Learning from State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies on the eve of WIOA: State differences in service receipt and employment outcomes by applicant employment status
Issue title: Vocational Rehabilitation Considerations for People with Emerging Disabilities
Guest editors: Phillip D. Rumrill Jr. and Lynn C. Koch
Affiliations: [a]
Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, NJ, USA
| [b]
Mathematica Policy Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Correspondence:
[*]
Address for correspondence: David R. Mann, Mathematica Policy Research, P.O. Box 2393, Princeton, NJ 08543-2393, USA. Tel.: +1 609 275 2365; Fax: +1 609 799 0005; E-mail: dmann@mathematica-mpr.com
Note: [1] “Employment without supports” is work performed in an integrated setting without ongoing support services. “Other paid employment” includes self-employment, supported employment, and work in sheltered workshops. “Students not employed” includes individuals attending school full or part-time. “Neither students nor paid workers” includes homemakers, interns, volunteers, and those who are not working.
Note: [2] There are many reasons why someone can be employed at application but not at program exit. For example, the worsening of a chronic condition after application to the point that it prohibits work is a possible situation that would create this result.
Abstract: BACKGROUND:The Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act increased focus on State Vocational Rehabilitation Agency (SVRA) service priorities for several applicant subpopulations, such as transition-age youth, workers receiving subminimum wages, and workers with competitive and integrated employment. OBJECTIVE:This study examines state variation in outcomes for applicants in four different employment statuses at application similar to the subpopulations affected by WIOA, and identifies SVRAs with consistently strong outcomes. METHODS:We used VR administrative data on cases closed during fiscal year 2014 to calculate the percentage of VR applicants who received services and the percentage of VR service recipients who were employed at program exit. Regression analysis controlled for applicant subpopulation, SVRA, and other characteristics. Results were reported as marginal effects and presented graphically. RESULTS:There was more variation across SVRAs in the share of applicants receiving services than in the share employed at program exit. Variation was particularly large for students not employed at application. Eight SVRAs were in the highest quartile on both outcomes for one or more subpopulations. CONCLUSIONS:The findings are a first step towards better understanding the mechanisms that drive the relative success of some SVRAs and facilitating the sharing of best practices throughout the VR program.
Keywords: Vocational rehabilitation, employment, service receipt, status at application, agency level variation
