BPAO/ wipa Impact study

1. BPAO/wipaImpact study March, 2011

2. PURPOSE • To assess the impact of a written benefits analysis by BPAO on Vocational Rehabilitation clients’ outcomes in terms of: ► employment ►income ►and VR closure status Contracted study through Center for Public Policy & Administration at the University of Utah by the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation (USOR)

3. 3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. Do VR clients that receive a benefits analysis in addition to VR services have better employment outcomes? 2. Do VR clients that receive a benefits analysis in addition to VR services have better earnings? 3. Do VR clients that receive a benefits analysis in addition to VR services have a greater likelihood of a successful VR closure?

4. SOURCES OF INFORMATION • To determine answers to the research question information was pulled from: • the USOR 911 Data Set • UI Data from the Department of Workforce Services • BPAO records to determine who got an analysis

5. WHAT WAS MEASURED • The following outcome measures were gathered: • 1. Quarterly earnings from UI covered employment • 2. Weekly earnings reported by USOR at application and closure • 3. Quarterly employment rates from UI • 4. Closure status reported by USOR (successfully employed vs. unsuccessful)

6. STUDY SAMPLE ◦ VR Clients who were receiving SSI and/or SSDI and were closed status 26 and 28 ◦ Closure dates were from October 1st, 2004 to September 30th, 2006 – limited in order to search UI data 12 quarters before and after closure. ◦ The total sample was 1425 (1271 with no written analysis, 154 with an analysis)

7. EMPLOYMENT FINDINGS • Based on UI data including the entire sample, for the quarter after closure, the group with a written benefits analysis was 15%more likely to be employed than the group that did not receive an analysis (employed means show wages). • For the quarter before application there was no difference between the 2 groups in employment rates

8. EMPLOYMENT FINDINGS • Using a multivariate analysis to try and reduce the impact of other factors the study found that the relationship of a written analysis with employment is positive with an initial increase in the likelihood of employment of 18.4%. This difference slightly declines to 16.7% by the 12th quarter after closure.

9. VR CLOSURE STATUS FINDINGS The group with an analysis is much more likely to be closed successfully

10. EARNING FINDINGS • For the quarter after closure, UI data showed that the group that received a benefit analysis on average made $451.59 more per quarter than the group that did not. This is statistically significant. • Closure 911 data showed that the group who received a benefits analysis made, on average, $36.93 more per week at closure than the group that did not receive an analysis. • Both USOR and UI data showed no significant difference between the groups in wages at application, but did show a significant difference in wages at closure

11. Change In Wages • When the sample is narrowed to only those individuals who are employed there is no significant difference between the wages of those people who received the analysis and those who did not (group who got analysis made $143/quarter more than those who did not, higher but not significant enough to be considered statistically significant) • Therefore it appears that the increase in wages seen in the entire group is due to an increased likelihood of employment rather than clients increasing their individual earnings

12. Summary of Findings • Individuals who receive a benefit analysis are more likely to be employed than those who do not as defined by having UI wages and also defined as being closed as successful within the VR program (status 26) • The group who received an analysis did make more money as a whole group to a significant level than those who did not but that is likely due to more individuals being employed