||The main problem was to determine if the case conference hold by the Utah State Division of Rehabilitation Services (DRS) to evaluate welfare referrals was an effective diagnostic and prescriptive tool. (Phase I) Two secondary problems were also investigated: (1) to determine the characteristics of the typical welfare client served by the Utah DRS (Phase II); and (2) to determine which variables distinguished between the successful and unsuccessful welfare client. (Phase III) It was hypothesized for Phase I that the clients evaluated in the case conference would be significantly more successful (hypothesis 1), that rehabilitation services would cost less (hypothesis 2), and that these clients would spend significantly less time in the rehabilitation process (hypothesis 3). The question for Phase II was : What are the characteristics of the typical client served by the Utah DRS? The question for Phase III was : What variables distinguish between successful and unsuccessful welfare clients served by the Utah DRS? The research design used for Phase I was the causal-comparative study method. Clients evaluated in the case conference (group E) were matched and then compared with clients evaluated by the individual counselor (group C). The two groups were compared on the variables of success, rehabilitation cost, and time spent in rehabilitation. The design for Phase II was a descriptive investigation. The design for Phase III was a comparison of clients that were successful with those that failed rehabilitation. The subjects for all three phases were referred by the Utah State Department of Public Welfare, and closed from rehabilitation during fiscal year 1969-70. All subjects were from Salt Lake and Weber Counties. The total number of subjects was 352. The findings indicated that the case conference was not a more effective evaluation technique than the traditional technique used by DRS. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the directions predicted by the hypotheses. The E group was not more successful. The rehabilitation costs were not less. These clients did not spend less time in the rehabilitation process than did the group C members. The findings for Phase II showed that the Utah DRS was serving relatively young clients, with an average amount of education, and with average intelligence. Most clients served had mental rather than physical disabilities. The greatest proportion of clients served were female, 67.2 percent, and white, 97.1 percent. The Utah DRS had been very successful with these clients, The success rate was 75/6 percent. Most of the clients were receiving public assistance at referral, 87.7 percent. Very few were still receiving public assistance after rehabilitation, 29.8 percent. The savings to the State of Utah in public assistance grants was about $387,800 per year. The findings for Phase II indicated that several factors predicted rehabilitation success. The younger the client, the more education, and higher his intellectual ability, the more likely he would be successfully rehabilitated, The successful client had spent less time on public assistance. DRS had spent more money for service for the successful clients. Also, successful clients spent less time in the rehabilitation process. The conclusions were that the case conference was not an effective evaluative technique. It was further concluded that DRS was serving clients that probably had the ability to get training and become self sufficient on their own. It was recommended that counselors use the variables of age, education, and intellectual ability to help them determine which clients need intensive, in depth evaluations.