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 ,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 – Χ 2 – T-Tests – Analysis of Variance

Findings

Placement Provider, Nationwide

Placement Provision Variation Considerable variation from agency to agency – AlabamaState VR99.4% – ConnecticutCRP Private89.7% – DelawareOther Private56.2% – WA DCOther Private99.5% – FloridaCRP Private90.3% – GeorgiaState VR100.0%

Placement Provision Variation Considerable variation from agency to agency – IndianaCRP Private86.2% – Iowa (blind)State VR98.0% – NebraskaState VR100.0% – NHCRP Private100.0% – New YorkCRP Private99.5% – Rhode IslandOther Private78.1%

Placement Provider, Homogenous

Competitive Employment, Nationwide

Competitive Employment, Homogenous Group

Competitive Employment, Nationwide

Competitive Employment, Homogenous Group

Weekly Earnings, Nationwide

Weekly Earnings, Homogenous Group

Weekly Earnings, Nationwide

Weekly Earnings, Homogenous Group

Hours Worked, Nationwide

Hours Worked, Homogenous Group

Hours Worked, Nationwide

Hours Worked, Homogenous Group

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 Tucker San Diego State University (619) Chaz Compton Interwork Institute/SDSU (619)