Advertisement

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 15–23 | Cite as

Vocational Rehabilitation of Transition-Age Youth with Disabilities: A Propensity-Score Matched Study

  • F. L. Fredrik G. LangiEmail author
  • Ashmeet Oberoi
  • Fabricio E. Balcazar
  • Jessica Awsumb
Article

Abstract

Objective To investigate the employment outcomes of vocational rehabilitation (VR) services for youth with disabilities in a targeted, enhanced, and contract-based secondary transition program as compared to the traditional VR transition services. Methods A population-based study was conducted on 4422 youth with physical, intellectual, learning, mental and hearing disabilities aged 14–21 at application and whose case was closed after receiving VR transition services in a Midwestern state. Selected youth were classified into either targeted secondary transition program (START) or non-START treatment group. The employment outcomes of the groups were compared using propensity-score matching procedures. Results 2211 youth with disabilities in each treatment group were successfully matched based on demographic characteristics, types of disabilities, existence of severe functional limitations, and year of referral. The overall rehabilitation rate was 57 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 56–59 %], where the START group rate was 61 % (95 % CI 59–63 %) and the non-START group 53 % (95 % CI 51–55 %). The propensity-score matched odds ratio (OR) was 1.40 (95 % CI 1.24–1.58; p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed that the odds of rehabilitation in youth with disabilities were consistently higher when they were in START as compared to non-START (OR ranged from 1.27 to 1.92 with p < 0.05 except for the Hispanic subgroup). Conclusion The results suggest that VR services in a targeted, enhanced, and contract-based secondary transition program are more effective in transitioning youth with disabilities to employment than the regular VR transition services.

