NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE OF REHABILITATION TRAINING MATERIALS, FEBRUARY 23RD, 2010
 
>>  THE NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE OF REHABILITATION TRAINING MATERIALS COMMITTEE WELCOMES YOU TO THE SIXTH SEMINAR IN THE SERIES OF PROGRAM EVALUATION QUALITY ASSURANCE.  MY NAME IS MICHAEL SHOEMAKER AND I'M THE PROGRAM PLANNING AND EVALUATOR SPECIALIAST FOR THE UTAH STATE OFFICE OF REHABILITATION AND DIRECT THE SUMMIT GROUP.  IF THIS IS YOUR FIRST TIME JOINING US THE SUMMIT GROUP IS A COMMUNITY PRACTICE GROUP WHICH SEEKS TO PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FROM RECOGNIZED EXPERTS TO DEVELOP INTERSTATE COLLABORATION NETWORKS THROUGH OTHER STATE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND TO IMPROVE QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS AS A WAY TO ADVOCATE FROM 40 STATES AND FROM THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.  TO BE ADDED TO THE LISTSERV, EMAIL ME AT MTSHOeMAKER@UTAH.GOV.  DURING THE  PRESENTATION IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE CHAT THEM IN THE CHAT BOX NEAR THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN AND AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION WE'LL TRY TO ADDRESS AS MANY QUESTIONS AS OUR TIME WILL PERMIT. 
      TODAY OUR PRESENTERS ARE DR. SARAH WILHELM AND JENNIFER ROBINSON FROM THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY & ADMINISTRATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH.  IN FEBRUARY, 2009, THEY CONTRACTED WITH THE UTAH STATE OFFICE OF REHABILITATION TO COMPLETE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY THAT WOULD PRIMARILY LOOK AT THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT OF STATE FUNDS.  I PARTICIPATED AS THE PROJECT MANAGER AND AGENCY LIAISON ON THIS PROJECT.  I'M GRATEFUL FOR THEIR HARD WORK AND THE COLLABORATION THAT THEY GAVE TO THIS IMPORTANT PROJECT. 
      THE ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT CAN BE VIEWED UNDER THE NEW SECTION OF THE UTAH STATE OFFICE OF REHABILITATION HOME WEBSITE AT WWW.USOR.UTAH.GOV.  SARAH WILHELM HAS A BACHELORS DEGREE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN.  SHE HAS PUBLISHED SEVERAL ARTICLES IN PEER REVIEW ACADEMIC JOURNALS AND BOOK.  SHE WAS PREVIOUSLY THE FISCAL ANALYSIS DIRECTOR AND TAUGHT COURSES IN ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC POLICY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, FORT LEWIS COLLEGE, AND MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY.  JENNIFER ROBINSON IS THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY & ADMINISTRATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH. 
      AS ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR SHE OVERSEES THE POLICY RESEARCH, EVALUATION AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS AT THE CENTER.  MISS ROBINSON IS THE CO-AUTHOR OF "AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOODS," "THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT" AND CO-EDITOR OF "RISE OF THE WEST IN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS."  NOW I WILL TURN THE TIME OVER TO SARAH.  WE'LL HAVE ABOUT TEN MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AT THE END. 
      
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MICHAEL.  AGAIN MY NAME IS SARAH WILHELM AND IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.  THE QUESTION WE WERE ASKED BY THE STATE OFFICE OF REHABILITATION IN UTAH WAS WHAT ARE THE TANGIBLE BENEFITS OF THE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM? THE BENEFIT TO INDIVIDUALS COME IN THE FORM OF INCREASES IN EMPLOYMENT AND INCREASES IN EARNINGS.  THIS IS JUST THE TANGIBLE ECONOMIC BENEFITS.  I'M SURE MOST OF YOU ARE AWARE OF THE BROAD RANGE OF BENEFITS THAT ACCRUE TO AN INDIVIDUAL, THEIR FAMILY, THEIR COMMUNITY WHEN THEY ARE ABLE TO RETURN TO WORK AND HAVE SUCCESSFUL EMPLOYMENT. 
