Transcript Experiences of Transition-Age Youth with Vocational

VR Experiences of Youth with
Disabilities: An Overview of
Processes, Practices, and Outcomes
Todd Honeycutt
Presented at 2014 7th Annual VR Summit
Louisville, Kentucky
September 8, 2014
The research reported herein was pursuant to a grant
from the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA)
funded as part of the Disability Research Consortium
(DRC). The findings and conclusions expressed are
solely those of the author(s) and do not represent
the views of the SSA or any agency of the
federal government.
2
● Increasing interest in promoting youth
transitions, especially for those with
disabilities
3
● Vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies are
well-positioned to assist youth and young
adults
4
● Almost one in three VR applicants is age 16
to 24
5
Three Studies
● How do state VR agencies vary in the ways
youth seek and receive VR services?
● What are the long-term outcomes for youth
applicants with and without SSA disability
benefits?
● What practices do state VR agencies use to
serve youth, and how do those practices
vary by youth outcomes?
6
Research Innovations
● Reorienting data to VR applicant cohorts
instead of VR closure cohorts
● Integrating state-level survey and
administrative data to obtain statistics on
youth seeking VR services
● Using SSA administrative data to examine
outcomes after VR exit
7
First Study
● How do state VR agencies vary in the ways
youth seek and receive VR services?
8
First Study
● Produce statistics at the agency level
● Examine the factors associated with agencylevel statistics
9
First Study – Methods
● Used Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA)-911 case service records fiscal years
(FY) 2004–2011
– Supplemented with additional data (RSA,
American Community Survey)
● Identified FY 2004–2006 applicants ages 16
to 24
● Developed three transition-age youth ratios
10
Transition-Age Ratios
● Applicant-to-youth ratio
– Percentage of youth with disabilities ages 16 to 24
who applied to VR agencies each year (2004 to
2006)
● Service-to-applicant ratio
– Percentage of youth applicants who received
services each year
● Employment-to-service ratio
– Percentage of youth receiving services who
closed each year with employment
11
Annual Transition-Age Youth Ratios
90
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Applicant-to-youth ratio
Service-to-applicant ratio
12
Employment-to-service ratio
Summary Transition Ratio
● The summary transition ratio is the product
of the three other ratios
– Percentage of transition-age youth with
disabilities who applied for and received VR
services and were employed when their VR cases
were closed
● Nationally, agencies averaged 2.3 percent,
with range from less than 1.0 to 7.0 percent
13
State Variation in Summary
Transition Ratio
Summary Transition Quartile
(1=highest, 4=lowest)
14
State Variation in Summary
Transition Ratio
0.07
0.06
Percentage
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
15
Selected Factors Associated with
Transition Ratios
● Higher applicant-to-youth ratio associated with:
– Higher percentage of transition-age youth with a disability
– Higher VR grant allotment per person with disability
– Higher youth labor force participation
● Higher service-to-applicant ratio associated with:
– Lower mean cost of purchased services
– Not in order of selection
● Higher employment-to-service ratio associated with:
– Higher youth labor force participation
16
Limitations and Considerations
● Many factors outside an agency’s control
can influence transition ratios
● Consideration of VR processes, not overall
youth employment outcomes
17
Second Study
● What are the long-term outcomes for youth
applicants with and without SSA disability
benefits?
18
Second Study
● Examine ratios and outcomes for youth with
and without SSA disability benefits
● SSA youth are important for VR agencies
19
Second Study – Methods
● Similar methods and statistics as first study
● Comparisons of youth with and without SSA
benefits
● Matched RSA-911 data to SSA’s Disability
Analysis File (95 percent match rate) to
obtain additional long-term outcomes
20
One in Five Youth VR Applicants Were Already
Receiving SSA Youth or Adult Benefits
Youth VR Applicants
Receiving SSA Benefits
● 4 percent of SSA youth
applied for VR services
each year (29,000
annually)
13%
11%
76%
21
SSI-only
DI-only
Concurrent
VR Employment Outcomes Higher
for Nonbeneficiaries
100
90
100%
100%
29,330 108,432
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
57%
55%
16,753
59,761
Non-SSA Youth
SSA Youth
30
33%
20
25%
10
7,287
35,266
0
Applied for VR Services
Received VR Services
22
Exited from VR with Employment
SSA Outcomes of VR Applicants with
and Without Benefits
23
Wide Variation of Youth Employment
Outcomes Among Agencies
Percentage Exiting with Employment
60
AL
DE
50
CA WV SC
40
Median
30
MT
20
LA
ME
FL
TX
CT
AZ MO
WA WI
TN
10
0
Non-SSA Youth
24
SSA Youth
NE
CO NH
GA MS
PA
Across VR Agencies, 15 Percentage Point
Difference in SSA Youth with Benefit Suspension
Percentage of SSA Youth with
Benefit Suspension
30
25
NC
AL
HI
20
Median
15
10
TN
KY
NV
WI
CA
MI
MO
AK
IL
GA
ID
5
0
25
CT
UT
ME
AR
ND
NY
DE
WY
One in 10 Nonbeneficiary VR Youth Applicants
Received SSA Benefits Within Four Years
Percentage of Youth Nonbeneficiaries
Receiving SSA Benefits
25
WA
CT
20
MA
VT
15
Median
10
AL
5
WV
DE
MS
NE
ND
AR
UT
GA
LA
SC
0
26
WI
NV
MD
NH
MN
ME
RI
Selected Factors Associated with
SSA Transition Ratios
● Higher percentage of youth VR applicants with SSA benefits
associated with:
– Lower VR grant allotment
– Being in order of selection
● Higher SSA service-to-applicant ratios associated with:
– Higher non-SSA service-to-applicant ratios
– Not being in order of selection
● Higher SSA employment-to-service ratios associated with:
– Higher non-SSA employment-to-service ratios
– Higher VR grant allotment
– Higher youth labor force participation
27
Selected Factors Associated with
SSA-Related Outcomes
● Higher percentage of SSA beneficiaries with benefit suspension
due to work within 48 months associated with:
–
–
–
–
Higher SSA employment-to-service ratios
Higher VR grant allotment
Higher youth labor participation rates
Not being in order of selection
● Higher percentage of non-SSA VR applicants with SSA benefit
receipt within 48 months associated with:
–
–
–
–
Higher percentage of youth VR applicants with SSA benefits
Lower SSA and non-SSA service-to-applicant ratios
Lower VR grant allotment
Being in order of selection
28
Limitations and Considerations
● Descriptive analysis (no causality)
● Does not account for individual-level
characteristics that could influence ratios
29
Third Study
● What practices do state VR agencies use to
serve youth, and how do those practices
vary by youth outcomes?
