Post on 31-Dec-2015
description
transcript
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
● 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
● 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
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
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