      BUT HERE WE'RE JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT THE DOLLARS AND CENTS OF IT.  AND THEN WE WERE ALSO TRYING TO LOOK AT THE PUBLIC BENEFITS, SPECIFICALLY THE BENEFITS TO THE STATE OF UTAH.  AND THAT COMES IN THE FORM OF INCREASES TAX REVENUE, AS PEOPLE WORK, THEY END UP PAYING TAXES.  AND DECREASES IN PUBLIC SUPPORT PAYMENTS THAT THE STATE OF UTAH WOULD HAVE TO PAY. 
      NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.  THE DATA WE USED WERE RECORDS FROM CLOSED CASES AT THE STATE OFFICE OF REHABILITATION FROM OCTOBER OF 2004 THROUGH SEPTEMBER OF 2005 AND THEN THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES WAS KIND ENOUGH TO WORK WITH US TO MATCH THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATA TO THOSE CLOSED CASES.  SO THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET QUARTERLY EARNINGS FOR THE INDIVIDUALS WITH CLOSED CASES FOR THE THREE YEARS PRIOR TO THEIR APPLICATION AND THREE YEARS AFTER THEIR CASE CLOSED. 
      SO WHEN WE WERE ALL SAID AND DONE, WE HAD 6030 INDIVIDUALS, WHICH WE HAD SUFFICIENT DATA FOR AND WE DIVIDED THOSE PEOPLE INTO TWO GROUPS. THE PROGRAM GROUP AND THE CONTROL GROUP.  THE PROGRAM GROUP IS THE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO RECEIVED SERVICES FROM THE STATE OFFICE OF REHABILITATION.  THEY WERE DETERMINED ELIGIBLE.  THEY RECEIVED SERVICES AND THEN THEIR CASE WAS CLOSED. 
      THE CONTROL GROUP IS THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE RECEIVED  --  I'M SORRY  --  WERE DETERMINED ELIGIBLE, BUT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY SERVICES.  AND THE IMPORTANT REASON THAT WE HAD BOTH A PROGRAM AND CONTROL GROUP IS THAT SO WE COULD COMPARE HOW THE PROGRAM GROUP DID TO ANOTHER GROUP, WHO WERE ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR SERVICES, BUT DID NOT RECEIVE THEM. 
      THANK YOU, NEXT SLIDE. 
      SO THERE IS A LOT OF INFORMATION ON THIS EARNINGS CHART.  FIRST I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FOCUS ON THE COLUMN THAT SAYS "PROGRAM."  AND THE COLUMN THAT SAYS "CONTROL."  SO THIS IS SHOWING US ANNUAL EARNINGS AFTER CASES HAVE CLOSED.  SO IN THE PROGRAM GROUP YOU CAN SEE ONE YEAR AFTER THEIR CASE WAS CLOSED, AVERAGE INCOME WAS $10,040.83. 
      FOR THE CONTROL GROUP, ONE YEAR AFTER CLOSURE, AVERAGE EARNINGS WAS $6506.69.  THAT MAY LOOK A LITTLE LOW, WHICH IS WHY WE DID ANOTHER CALCULATION.  PROGRAM AND EMPLOYEE. 
      SO THAT IS AVERAGING IN PEOPLE WHO HAD ZERO EARNINGS.  SO THE EARNINGS OF PROGRAM AND EMPLOYED PEOPLE ONE YEAR AFTER RECEIVING SERVICES WAS $15,776.64.  THE INTERESTING PART OF THIS CHART IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROGRAM AND CONTROL GROUP, WHICH IS THE SECOND TO LAST COLUMN, WHERE WE SEE THAT COMPARING AVERAGE EARNINGS OF THE PROGRAM GROUP AND CONTROL PROGRAM WE FIND A DIFFERENCE OF $3534.13, AND THAT DIFFERENCE IS STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. 