Keywords

Youth with disabilities Vocational rehabilitation Transition services Propensity score analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by funding from the Illinois Division of Rehabilitation Services (IDRS) contract #46CSD00459. The authors are grateful to Patricia Kratochwill and George E. Manning II for technical assistance, and to the reviewers for constructive comments and advices.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Law M, Steinwender S, Leclair L. Occupation, health and well-being. Can J Occup Ther. 1998;65:81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Linn MW, Sandifer R, Stein S. Effects of unemployment on mental and physical health. Am J Public Health. 1985;75:502–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ross CE, Mirowsky J. Does employment affect health? J Health Soc Behav. 1995;36:230–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McKee-Ryan F, Song Z, Wanberg CR, Kinicki AJ. Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: a meta-analytic study. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90:53–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Backhans MC, Hemmingsson T. Unemployment and mental health—who is (not) affected? Eur J Public Health. 2012;22:429–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Montgomery SM, Cook DG, Bartley MJ, Wadsworth ME. Unemployment pre-dates symptoms of depression and anxiety resulting in medical consultation in young men. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28:95–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Norström F, Virtanen P, Hammarström A, Gustafsson PE, Janlert U. How does unemployment affect self-assessed health? A systematic review focusing on subgroup effects. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Puig-Barrachina V, Malmusi D, Marténez JM, Benach J. Monitoring social determinants of health inequalities: the impact of unemployment among vulnerable groups. Int J Health Serv Plan Adm Eval. 2011;41:459–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hammarström A. Health consequences of youth unemployment: review from a gender perspective. Soc Sci Med. 1982;1994(38):699–709.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hultman B, Hemlin S. Self-rated quality of life among the young unemployed and the young in work in northern Sweden. Work Read Mass. 2008;30:461–72.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bacikova-Sleskova M, van Dijk JP, Geckova AM, Nagyova I, Salonna F, Reijneveld SA, et al. The impact of unemployment on school leavers’ perception of health. Mediating effect of financial situation and social contacts? Int J Public Health. 2007;52:180–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cooper D, McCausland WD, Theodossiou I. Unemployed, uneducated and sick: the effects of socio-economic status on health duration in the European Union. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2008;171:939–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newman L, Wagner M, Cameto R, Knokey AM. The post-high school outcomes of youths with disabilities up to 4 years after high school: a report from the National Longitudinal Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2009-3017). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International; 2009. http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncser/pdf/20093017.pdf.
  14. 14.
    U.S. Department of Labor Office of Disability Employment Policy. Youth employment rate [Internet]; 2015. http://www.dol.gov/odep/categories/youth/youthemployment.html.
  15. 15.
    U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Person with a disability: labor force characteristics—2014 [Internet]. U.S. Department of Labor; 2015. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf.
  16. 16.
    Frey WD. Transition in education and employment. In: Albrecht GL, editor. Encyclopedia of disability, vol IV. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication; 2006. p. 1557–9.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    93th United States Congress. Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Congress of the United States of America; 1973.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    94th United States Congress. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. The Congress of the United States of America; 1975.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    101st United States Congress. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990. The Congress of the United States of America; 1990.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Council on Disability. The Rehabilitation Act: outcomes for transition-age youth. Washington: National Council on Disability; 2008.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    U.S. Department of Education Rehabilitation Services Administration. Reporting manual for the case service report (RSA 911): state–federal program for vocational rehabilitation [Internet]. U.S. Department of Education Rehabilitation Services Administration; 2011. http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/rsa/.
  22. 22.
    U.S. Department of Education Rehabilitation Services Administration. Emerging practices [Internet]. U.S. Department of Education Rehabilitation Services Administration; 2015. https://rsa.ed.gov/emerging-practices.cfm.
  23. 23.
    Test DW, Fowler CH, Richter SM, White J, Mazzotti V, Walker AR, et al. Evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Career Dev Except Individ. 2009;32:115–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Test DW, Cease-Cook J. Evidence-based secondary transition practices for rehabilitation counselors. J Rehabil. 2012;78:30.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Landmark LJ, Ju S, Zhang D. Substantiated best practices in transition: fifteen plus years later. Career Dev Except Individ. 2010;33:165–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cobb RB, Alwell M. Transition planning/coordinating interventions for youth with disabilities: a systematic review. Career Dev Except Individ. 2009;32:70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mazzotti VL, Test DW, Mustian AL. Secondary transition evidence-based practices and predictors implications for policymakers. J Disabil Policy Stud. 2014;25:5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mazzotti VL, Plotner AJ. Implementing secondary transition evidence-based practices a multi-state survey of transition service providers. Career Dev Transit Except Individ. 2014;2165143414544360:1–11.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pruett SR, Swett EA, Chan F, Rosenthal DA, Lee GK. Empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of vocational rehabilitation. J Rehabil. 2008;74:56–63.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Craig T, Shepherd G, Rinaldi M, Smith J, Carr S, Preston F, et al. Vocational rehabilitation in early psychosis: cluster randomised trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205(2):145–50. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.113.136283.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cook JA, Lehman AF, Drake R, McFarlane WR, Gold PB, Leff HS, et al. Integration of psychiatric and vocational services: a multisite randomized, controlled trial of supported employment. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:1948–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rogers ES, Anthony WA, Lyass A, Penk WE. A randomized clinical trial of vocational rehabilitation for people with psychiatric disabilities. Rehabil Couns Bull. 2006;49:143–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wehman P, Sima AP, Ketchum J, West MD, Chan F, Luecking R. Predictors of successful transition from school to employment for youth with disabilities. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;25:323–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Haber MG, Mazzotti VL, Mustian AL, Rowe DA, Bartholomew AL, Test DW, et al. What works, when, for whom, and with whom a meta-analytic review of predictors of postsecondary success for students with disabilities. Rev Educ Res. 2015. doi: 10.3102/0034654315583135.
  35. 35.
    Fleming AR, Fairweather JS. The role of postsecondary education in the path from high school to work for youth with disabilities. Rehabil Couns Bull. 2012;55:71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services. 36th annual report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014 [Internet]. Washington, DC: US Department of Education; 2014. http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2014/parts-b-c/36th-idea-arc.pdf.
  37. 37.
    Dutta A, Gervey R, Chan F, Chou C-C, Ditchman N. Vocational rehabilitation services and employment outcomes for people with disabilities: a United States study. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18:326–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bolton BF, Bellini JL, Brookings JB. Predicting client employment outcomes from personal history, functional limitations, and rehabilitation services. Rehabil Couns Bull. 2000;44:10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chan JY, Wang C-C, Ditchman N, Kim JH, Pete J, Chan F, et al. State unemployment rates and vocational rehabilitation outcomes a multilevel analysis. Rehabil Couns Bull. 2014;57:209–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Roux AM, Shattuck PT, Cooper BP, Anderson KA, Wagner M, Narendorf SC. Postsecondary employment experiences among young adults with an autism spectrum disorder RH: employment in young adults with autism. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2013;52:931–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chen JL, Sung C, Pi S. Vocational rehabilitation service patterns and outcomes for individuals with autism of different ages. J Autism Dev Disord. 2015;45(9):1–15. doi: 10.1007/s10803-015-2465-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    National Council on Disability Social Security Administration. Transition and post-school outcomes for youth with disabilities: closing the gaps to post-secondary education and employment. Washington: National Council on Disability; 2000.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Newman L, Wagner M, Cameto R, Knokey AM, Shaver D. Comparisons across time of the outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school: a report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2010-3008). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International; 2010. http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCSER20103008.
  44. 44.
    Wittenburg DC, Loprest PJ. Early transition experiences of transition-age child SSI recipients new evidence from the National Survey of Children and Families. J Disabil Policy Stud. 2007;18:176–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cameto R, Levine P, Wagner M. Transition planning for students with disabilities: a special topic report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (ED); 2004. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED496547.
  46. 46.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Austin PC. A tutorial and case study in propensity score analysis: an application to estimating the effect of in-hospital smoking cessation counseling on mortality. Multivar Behav Res. 2011;46:119–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stampf S. Propensity score based data analysis [Internet]; 2014. http://www.cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nonrandom/vignettes/nonrandom.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public HealthUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Disability and Human Development, College of Applied Health SciencesUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Educational and Psychological Studies, School of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA

Personalised recommendations