30
Third Study
● Used qualitative case studies to understand
transition processes of select VR agencies
–
–
–
–
–
Organization and collaboration
Outreach, application, and eligibility processes
Service delivery
Employment
Monitoring and evaluation
● Contrasted processes for agencies with high and
low transition ratios
31
Third Study – Methods
●Interviews with 2 to 4 staff from 8 VR agencies
– Information on current practices, organizational
structure, and programs
● Comparison of practices that differentiate
agencies with high (N = 5) and low (N = 3)
transition ratios
32
Similarities in Agency Transition
Processes
● All 8 agencies had:
– Collaborations with other agencies
– Involvement with secondary schools
– Targeted programs for youth
● Challenges include:
– Potential demand exceeds resources
– Unclear standards and indicators
– Limited reach of youth-specific programs
33
Characteristics of the Five Agencies with
Higher Transition Ratios
● Organization and collaboration
– Reside under education departments
– Have state leadership with transition responsibilities
– Be involved in statewide or local transition collaborations
● Outreach, application, and eligibility processes
– Conduct outreach activities for parents and youth out of
high school
– Have a high proportion of transition-age population who
applied at or before age 18 or had an individualized
education plan
– Have a high proportion of overall case closures who were
youth
34
Characteristics of the Five Agencies with
Higher Transition Ratios
● Service delivery
– Provide multiple programs for youth, including schoolbased and employment programs
– Connect youth to postsecondary education
– Provide internal benefits counseling
● Employment
– Have employment programs other than Project SEARCH
● Monitoring and evaluation
– Have varied performance benchmarks for counselors
– Monitor youth-specific outcomes
35
Limitations and Considerations
● Based on a limited number of agencies and
limited number of perspectives from each
agency
36
Conclusions
● Large variation among state agencies in
transition ratios
– Process and outcomes for SSA youth are similar
to non-SSA youth
● Resource availability and cost could be
important drivers of transition outcomes
37
Conclusions
● Need for better federal guidance to measure
and report on youth
– What should agency goals be?
– What should be measured publicly?
● Need more rigorous assessment to
determine causality between agency
practices and outcomes
38
Questions for the Audience
● What is the role of VR as an early
intervention mechanism for youth?
● What federal guidelines should be in place
for monitoring and reporting on agency work
with youth?
● How can the experiences of the agencies
doing relatively better be applied to all
agencies?
39
Working Papers Available
●
“State Differences in the Vocational Rehabilitation Experiences of TransitionAge Youth
with Disabilities”
–
●
“Bridging the Gap: A Comparative Assessment of Vocational Rehabilitation
Agency Practices with Transition-Age Youth”
–
●
Todd Honeycutt, Allison Thompkins, Maura Bardos, and Steven Stern;
http://www.mathematicampr.com/publications/PDFs/disability/state_diff_vr_youth_wp.pdf
Todd Honeycutt, Maura Bardos, and Stephanie McLeod; http://www.mathematicampr.com/~/media/publications/pdfs/disability/drc_bridginggap_wp.pdf
“Youth with Disabilities at the Crossroads: The Intersection of Vocational
Rehabilitation and Disability Benefits for Youth with Disabilities”
–
Todd Honeycutt, Allison Thompkins, Maura Bardos, and Steven Stern;
http://www.disabilitypolicyresearch.org/~/media/publications/pdfs/disability/drc_wp_20
14-06_vr_youth.pdf
40
Contact Information
Todd Honeycutt
Center for Studying Disability Policy
Mathematica Policy Research
P.O. Box 2393
Princeton, NJ 08543-2393
(609) 945-3397
[email protected]
www.DisabilityPolicyResearch.org
41