      SO THAT WAS QUITE SURPRISING THAT THERE IS SUCH A LARGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO GROUPS.  NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
      SO THE QUESTION ARISES THEN ARE THOSE EARNINGS, ARE THOSE DIFFERENCE IN EARNINGS BETWEEN THE TWO GROUPS, ARE THEY DUE TO SERVICES THAT WERE PROVIDED BY USOR OR COULD IT BE DUE TO JUST DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TYPE OF PEOPLE THAT RECEIVED SERVICES AND DON'T RECEIVE SERVICES?
 THE ANSWER IS PROBABLY A LITTLE OF BOTH.  IN ORDER TO TRY TO FERRET OUT THE TWO DIFFERENCES, WHAT IS DUE JUST TO INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS AND WHAT IS DUE TO ACTUALLY RECEIVING SERVICES, WE USED REGRESSION ANALYSIS TO TRY TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THAT.  NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
      IN ORDER TO DO THE REGRESSION ANALYSIS, WE HAD TO SPLIT IT INTO TWO QUESTIONS.  BASICALLY, FOR STATISTICALLY REASONS THAT I WON'T GO INTO, BUT SO WE HAVE TWO QUESTIONS:  WE HAVE HOW MUCH DID EARNINGS CHANGE FOR THOSE WHO CONSISTENTLY WORK?  AND THEN WE'LL COMPARE THE PROGRAM AND THE CONTROL GROUP.  AND FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T WORK CONSISTENTLY, WHOSE EMPLOYMENT WAS ON-AGAIN, OFF-AGAIN, WE LOOKED AT THE CHANGES IN THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND THE CHANGES IN THEIR LIKELIHOOD OF BEING EMPLOYED. 
      NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.  SO THIS GRAPH ANSWERS THE FIRST QUESTION.  HOW MUCH DID PEOPLE'S EARNINGS CHANGE WHEN THEY WERE CONSISTENTLY EMPLOYED?  SO LET ME TAKE A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO EXPLAIN WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT ON THIS GRAPH.  THE VERTICAL AXIS IS QUARTERLY EARNINGS IN 2008 DOLLARS.  THE HORIZONTAL AXIS IS THE  --  YOU SEE IT STARTS WITH MINUS 12.  IT'S THE 12 QUARTERS BEFORE THEY APPLIED FOR USOR SERVICES AND THEN THE PERIOD WHEN THEY ARE IN USOR, WHERE WE DON'T HAVE DATA, THE PERIOD THEY ARE RECEIVING SERVICES AND THE 12 QUARTERS AFTER THEY HAVE RECEIVED SERVICES. 
      SO THE RED LINE SHOW WHAT IS HAPPENING TO QUARTERLY EARNINGS PRIOR TO THEIR APPLICATION FOR USOR SERVICES.  THE GREEN LINE SHOWS WHAT HAPPENS TO INDIVIDUAL'S EARNINGS AFTER THEIR CASE IS CLOSED, BUT WHEN THEY DID NOT RECEIVE SERVICES.  SO THAT GREEN LINE IS THE CONTROL GROUP.  AND THEN THE PURPLE LINE, WHICH IS HIGHER THAN THAT, IS THE PROGRAM GROUP. 
      THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO RECEIVED SERVICES.  SO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE LAST DOT OF THE RED LINE AND THE GREEN LINE IS ABOUT $1032.  SO EVERYBODY, EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T RECEIVE SERVICES, SOMEHOW GOT A LITTLE BUMP FROM BEING CONNECTED GOING THROUGH THE APPLICATION PERIOD OF USOR. 
      THEN THEY RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL BUMP IF THEY ACTUALLY RECEIVED SERVICES.  THE ADDITIONAL BUMP IS ABOUT $1500 FOR EVERY ONE  --  MUCH BETTER.  THANK YOU. 
