VR Experiences of Youth with Disabilities: An Overview of Processes, Practices, and Outcomes

1. 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

2. 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

3. Increasing interest in promoting youth transitions, especially for those with disabilities 3

4. Vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies are well-positioned to assist youth and young adults 4

5. Almost one in three VR applicants is age 16 to 24 5

6. 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

7. 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

8. First Study • How do state VR agencies vary in the ways youth seek and receive VR services? 8

9. First Study • Produce statistics at the agency level • Examine the factors associated with agency-level statistics 9

10. 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

11. 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

12. Annual Transition-Age Youth Ratios 12

13. 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

14. State Variation in Summary Transition Ratio Summary Transition Quartile (1=highest, 4=lowest) 14

15. State Variation in Summary Transition Ratio 15

16. 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

17. Limitations and Considerations • Many factors outside an agency’s control can influence transition ratios • Consideration of VR processes, not overall youth employment outcomes 17

18. Second Study • What are the long-term outcomes for youth applicants with and without SSA disability benefits? 18

19. Second Study • Examine ratios and outcomes for youth with and without SSA disability benefits • SSA youth are important for VR agencies 19

20. SecondStudy – 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

21. One in Five Youth VR Applicants Were Already Receiving SSA Youth or Adult Benefits • 4 percent of SSA youth applied for VR services each year (29,000 annually) 21

22. VR Employment Outcomes Higher for Nonbeneficiaries 100% 108,432 100% 29,330 57% 16,753 55% 59,761 33% 35,266 25% 7,287 Exited from VR with Employment Received VR Services 22

23. SSA Outcomes of VR Applicants with and Without Benefits 23

24. Wide Variation of Youth Employment Outcomes Among Agencies 24

25. Across VR Agencies, 15 Percentage Point Difference in SSA Youth with Benefit Suspension 25

26. One in 10 NonbeneficiaryVR Youth Applicants Received SSA Benefits Within Four Years 26

27. 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

28. 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

29. Limitations and Considerations • Descriptive analysis (no causality) • Does not account for individual-level characteristics that could influence ratios 29

30. Third Study • What practices do state VR agencies use to serve youth, and how do those practices vary by youth outcomes? 30

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. Characteristics of the Five Agencies with Higher Transition Ratios • Service delivery • Provide multiple programs for youth, including school-based 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

36. Limitations and Considerations • Based on a limited number of agencies and limited number of perspectives from each agency 36

37. 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

38. Conclusions • Need for better federal guidance to measure and report on youth • What should agency goals be? • What should be measured publicly? • Need morerigorous assessment to determinecausality between agency practices and outcomes 38

39. Questions for the Audience • What is the role of VR as an early intervention mechanism for youth? • What federalguidelinesshould 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

40. Working Papers Available • “State Differences in the Vocational Rehabilitation Experiences of Transition-Age Youth with Disabilities” • Todd Honeycutt, Allison Thompkins, Maura Bardos, and Steven Stern; http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/disability/state_diff_vr_youth_wp.pdf • “Bridging the Gap: A Comparative Assessment of Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Practices with Transition-Age Youth” • Todd Honeycutt, Maura Bardos, and Stephanie McLeod; http://www.mathematica-mpr.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_2014-06_vr_youth.pdf 40

41. Contact Information Todd Honeycutt Center for Studying Disability Policy Mathematica Policy Research P.O. Box 2393 Princeton, NJ 08543-2393 (609) 945-3397 thoneycutt@mathematica-mpr.com www.DisabilityPolicyResearch.org 41