State-level characteristics and trends in pre-employment transition service delivery to students with disabilities

1Introduction

Rates of post-school employment for transition-age youth and young adults with disabilities continue to lag behind the employment outcomes of peers without disabilities (50% vs. 72.1% respectively; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023). Disproportionate rates of unemployment among young people with disabilities has been a long-standing problem. To address this issue, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA) substantially changed the way state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies prepare transition-age students with disabilities for competitive integrated employment (CIE). In an effort to provide improved vocational training prior to school exit, WIOA (2014) mandated that state VR agencies use at least 15% of federal funding on pre-employment transition services (Pre-ETS) for transition-age youth with disabilities between the ages of 14 and 21. Pre-ETS activities fall under five required categories: job exploration counseling (JEC), workplace readiness training (WRT), work-based learning experiences (WBLE), instruction in self-advocacy (ISA), and counseling on opportunities for enrollment in comprehensive transition or postsecondary education programs (CEO; WIOA, 2014).

To maximize the impact of services, WIOA (2014) also expanded the population of transition-age service recipients to include not only those who are eligible, but also those who are potentially eligible for VR services. WIOA (2014) ensured that Pre-ETS would provide additional support beyond existing school and VR practices by specifying that Pre-ETS cannot replace or replicate transition services already provided by schools (Carlson, 2022; Miller et al., 2018). In addition, quarterly reporting of Pre-ETS data into the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA)-911 database was mandated by WIOA beginning in the fiscal year 2017 to track service provision (Miller et al., 2018; WIOA, 2014). Nearly a decade has elapsed since the passing of WIOA (2014). Since then, all 50 U.S. states, territories, and the District of Columbia (DC) have developed WIOA implementation plans that include specific information about Pre-ETS delivery (Carlson et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2022).

However, state Pre-ETS policies vary widely in how they address the requirements of WIOA (Carlson et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2022). For instance, Carlson et al. (2020) found that while most state plans had a clearly defined Pre-ETS population and a description of each Pre-ETS category, only a moderate number of states outlined the responsibilities for collaborating with partners and specified procedures for obtaining referrals or accommodations, and few states addressed financial responsibilities, order of selection, and the use of authorized activities. Taylor et al. (2022) similarly found notable differences in Pre-ETS implementation plans across a sample of 10 states. While most states identified employment skills as an instructional priority, there were wide differences in the amount of specificity offered about how instruction would be delivered through Pre-ETS. Likewise, most states identified community-based experiences as the primary context for Pre-ETS delivery but differed greatly in the amount of time and intensity to be devoted to such experiences (Taylor et al., 2022). Additionally, Whittenburg et al. (2023) found that states also varied widely in the degree to which they incorporated research-based transition recommendations in their planning and delivery of Pre-ETS. The findings from Carlson (2020), Taylor et al. (2022), and Whittenburg et al. (2023) show that a student’s experience with Pre-ETS is likely to differ simply as a matter of their respective state of residence.

Pre-ETS experiences also differ based on the size of a community. Recent studies point to the divergent experiences of students receiving Pre-ETS in rural vs urban communities (e.g., Carter et al., 2021; Schutz et al., 2022). In general, parents, educators and service providers report associated benefits with Pre-ETS delivery in rural over more urban locations (Carter et al., 2021; Schutz et al., 2022). Parents of transition-age youth from rural areas who were surveyed about Pre-ETS were significantly less likely than parents from urban areas to perceive a number of factors as barriers to employment, including the quality of employment preparation provided by the school and the quality of parent-school partnerships (Schutz et al., 2022). Educators from rural communities view VR partnerships more positively than those from urban areas, feel more satisfied with the working relationship between the school and VR, report working more closely with VR, and indicate that VR frequently attend Individualized Education Program (IEP)/transition meetings (Carter et al., 2021). Among service providers, those from rural communities show significantly higher agreement about working closely with schools to provide Pre-ETS and feelings that local schools are “interested and willing to collaborate” than those from non-rural communities (Awsumb et al., 2020). These findings highlight the importance of location as a key factor impacting Pre-ETS delivery across the United States (U.S.).

Lastly, Pre-ETS delivery is different for each student and is influenced by personalized needs and the availability of providers. In some cases, a student receives Pre-ETS from VR agency staff while in other instances it is provided via purchase from an outside vendor such as a community rehabilitation provider. In addition, there are a number of different types of activities a student can engage in under the same Pre-ETS category. Frentzel et al. (2021) identified numerous research-based practices that service providers can implement under four of the five Pre-ETS categories (omitting CEO) but cautions that even with this guiding framework many agencies may lack the resources to sufficiently train staff in how to deliver all activities. Therefore, receipt of Pre-ETS for any one student is somewhat impacted by the limits of the training received by local providers and the resources they have available to provide these services. Overall, educators and service providers agree that students still need better preparation for post-school employment and indicate a desire for further training in Pre-ETS, better instructions on providing Pre-ETS to younger students (ages 14–16), more extensive collaboration with key partners, and a greater emphasis on individual interest-driven experiences during Pre-ETS (Awsumb et al., 2020; Carter et al., 2021; Lambert et al., 2023; Lau & McKelvey, 2023).

