examining the association between job placement provider and employment outcomes mark tucker &...
TRANSCRIPT
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) [email protected]
Chaz ComptonInterwork Institute/SDSU(619) [email protected]