      SO THE PURPLE LINE IS ABOVE THE GREEN LINE.  SO THIS IS THE ADDITIONAL BENEFIT THAT PEOPLE GET FROM SERVICES.  FOR EVERYBODY, EXCEPT THOSE WITH THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DISABILITY, THAT PURPLE LINE IS ABOUT $1500 ABOVE THE GREEN LINE.  FOR THOSE HAVE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DISABILITY, WHICH WAS 20% OF OUR SAMPLE, THEY RECEIVED A BUMP OF ABOUT $243 ABOVE THE GREEN LINE. 
      SO THAT AVERAGE IN THERE IS ABOUT $900, BECAUSE THAT IS AVERAGING IN THE $243 FOR THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DISABILITY AND THE $1500 FOR EVERYBODY ELSE. 
      SO THE INTERESTING THING THAT I THINK YOU CAN GLEAN FROM THIS IS THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE RECEIVED SERVICES HAVE HIGHER EARNINGS THAN PEOPLE WHO DID NOT RECEIVE SERVICES AND THAT THE PURPLE LINE AND GREEN LINES ARE PARALLEL, WHICH MEANS THAT THAT BENEFIT THAT COMES FROM RECEIVING SERVICES DOESN'T DIMINISH OVER THE THREE YEARS. 
      SO THAT BENEFIT DOES NOT SEEM TO GO AWAY, AT LEAST IN THE 12 QUARTERS WE LOOKED AT.  NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
      THIS ANSWERS THE QUESTION ABOUT EMPLOYMENT.  FOR THOSE WHO WERE CONSISTENTLY OR INCONSISTENTLY EMPLOYED, HOW DID RECEIVING USOR SERVICES CHANGE THEIR LIKELIHOOD OF BEING EMPLOYED?  SO, AGAIN, WE SEE THE RED LINE, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO APPLICATION, THE GREEN LINE IS WHAT HAPPENS FOR THOSE WHO DID NOT RECEIVE SERVICES AND THE PURPLE LINE IS WHAT HAPPENS TO THE LIKELIHOOD OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THOSE WHO DID RECEIVE SERVICES. 
      AND, AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE A SIMILAR STORY, ALTHOUGH SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.  EVERYBODY RECEIVES A LITTLE BUMP, JUST FROM GOING THROUGH THE APPLICATION PERIOD.  THEN THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL BUMP THERE FOR PEOPLE WHO DID RECEIVE SERVICES.  NOW YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THOSE LINES ARE NOT PARALLEL.  IN FACT, THEY GET A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TOGETHER, BUT THEN AFTER SEVEN QUARTERS, THEY STOP GETTING CLOSER TOGETHER.  SO A LITTLE BIT OF THE BENEFIT DIMINISHES, BUT THOSE LINES NEVER INTERSECT; THEY NEVER CROSS.  SO SOME OF THAT BENEFIT REMAINS. 
      NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
      SO NOW USING THAT INFORMATION, I'M GOING CALCULATE THE PRIVATE BENEFITS TO INDIVIDUALS.  SO FOR THE FIRST COLUMN LOOKS AT THE INCREASE IN EARNINGS BY ANSWERING THAT FIRST QUESTION FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSISTENTLY EMPLOYED, AND THE SECOND COLUMN LOOKS AT THE INCREASE IN EARNINGS FROM AN INCREASE IN EMPLOYMENT FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE INCONSISTENTLY EMPLOYED. 
      SO THE FIRST COLUMN, AN ANNUAL INCREASE PER PERSON OF $3360.  FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE EMPLOYED AN ANNUAL INCREASE OF $2,726 AND NOW I WILL RUN THROUGH THE FIRST COLUMN, SO YOU GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE THAT IS.  THE NEXT LINE SHOWS THE PRESENT VALUE OF FUTURE EARNINGS PER PERSON.  OUR SAMPLE WAS ON AVERAGE 41 YEARS OLD AND SO WE ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD WORK FOR ANOTHER 24 YEARS.  GIVEN THAT THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE FUTURE EARNINGS IS $56,903.  IN OUR SAMPLE THERE WERE 995 PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THAT GROUP, AND SO OUR TOTAL PRIVATE BENEFIT TO THAT GROUP WAS $56,618,904. 
