Eight years after Book 9 of the German social code, SGB IX had entered into force, secondary analyses of published reports (for example those of the Federal Rehabilitation Council, BAR) about the existence and functioning of important institutional innovations such as the common service centres or new benefits such as the Personal Budget show many quantitative and qualitative deficiencies in its implementation. Deficits are mainly a lack of transparency, insufficient utilization of the innovative possibilities offered by the law and above all, poor cooperation among the various rehabilitation carriers involved. Among the deficits concerned are some which it has been impossible to eliminate for decades (since the so-called Rehabilitation harmonization law of 1974) by simple legal regulations or by appeals and voluntary self-commitments. To enable the innovative goals of the SGB IX to be reached, more intensive thought should again focus on the sense of having different rehabilitation carriers in place side by side. Irrespective of this issue, the legislator has to sanction obvious offences against the spirit of the SGB IX more strongly than so far.