population distribution according to the 2020 U. S. Census, with a slightly higher incidence of members in the South Atlantic and Pacific regions. These findings underscore the importance of considering geographic location when analyzing salary data, as regional differences can significantly impact earning potential.
Participants with temporary disabilities returned to work and actually had higher average earnings ($150,467) compared to participants who never experienced a temporary disability ($142,827). However, participants who experienced a permanent disability reported slightly lower average salaries compared to their counterparts without disabilities ($142,305 vs. $148,329). While these differences were not statistically significant, they raise questions about the subtle ways disability might impact earning potential. This could be due to various factors, including the extent of workplace accommodations, use of assistive technology, the severity of the disabilities, and individual resilience.
The higher average salary reported by participants who experienced significant life events (e.g., temporary disability according to the ACS definition), despite the broader confidence interval, underscores the potential for recovery and growth. It accentuates the possibility of recovery and growth. Effective vocational rehabilitation services will, in actuality, enable a rehabilitation counselor to overcome enormous barriers to become fully professionally successful. This brings out the critical role of vocational rehabilitation, which helps one to become resourceful enough to go back to work and hence be able to maintain or increase their earning capacity.
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly influenced the earnings and professional responsibilities of most rehabilitation counselors. While a slight majority reported a reduction in income, the varied responses, including no impact and even income increases for some, reflect the diverse ways counselors navigated the pandemic’s challenges. The notable shift towards digital service delivery underscores a pivotal transformation in the profession, suggesting that future practice will increasingly rely on telehealth and remote services. This finding is consistent with what the ACA found in their 2024 research. This adaptation mitigated some financial impacts and allowed for more flexible working conditions, potentially reshaping the landscape of rehabilitation counseling. The necessity for ongoing innovation and flexibility in service delivery is apparent, as these changes could offer long-term benefits for counselors and clients. The qualitative responses illustrate these shifts, providing a nuanced understanding of how counselors adapted to and were affected by the pandemic. The other area is that the pandemic fast-tracked the digital way of offering services; hence, more traveling and changes in professional areas must be needed. It calls for some changes in practice and service delivery; therefore, these shifts in understanding must be done concerning the profession’s future.
Limitations
Although every effort was taken to utilize sound methodology, including descriptive, qualitative, and ex post facto approaches for the study, several limitations should be taken into consideration. The first limitation of the current study relates to the research sample and the study’s external validity. Although the sample size of this longitudinal study (N = 200) was appropriate for the analyses completed, a larger sample of IARP members would increase the generalizability of the findings. A second potential limitation related to the sample is self-selection bias. Self-selection bias occurs when the group being studied has any form of control over whether to participate. Lavrakas (2008) posits, “Self-selection will lead to biased data, as the respondents who choose to participate will not well represent the entire target population” (p. 808). Participants’ decision to participate may be related to traits that could potentially affect the study, thus, the participants who completed the survey may be a non-representative sample. The data collected were obtained via self-report, which is also understood as a potential threat to validity. The final limitation is the lack of generalizability to other counseling practitioners in the United States since this study only included rehabilitation counselors working in the private sector and who were members of the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals.
Suggestions for Future Research
The findings of this study point to several areas for future research. First, the potential underreporting of disabilities due to stigma suggests that more work is needed to create an environment where rehabilitation counselors feel comfortable disclosing their health status. Understanding the prevalence of disabilities in the profession can help effectively tailor support services.
Second, exploring the long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the profession can provide valuable insights into how crises influence career trajectories. Such longitudinal studies, though, focusing more on the long-term consequences of the situation, could be very instructive about career changes that a crisis can cause or entail. Through close monitoring of income changes, job satisfaction, and development over time in detail, such longitudinal studies would draw the complete picture of the effects of the pandemic.
Third, further research should examine the specific factors that enable some rehabilitation counselors to thrive despite significant life events. Identifying the critical elements of effective vocational rehabilitation programs can inform best practices and policy development, ultimately enhancing support for all professionals in the field.
Future research could be expanded to include ongoing longitudinal research with IARP every five years to track the growth of earnings of rehabilitation counselors working in the private sector. This research could also examine self-reported rates for billable hours that counselors working in the private sector charge for their services. It would be interesting to determine if there are geographical influences on the rates that rehabilitation counselors charge for their services (e.g., major metropolitan areas vs. rural areas) or by type of case (e.g., medical malpractice, marital dissolution, workers’ compensation). The Delphi panel did not recommend that this question on billable rates be included in the survey and thus these data was not collected in this study.
Research that compares and contrasts the earnings of rehabilitation counselors working in the public domain across the United States, private non-profits, proprietary, and forensic sectors should be conducted and would increase the validity of the findings. In addition, future studies could delve deeper into specific benefits that rehabilitation counselors earn as part of their compensation (e.g., healthcare, long term disability, 401K, life insurance) and would provide prospective students, graduates and individuals seeking employment with additional information when they are deciding where to practice.
Conclusion
In conclusion, results from the IARP longitudinal salary survey found that rehabilitation counselors working in the private sector were earning significantly higher wages compared to prior research efforts that the ACA and CRCC conducted. This can be particularly attributed to the fact that this sample was relatively older, had significant clinical experience and worked primarily in the private for-profit sector. In this sample of counselors, it was interesting to find that individuals who reported experiencing a significant life event (e.g., disability according to the American Community Survey definition) did not experience a significant loss of earnings compared to those who never experienced a disability, and actually earned a higher average wages.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the profession has accelerated the adoption of digital service delivery, presenting both challenges and opportunities for rehabilitation counselors. The findings also underscore the importance of professional credentials, such as the CRCC, though further research is needed to clarify their specific value in career advancement.
Finally, this study provides evidence in support of additional education for counselors working in the private sector as wages increase with additional educational attainment and professional credentials. Counselors will require increased training as the diversity of clients broadens to include a vast breadth of racial and ethnic identities, intellectual, mental, and physical disabilities and an influx of returning veterans who will require rehabilitation services.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
None of the authors received financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.