      WE WENT THROUGH A SIMILAR ANALYSIS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAD AN INCREASE IN EARNINGS RESULTING FROM THEIR INCREASE IN EMPLOYMENT.  ADDED THAT TO THE TOTAL PRIVATE BENEFIT FOR THE PEOPLE IN JUST AN INCREASE IN EARNINGS AND GOT A TOTAL INCREASE OF EARNINGS TO PEOPLE STATE OF UNITED STATES OF $282 MILLION. 
      NOW IF YOU WANTED TO LOOK AT FULL REPORT, YOU COULD SEE THAT WE BROKE THAT OUT BY COUNTY, SO THAT LEGISLATORS AND OTHER PEOPLE COULD SEE HOW MUCH MONEY IS COMING INTO THEIR COUNTY AS A RESULT OF THE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM. 
      NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
      SO NOW WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT THE PUBLIC BENEFITS, AND, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST THE BENEFIT TO THE STATE OF UTAH.  THERE ARE FEDERAL BENEFITS.  THERE ARE PROBABLY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BENEFITS.  WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE BENEFITS TO THE STATE OF UTAH AND THE REASON WE HAVE DONE THAT IS BECAUSE IT'S THE UTAH STATE LEGISLATURE THAT DETERMINES FUNDING.  SO IT WAS THEIR DECISION PROCESS. 
      SO THAT $282 MILLION THAT YOU SAW ON THE LAST SLIDE LEADS TO AN INCREASE IN TAX REVENUE OF $32,231,036.37. 
      IN ADDITION THERE WAS A DECREASE IN PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS AND THESE ARE JUST PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS THAT STATE OF UTAH MAKES.  SO ONLY PROGRAMS THAT ARE STATE-RUN.  SO FOR EXAMPLE, SSI PAYMENTS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS AND THAT IS ANOTHER $34,219,945.  AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO A DECREASE IN MEDICAID PAYMENTS OF $4,570,582 FOR A GRAND TOTAL OF $71 MILLION AND CHANGE BENEFIT TO THE STATE OF UTAH.  SO THE BENEFIT THAT COMES FROM CLOSING ONE YEAR'S COHORT OF CASES.  SO THAT IS THE BENEFIT THAT COMES FROM THE CASES THAT WERE CLOSED BETWEEN OCTOBER 1ST OF 2004 AND SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2005. 
      SO THEN THE NEXT YEAR THERE WILL ALSO BE BENEFITS THAT COME TO THE STATE FROM THE NEXT GROUP OF PEOPLE.  SO THIS IS JUST THE ONE YEAR.  SO THE PUBLIC BENEFIT WERE $71 MILLION AND HOW MUCH DID THE STATE OF UTAH SPEND THAT YEAR?
 $58 MILLION.  THE COST-BENEFIT RATIO OF $5.64, WHICH MEANS FOR EVERY DOLLAR THE STATE SPENDS ON VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION, THEY GET BACK $5.64 INTO THE STATE COFFERS, IGNORING ALL THE BENEFITS -- WELL, NOT REALLY IGNORING THEM, BUT NOT REALLY ACCOUNTING FOR THE BENEFITS THAT COME TO FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES AND INDIVIDUALS FROM HAVING TO WORK.  THIS IS JUST THE DOLLAR PART OF IT. 
      NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
      IN ADDITION THERE IS SOME ECONOMIC BENEFIT THAT COMES FROM THE FEDERAL DOLLARS COMING INTO THE STATE.  SO WE WANTED TO ADD THAT ON TO OUR ANALYSIS.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SENDS MONEY TO THE STATE OF UTAH TO FUND THEIR VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION.  WHEN THAT MONEY COMES IN, IT RESULTS IN ABOUT 250 NEW JOBS IN THE STATE.  NOW SOME OF THAT IS DIRECT EMPLOYMENT FROM THE FEDERAL FUNDING.  SO DIRECTLY PAYING FOR REHABILITATION COUNSELORS.  SOME OF THAT IS THE ECONOMIC MULTIPLIER, SO THOSE REHABILITATION COUNSELORS GO AHEAD AND BUY FOOD AT THE GROCERY STORE, AND GAS AT THE GAS STATION AND SERVICES AT THEIR BANK, AND THAT MONEY TURNS INTO EMPLOYMENT THROUGHOUT THE ECONOMY.  AN ADDITIONAL CHECKER AT THE GROCERY STORE OR ATTENDANT AT THE GAS STATION, ET CETERA. 
      SO THOSE 250 JOBS ARE CREATED THAT RESULT IN $16,430,888 IN EARNINGS, WHICH TURNS INTO $1.6 MILLION IN INCREASES TAX REVENUE.  WHICH GIVES US A NEW COST-BENEFIT RATIO OF $5.77.  SO FOR EVERY DOLLAR THE STATE OF UTAH SPENDS ON THE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM, $5.77 GOES BACK INTO STATE OF UTAH COFFERS IN ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER WONDERFUL BENEFITS THAT HAPPEN FROM THE OFFICE OF REHABILITATION.  SO THAT IS MY REPORT.  I JUST WANTED TO ADD ONE THING. 
      WHEN WE DID THIS ANALYSIS, WE TRIED TO BE AS CONSERVATIVE AS POSSIBLE.  SO WE TRIED TO ALWAYS END UP ON THE LOW-END.  SO I FEEL PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH THIS $5.77.  IT MAY BE TOO LOW, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE EXAGGERATED AT ALL.  WAYS WE WERE CONSERVATIVE, FOR SOME PEOPLE IN THE STATE OFFICE OF REHABILITATION DATASET, THEY DID NOT HAVE CORRESPONDING INDIVIDUAL IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATASET. 
      AND THAT COULD BE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.  IT COULD BE BECAUSES THEY DIDN'T HAVE A JOB OR THEY WORKED FOR AN ORGANIZATION THAT DOESN'T REPORT THEIR WAKES TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.  AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF THOSE IN UTAH, FOR EXAMPLE THE LDS CHURCH DOESN'T REPORT THEIR WAGES TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.  SO RATHER THAN ASSUMING THAT THEY WERE EMPLOYED AND WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE DATA, WE ASSUMED THAT THEY WEREN'T EMPLOYED.  SO THAT IS HOW WE MADE OUR ANALYSIS CONSERVATIVE.  WE ALSO TOOK THE LOWEST POSSIBLE ESTIMATES OF MEDICAID COSTS AND SUCH. 
      SO WE'RE FEELING FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT WHILE THAT NUMBER MAY BE LOWER THAN IT SHOULD BE, IT'S NOT TOO HIGH AND IT'S STILL, I THINK, CERTAINLY, A LARGE BENEFIT TO THE STATE OF UTAH FROM HAVING THE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM. 
      SO I WILL END MY COMMENTS THERE AND WE CAN GO TO QUESTIONS.
>>  THIS IS MIKE SHU MAKER AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE DO PUT THEM INTO THE CHAT BOX AND SEND THEM ON TO US AND I WILL READ THEM TO THE GROUP AND GET SOME ANSWERS FOR YOU. I DO NOT SEE ANYONE WHO HAS SUBMITTED AN ANSWER SO FAR.  I WILL WAIT JUST A MINUTE OR TWO TO SEE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT AND, IF SO, IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS AT THAT TIME, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND COMPLETE OUR WEBINAR FOR TODAY.
