Use of Extended Employment Services by VR Consumers Dr. David Dean, University of Richmond...

Use of Extended Employment

Services by VR Consumers

Dr. David Dean, University of Richmond

Presentation to the Employment Services Organizations Advisory Committee

Richmond, Virginia, February 8, 2011

Background

• Earlier analysis of supported employment (SE) focused on VR applicant cohort in SFY 2000

• Reported on use of supported employment and job coach training services (JCTS) by VR consumers who applied in 2000

• Examined VR service costs and employment outcomes (both pre- and post-closure) for those who received SE &/or JCTS

Background (cont.)

• Recently accessed DRS data on Extended Employment Services (EES) and Long-Term Employment Support Services (LTESS) for the SFY 2000 applicant cohort

• Currently examining just LTESS/EES data, before combining with VR services data for “big-picture” return-on-investment study

Current Analysis

• Includes VR applicants in SFY 2000 who subsequently received EES/LTESS for the first time through April 2010

• Participants could receive long-term follow-along (LTESS) and/or extended employment services (EES)

• 596 individuals received only follow-along, 207 received only EES, 37 received both at some point through April 2010

Who Gets LTESS/EES?

Characteristic at Time ofSFY 2000 Application

Type of Services Received

LTESS EES

Age at Application for VR 30.7 years 34.1 years

Percent Male 56.5% 51.7%

Percent Caucasian 60.7% 70.0%

Percent with HS Degree or More 47.8% 33.8%

Percent on SSI at VR Application 32.9% 52.2%

Percent on TANF at VR Application 2.2% 3.9%

Percent Supporting Themselves 12.2% 2.4%

Percent with Anxiety Disorder 13.4% 8.2%

Percent with Cognitive Impairment 44.0% 48.8%

Percent with Personality Disorder 4.0% 5.3%

Percent with Schizophrenia/Psychoses 15.3% 16.9%

Percent with Specific Learning Disabilities 7.1% 1.5%

Percent with Other Disabilities 12.3% 16.4%

Percent with Secondary Disability 40.1% 47.8%

VR Service Costs and Closure Status

SFY 2000 “base” caseType of Services Received

LTESS EES

Cost of VR Purchased Services $3,976 $2,828

% with Employment Outcome 77.2% 80.7%

% with no Employment Outcome

13.4% 14.0%

% Dropout 5.5% 3.9%

% Not Accepted 3.9% 1.5%

% Competitively Employed 63.9% 16.9%

Mean Median Low High

Avg. no. months employed/served (out of approx. 120 mos.)

26 14 1 108

Avg. per-person expenditures over the period

$8,188 $3,022 $31 $93,421

EES/LTESS participants who applied for VR in SFY 2000

Annual EES/LTESS Participation Rates, as reported by ESOs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9

Year Following Application for VR Services

Pe

rce

nt

Re

ce

ivin

g S

erv

ice

s

EES

LTESS

Average Annual EES/LTESS Service Costs vs. Average Annual Earnings

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9

Year following SFY 2000 application for VR

Mea

n A

nnu

al A

mo

un

t (20

09 $

)

EES service cost

LTESS service cost

EES participant earnings

LTESS participant earnings

Average Hourly Wages and Service Costs for LTESS Participants

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Month Relative to VR Application Month

Mea

n H

ou

rly

Am

ou

nt (

2009

$) i

f an

y

Average Hourly Wages and Service Costs for EES

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Month Relative to VR Application Month

Mea

n H

ou

rly

Am

ou

nt (

2009

$) i

f an

y Wages per Hour

Services per Hour

Calculating Benefit-Cost Ratios for EES/LTESS (SFY 2000 Applicants)

LTESS EES

Present Value* (PV) of Wages

$860 $394

PV of Services $242 582

Net PV $618 -$188

Benefit-Cost Ratio 3.55 0.68

Note: PV calculated at 3% discount rate

Next Steps in Refining ROI Framework

• More comprehensive look at service costs:– VR service costs for ALL episodes of VR

services (both in-house and purchased),– EES/LTESS service costs, and– “Similar benefits” provided by others

• Additional data on employment outcomes

• Examining subgroups of recipients with specific types of impairments

• Will get input from ESOAC as work progresses