To date, we know very little about the specific provision of Pre-ETS across states. While we know that implementation plans differ from state-to-state and that student experiences are influenced by type of community (e.g., rural vs urban locations), we do not know which specific types of Pre-ETS are being given within each state, in what quantity, or by what service providers (i.e., VR agencies or vendors). We also do not know much about the characteristics of students within each state who are receiving Pre-ETS. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine state-level provision of Pre-ETS across the U.S. The following research question was developed to guide analyses: What are the state-level characteristics and trends in Pre-ETS service delivery to potentially eligible students with disabilities across state VR agencies?

2Methods

3Results

4Discussion

In this study, we conducted descriptive statistical analyses using data from RSA-911 to investigate state-level characteristics and trends in the delivery of Pre-ETS to students with disabilities. While we noted significant variability in the types of required Pre-ETS students received across states, several key trends and salient findings emerged. JEC and WRT were the most common service type, provided to over 50% of Pre-ETS recipients in 45 and 21 states respectively. WBLE, ISA, and CEO were the least common services, provided to a majority of Pre-ETS recipients in only 12, 11, and 10 states respectively. These findings align with existing research into state WIOA policy plans for Pre-ETS implementation, which highlight differences across states in the Pre-ETS they prioritize and plan to deliver (Taylor et al., 2022, Whittenburg et al., 2023). These previous studies highlighted how best practices in transition (e.g., WBLE, support for postsecondary education, and building self-determination skills) were less represented in the state plans for Pre-ETS implementation (Taylor et al., 2022; Whittenburg et al., 2023). Findings from this study provide additional evidence that those differences in Pre-ETS delivery are, in fact, occurring not only in the planning but also in the delivery of services at the state level - clearly indicating the need to expand provision of WBLE, ISA, and CEO across states. Increasing student access to WBLE, ISA, and CEO is particularly important given the strong research base documenting the positive effects of work experiences, self-determination skill development, and PSE participation on successful employment outcomes for youth with disabilities (Mazzotti et al., 2021; Wehman et al., 2015).

Our study also documented substantive differences across states in Pre-ETS delivery methods, specifically around who provided services (i.e., VR staff or vendors). A total of 36 states purchased over half of all Pre-ETS from vendors while 23 states provided the majority of Pre-ETS through VR staff. We also noted that several states were at either extreme in service provider selection in terms of relying fully on VR staff or outsourcing all Pre-ETS to vendors. The use of different Pre-ETS providers within and across states highlights the very real differences in how state Pre-ETS systems are structured, thus accentuating the need for training and technical assistance aligned with these individual systems and competencies of the providers they rely on for service delivery. Building on previous survey research highlighting the need for training and professional development for Pre-ETS providers (Awsumb et al., 2020; Carter et al., 2021; Lambert et al., 2023: Lau & McKelvey, 2023), our findings suggest that such training may need to be differentiated to better meet the existing needs, knowledge, and skills of specific groups.

We also analyzed RSA-911 data components related to student disability classification. The majority of students who received Pre-ETS across states were students with IEPs. In contrast, students with 504 plans comprised 10% or less of students who received Pre-ETS in 49 states. Large-scale research on the identification of students served by 504 plans is lacking (Zirkel & Weathers, 2015), thus it is unclear at present if students with 504 plans are being underserved through Pre-ETS and/or if there are specific barriers and supports to the participation of students with 504 plans in Pre-ETS. Finally, we noted surprising differences across states in the percentage of students classified as being students without disabilities who received Pre-ETS. We do not know why or how students without disabilities would be receiving Pre-ETS, but it is a phenomenon that is occurring with some regularity across states, and at higher rates within some states versus others. Further investigation is needed to determine potential reasons for this finding, such as how/when disability status is confirmed and documented by VR counselors and how to accurately record specific programs/services that may target students with and without disabilities.

5Conclusion

Our study indicates that state VR systems and structures differ widely regarding Pre-ETS implementation. To better meet the unique needs of states and to support the provision of high-quality services, federal policy makers may need to provide a wider range of training and guidance documents that acknowledge and address the needs of different types of state Pre-ETS systems. States would also benefit from targeted federal efforts to expand access to underutilized Pre-ETS, particularly WBLE, ISA, and CEO. Expanded access could be encouraged through targeted technical assistance and training, as well as the development of model demonstration programs focused on delivering these specific Pre-ETS, while also considering that these services may frequently be provided by vendors or others who are not employed by the state VR agency.

Therefore, ensuring that these providers have access to high-quality training and support is critical to the long-term success of Pre-ETS. Finally, we found that students with 504 plans constitute a low proportion of those receiving Pre-ETS. Schools and VR agencies will likely need support and training across multiple domains to increase the Pre-ETS participation of this population, including effective approaches to providing Pre-ETS outreach to students, families, and 504 plan case managers within schools; strategies on how to deliver Pre-ETS to students with 504 plans during the school day; and best practices within Pre-ETS to meet the career goals of this population. Given the limited research and information we have on supporting students with 504 plans, it may be helpful to identify states who are already providing Pre-ETS to larger percentages of students with 504 plans (e.g., Oregon, Colorado) and provide opportunities for them to share their experiences and approaches with the larger pool of VR state agencies. As states move forward with Pre-ETS implementation, a range of resources and supports, curated to fit their specific contextual needs, structures, and strengths, will be needed to ensure high-quality service provision to a wide range of students with disabilities.