The study presents benefit-cost ratios for 14 disability cohorts served by the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Program. The earnings impacts are estimated in a quasiexperimental framework using an internal comparison group. The earnings data are from a unique national panel constructed by linking client data of the Rehabilitative Services Administration with earnings histories from the Social Security Administration. These earnings data accommodate a series of statistical tests that allow us to identify and control for the presence of selection bias when estimating treatment impacts. The results indicate that the VR program is cost-effective in general, although not universally so across specific disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ashenfelter, O., and D. Card.1985. Using the longitudinal structure of earnings to estimate the effect of training programs. The Review of Economics and Statistics67:648-660.
2.
Bassi, L.1983. The effect of CETA on the postprogram earnings of participants. The Journal of Human Resources18:539-556.
3.
Bassi, L.1984. Estimating the effect of training with non random selection. The Review of Economics and Statistics66:36-43.
4.
Bell, H., L. Orr, J. Blomquist, and G. Cain. 1995. Program applicants as a comparison group in evaluating training programs. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
5.
Bellante, D.1972. A multivariate analysis of a vocational rehabilitation program. The Journal of Human Resources7:226-241.
6.
Berkeley Planning Associates. 1989. The economic benefits of the Vocational Rehabilitation Program, contract no. 300-86-0115. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Education.
7.
Bloom, H., L. Orr, S. Bell, G. Cave, F. Doolittle, W. Lin, and J. Bos. 1997. The benefits and costs of JTPA Title II-A Programs. Journal of Human Resources32:549-576.
8.
Boruch, R.1997. Randomized experiments for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Browning, E., and J. Browning. 1983. Public finance and the price system. New York: Macmillan.
10.
Burtless, G.1995. The case for randomized field trials in economic and policy research. Journal of Economic Perspectives9:63-84.
11.
Conley, R.1969. A benefit-cost analysis of the vocational rehabilitation program. Journal of Human Resources4:226-252.
12.
Dean, D., and R. Dolan. 1991. Assessing the role of vocational rehabilitation in disability policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management10:568-587.
13.
Dean, D., R. Dolan, and R. Schmidt. 1998. Evaluating public-sector vocational rehabilitation in an experimental framework. Manuscript in preparation.
14.
Dickinson, K., T. Johnson, and R. West. 1986. An analysis of the impact of CETA programs on participants' earnings. The Journal of Human Resources20:64-91.
15.
Fraker, T., and R. Maynard. 1987. Evaluating comparison group designs with employment-related programs. The Journal of Human Resources22:194-227.
16.
Greenblum, J.1975. Evaluating vocational rehabilitation programs for the disabled: National long-term follow-up study. Social Security Bulletin38:3-12.
17.
Grossman, J., and J. Tierney. 1993. The fallibility of comparisons groups. Evaluation Review17:556-571.
18.
Heckman, J.1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica47:153-161.
19.
Heckman, J., and V. J. Hotz. 1989. Choosing among alternative non-experimental methods for estimating the impact of social programs: The case of manpower training. Journal of the American Statistical Association84:862-874.
20.
Heckman, J., V. J. Hotz, and M. Dabos. 1987. Do we need experimental data to evaluate the impact of manpower training on earnings?Evaluation Review11:395-427.
21.
Heckman, J., and R. Robb. 1985. Alternative methods of evaluating the impact of interventions. In Longitudinal analysis of labor market data, edited by J. Heckman and B. Singer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Heckman, J., and J. Smith. 1995. Assessing the case for social experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives9:85-110.
23.
Hotz, V. J. 1992. Comments on the analysis plans for the GAO study of the vocational rehabilitation program. Unpublished memo to the U.S. General Accounting Office Program Evaluation and Methodology Division.
24.
Imbens, G., and J. Angrist. 1994. Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica62:467-475.
25.
LaLonde, R.1986. Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. American Economic Review76:604-620.
26.
Lewis, D., D. Johnson, T. Chen, and R. Erickson. 1992. The use and reporting of benefit-cost analyses by state vocational rehabilitation agencies. Evaluation Review16:269-287.
27.
Manski, C.1990. Nonparametric bounds on treatment effects. American Economic Association Papers & Proceedings80:320-323.
28.
Nowak, L.1983. A cost-effectiveness evaluation of the federal/state vocational rehabilitation program—using a comparison group. The American Economist27:23-29.
29.
Rehabilitation Services Administration. 1982a. Caseload statistics, State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies, fiscal year 1980, information memorandum RSA-IM-82-11. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education.
30.
Rehabilitation Services Administration. 1982b. State Vocational Rehabilitation Agency program data, fiscal year 1981, information memorandum. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education.
31.
Rosenbaum, P., and D. Rubin. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika70:41-55.
32.
Rubin, D.1979. Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association74:318-328.
33.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1993. Vocational rehabilitation: Evidence of federal program effectiveness is mixed. Report to the Subcommittee on Select Education, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Author.
34.
White, H.1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica48: 817-838.
35.
Worrall, J.1978. A benefit-cost analysis of the vocational rehabilitation program. Journal of Human Resources13:285-298.
