VR Experiences of Youth with Disabilities: An Overview of

Processes, Practices, and Outcomes

Todd Honeycutt

Presented at 2014 7th Annual VR SummitLouisville, 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

● 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?

Three Studies

6

● 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

Research Innovations

7

● How do state VR agencies vary in the ways youth seek and receive VR services?

First Study

8

● Produce statistics at the agency level

● Examine the factors associated with agency-level statistics

First Study

9

● 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

First Study – Methods

10

● 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

Transition-Age Ratios

11

Annual Transition-Age Youth Ratios

Applicant-t

o-youth

ratio

Service

-to-a

pplicant r

atio

Emplo

yment-t

o-serv

ice ra

tio0

20

40

60

80

Per

cen

tag

e

12

● 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

Summary Transition Ratio

13

State Variation in Summary Transition Ratio

Summary Transition Quartile (1=highest, 4=lowest)

14

State Variation in Summary Transition Ratio

Lous

iana

Conne

cticu

t

Was

hingt

on

Tenne

ssee

Texas

Alaska

Arizon

a

Main

e

Florida

Nevad

a

Wisc

onsin

Med

ian

South

Dak

ota

New H

amps

hire

Utah

Iowa

South

Car

olina

Verm

ont

Idah

o

North

Dak

ota

Wes

t Virg

inia

Delawar

e

Alabam

a0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

Per

cen

tag

e

15

● 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

Selected Factors Associated with Transition Ratios

16

● Many factors outside an agency’s control can influence transition ratios

● Consideration of VR processes, not overall youth employment outcomes

Limitations and Considerations

17

● What are the long-term outcomes for youth applicants with and without SSA disability benefits?

Second Study

18

● Examine ratios and outcomes for youth with and without SSA disability benefits

● SSA youth are important for VR agencies

Second Study

19

● 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

Second Study – Methods

20

● 4 percent of SSA youth applied for VR services each year (29,000 annually)

Youth VR Applicants Receiving SSA Benefits

SSI-onlyDI-onlyConcurrent

76%

13%

11%

21

One in Five Youth VR Applicants Were Already Receiving SSA Youth or Adult Benefits

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Non-SSA YouthSSA YouthP

ercentage

Applied for VR Services

VR Employment Outcomes Higher for Nonbeneficiaries

33%

35,266

100%

29,330

100%

108,432

Received VR Services Exited from VR with Employment

57%

16,753

55%

59,761

25%

7,287

22

SSA Outcomes of VR Applicants with and Without Benefits

23

Wide Variation of Youth Employment Outcomes Among Agencies

24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

TNLA

MEWA WI

MT FL TX CTAZ MO

Median

CA WV SC NE CO NH GA MS PA

DE

AL

Non-SSA Youth SSA Youth

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Ex

itin

g w

ith

Em

plo

ym

en

t

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

TN KY NV WICA MI MO AK IL GA ID

Median

HI CT UT MEAR ND

ALNC NY

DEWY

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

SS

A Y

ou

th w

ith

B

en

efi

t S

us

pe

ns

ion

25

One in 10 Nonbeneficiary VR Youth Applicants Received SSA Benefits Within Four Years

26

0

5

10

15

20

25

SCAL WV DE MS NE ND AR

UT GA LA

Median

VT WI NV MDMA

NH MN

CT ME RI

WA

Chart Title

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

Yo

uth

No

nb

en

efi

-c

iari

es

Re

ce

ivin

g S

SA

Be

ne

fits

● 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

Selected Factors Associated with SSA Transition Ratios

27

● 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

Selected Factors Associated with SSA-Related Outcomes

28

● Descriptive analysis (no causality)

● Does not account for individual-level characteristics that could influence ratios

Limitations and Considerations

29

● What practices do state VR agencies use to serve youth, and how do those practices vary by youth outcomes?

Third Study

30

● 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

Third Study

31

●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

Third Study – Methods

32

● 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

Similarities in Agency Transition Processes

33

● 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

Characteristics of the Five Agencies with Higher Transition Ratios

34

● 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

Characteristics of the Five Agencies with Higher Transition Ratios

35

● Based on a limited number of agencies and limited number of perspectives from each agency

Limitations and Considerations

36

● 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

Conclusions

37

● 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

Conclusions

38

● 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?

Questions for the Audience

39

● “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

Working Papers Available

40

Contact Information

Todd HoneycuttCenter for Studying Disability PolicyMathematica Policy ResearchP.O. Box 2393Princeton, NJ 08543-2393(609) 945-3397

thoneycutt@mathematica-mpr.com

www.DisabilityPolicyResearch.org

41