>>  MICHAEL, DO YOU WANT TO TELL PEOPLE WHERE THEY CAN FIND THE STUDY ON THE WEB?
>>  YES.  THAT IS AT THE UTAH STATE OFFICE OF REHABILITATION WEBSITE.  WWW.USOR.UTAH.GOV.  I HAVE A QUESTION THAT SAYS HOW HAS THE RESEARCH AFFECTED POLICY THUS FAR?  AND I THINK PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO ANSWER THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS THAT WE DID TAKE THIS INFORMATION UP TO OUR STATE LEGISLATORS DURING THIS SESSION AND I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS TO MENTION IS THAT THERE WAS A POSITIVE RESPONSE TO THE RESULTS FROM THE ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY. 
     
    FOR EXAMPLE AT ONE POINT IN TIME, ONE CAUCUS OF A PARTICULAR POLITICAL GROUP UP THERE MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND RECOMMEND FOR THE PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED BUDGET CUTS FOR BASICALLY MOST STATE AGENCIES, EXCEPT FOR OUR PARTICULAR AGENCY.  SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDIES ARE MEANT FOR BROAD AND ALSO TARGETED INFLUENCE.  AND I THINK THAT THEY ARE MAKING BOTH BROAD AND TARGETED INFLUENCE WITHIN THE STATE OF UTAH. 
      CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE RECIDIVISM ISSUE?  THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS.  THAT WAS TO MYSELF. 
      WE DISCUSSED THIS IN AN EMAIL THAT I RECEIVED YESTERDAY TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, AND INDICATED THAT REALLY COMPARATIVE TO MANY OTHER STATES, UTAH DOESN'T EXPERIENCE AS LARGE A RECIDIVISM QUESTION AS IT DOES WITH OTHER STATES. 
      SO THE SIZE OF THE GROUP AND SAMPLE THAT WE'RE INDICATING WAS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO GO AHEAD AND NOT NEED TO LOOK AT THAT IN A MORE SPECIFIC WAY. 
      THERE IS ANOTHER QUESTION HERE.  HOW DID YOU DETERMINE "INCONSISTENT"  --  HOW DO YOU DETERMINE "INCONSISTENT" FROM "INCONSISTENT EMPLOYMENT"? I'M NOT SURE IF I UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION.
>>  I THINK I DO.
>>  OKAY, GREAT.
>>  SO WE BASICALLY CALLED ANYBODY WHO WAS CONSISTENTLY EMPLOYED, IF THEY HAD POSITIVE WAGES IN SAY 22 OF THE 24 QUARTERS.  SO MOST PEOPLE WERE INCONSISTENTLY EMPLOYED, BUT IF THEY HAD WAGES IN ALMOST ALL THE QUARTERS, WE CALLED THEM "CONSISTENTLY EMPLOYED."
    BASICALLY THE REASON WE HAD TO DO THAT FOR STATISTICS IS THAT WE COULDN'T LOOK AT THAT PERSON'S CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT, IF THEY WERE ALWAYS EMPLOYED.  OUR STATISTICAL MODELS WOULD SAY THERE IS NO CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO STUDY THIS PERSON.  SO WE HAD TO SEPARATE OUT THE TWO GROUPS. 
     
>>  GREAT.  SARAH.  THERE IS ANOTHER QUESTION HERE.  HOW DIFFICULT WAS IT TO LINK VR INFORMATION TO OTHER PUBLIC ASSISTANCE INFORMATION?  GO AHEAD, SARAH.
>>  THANK YOU.  THE DATA THAT WE RECEIVED FROM USOR HAD SELF-REPORTED INFORMATION ABOUT WHICH PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS THEY WERE ENROLLED IN AND HOW MUCH THEY RECEIVED, IF IT WAS A PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PAYMENT PROGRAM, FOR EXAMPLE.  TANNA, SSI, SSDI, GENERAL ASSISTANCE.  SO WE HAD THAT INFORMATION AT APPLICATION AND AT CLOSURE AND THEN WE ALSO HAD INFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ENROLLED IN MEDICAID. 
