Examining the Association Between Job Placement Provider and Employment

Outcomes

Mark Tucker & Chaz Compton

Introduction

• Job placement– Receipt of service correlated with employment– Very little research examining placement provider

Background

• Previous research– Individualized placement vs. contracted placement– Integrated services vs. brokered purchasing– Individualized training vs. general training– Outcomes-based funding for placement

Background

• Previous research– Perceived importance of placement activities– Factors influencing perceptions of importance of

placement activities– Duration of purchased placement services– Cost of purchased placement services

Purpose

• Examine employment outcomes of VR participants who received job placement services from different types of providers.

Study Population

• RSA-911 FY 2013• 589,402 total closed cases• 129,127 had valid eligibility dates and were

provided with job placement

Placement Providers

• Provided Directly by State VR• Community Rehabilitation, Public• Community Rehabilitation, Private• One-Stop Employment/Training• Other Public Sources• Other Private Sources

Outcome Variables

• Competitive employment• Weekly earnings at closure• Hours worked per week at closure

Competitive Employment Coding

Competitively employed• Determined eligible• Services provided• Exited with employment

outcome• Hourly wage ≥ federal/state

minimum• Integrated setting with or

without supports OR self-employment OR BEP

Not competitively employed• Determined eligible• Services provided• Exited without employment

outcome OR hourly wage < federal/state minimum OR in extended employment at closure OR homemaker closure OR unpaid family worker closure

Comparisons

• Nationwide• Homogenous group• Comparison of all provider types• State VR compared to other providers

combined

Analyses

• Descriptive statistics• Tests of difference– Χ2

– T-Tests– Analysis of Variance

Findings

Placement Provider, Nationwide

Provider0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

State VR AgencyCRP PublicCRP PrivateOne-StopsOther PublicOther Private

Placement Provision Variation

• Considerable variation from agency to agency

– Alabama State VR 99.4%– Connecticut CRP Private 89.7%– Delaware Other Private 56.2%– WA DC Other Private 99.5%– Florida CRP Private 90.3%– Georgia State VR 100.0%

Placement Provision Variation

• Considerable variation from agency to agency

– Indiana CRP Private 86.2%– Iowa (blind) State VR 98.0%– Nebraska State VR 100.0%– NH CRP Private 100.0%– New York CRP Private 99.5%– Rhode Island Other Private 78.1%

Placement Provider, Homogenous

Provider0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

State VR AgencyCRP PublicCRP PrivateOne-StopsOther PublicOther Private

Competitive Employment, Nationwide

Provider0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

VR Agency*Public CRPPrivate CRP*One Stop*Other Public*Other Private*

Competitive Employment, Homogenous Group

Provider0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

VR Agency*Public CRPPrivate CRPOne StopOther Public*Other Private*

Competitive Employment, Nationwide

Provider0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

VR AgencyAll Others

Competitive Employment, Homogenous Group

Provider0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

VR AgencyAll Others

Weekly Earnings, Nationwide

Provider$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

$350.00

$400.00

VR AgencyPublic CRPPrivate CRPOne StopOther PublicOther Private

Weekly Earnings, Homogenous Group

Provider$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

$350.00

$400.00

VR AgencyPublic CRPPrivate CRPOne StopOther PublicOther Private

Weekly Earnings, Nationwide

Provider$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

$350.00

$400.00

VR AgencyAll Others

Weekly Earnings, Homogenous Group

Provider$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

$350.00

$400.00

VR AgencyAll Others

Hours Worked, Nationwide

Provider0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

VR AgencyPublic CRPPrivate CRPOne StopOther PublicOther Private

Hours Worked, Homogenous Group

Provider0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

VR AgencyPublic CRPPrivate CRPOne StopOther PublicOther Private

Hours Worked, Nationwide

Provider0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

VR AgencyAll Others

Hours Worked, Homogenous Group

Provider0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

VR AgencyAll Others

Limitations

• Ex post facto design• Time period• Variable definitions• Accuracy of record-keeping• Within-state variation– e.g., providers “nested” in regions of the state

• Selection bias• Multiple placement providers

Discussion

• Competitive employment outcomes for State VR look different when comparing nationwide to homogenous data.

• Average earnings of those placed by State VR and One-Stops were significantly higher in nationwide sample.

• Average hours worked per week were higher for those placed by State VR and One-Stops in nationwide sample.

Discussion

• Nationwide, One-Stops provided job placement services to a very small proportion of closed cases.

• Effect sizes for nationwide and homogenous group comparisons of weekly earnings and hours worked per week were small.

Recommendations

• Examine factors contributing to placement provider utilization patterns

• Examine differences in populations served by providers

• Control for additional factors (e.g., geographic differences within states, client characteristics)

Contact Information

Mark TuckerSan Diego State University(619) 594-3498mtucker@mail.sdsu.edu

Chaz ComptonInterwork Institute/SDSU(619) 594-7935ccompton@interwork.sdsu.edu