      SO THAT WAS ALL INFORMATION THAT CAME FROM THE STATE OFFICE OF REHABILITATION DATASET.
>>  OKAY.  THE NEXT QUESTION IS MORE SPECIFICALLY, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF CASES DOES UTAH HAVE IN A GIVEN YEAR THAT THEY ALSO SERVED WITHIN THE PRIOR THREE YEARS?  AND IT MENTIONS THERE A COMMENT, I THINK THIS IS WHAT RSA HAS USED ON THEIR REPORT CARD. 
     
>>  I DON'T HAVE INFORMATION ON THAT, SINCE WE ONLY HAD ONE YEAR OF DATA, WE DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY HAD RECEIVED SERVICES, AGAIN, OUTSIDE OF THAT YEAR ON EITHER END, PRIOR OR AFTER CLOSURE.  DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE OF THAT MICHAEL?
>>  I DON'T HAVE INFORMATION ON THAT.  I DO KNOW THAT THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME FOR A CASE TO GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH ITS PROCESS OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND TO BE CLOSED FOR EMPLOYMENT IS 33 MONTHS IN THE STATE OF UTAH. 
      SO HOPEFULLY THAT WILL ADDRESS SOME OF THAT QUESTION.  ANOTHER QUESTION HERE IS IN THE MODEL, WHAT DEMONSTRATES FOR THE CONTROLS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL AND LABOR MARKET CHARACTERISTICS?
>>  OKAY, GREAT QUESTION.  THERE ARE TWO WAYS THAT WE CONTROLLED FOR THAT.  THE FIRST IS IN REGRESSION, WE HAD A FEW PIECES OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE LOCAL LABOR MARKET.  FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAD THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN THERE AND WE USED A STATISTICAL TECHNIQUE CALLED "CLUSTERED STANDARD ERRORS," WHICH I WILL TRY NOT TO GET TOO IN THE WEEDS HERE.  BUT ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS US TO LOOK AT AN INDIVIDUAL AND HOW THEY ARE JUST A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM THE REST OF THE GROUP AND THEN LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE BEYOND THAT FOR MEASURING THE EFFECTIVE USOR. 
      SO SOMEONE WHO LOOKS THE SAME AS ANY HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE FROM UTAH, BUT HAPPENS THAT THIS PERSON IS REALLY, REALLY SMART, THAT WILL BE CAPTURED SLIGHTLY BY THE CLUSTERED STANDARD ERRORS, BECAUSE IT WILL SHOW THAT THIS PERSON'S WAGES ARE ALWAYS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER FOR EVERYTHING.  I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION.
>>  THE NEXT QUESTION IS CAN YOU DESCRIBE HOW THE LIKELIHOOD OF EMPLOYMENT IS CALCULATED?
>>  SO IN THIS CASE, WE HAD  --  IT WAS CALCULATED BY WHAT PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE IN THAT GROUP WERE EMPLOYED.  SO IF THE LIKELIHOOD OF EMPLOYMENT WAS .6, IT MEANT THAT 60% OF THOSE PEOPLE IN THAT GROUP WERE EMPLOYED.
>>  SARAH, IT SEEMS LIKE THE QUESTIONS ARE DIMINISHING A LITTLE BIT HERE.  SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THANK EACH AND EVERY OF YOU WHO HAVE COME ON TODAY TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS WEBINAR AND TO INVITE YOU TO COME BACK AGAIN.  WE ANTICIPATE THE NEXT WEBINAR WILL BE AVAILABLE IN APRIL. 
      SO AS YOU EXIT THIS PROGRAM, AN EVALUATION WILL COME UP AND YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILL OUT INFORMATION REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR WEBINAR.  OTHERWISE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION AND WE WILL SEE YOU NEXT TIME AROUND. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LETTING US PARTICIPATE.