Use of Research-Based Transition Recommendations for Youth With Disabilities in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Plans

Abstract

As vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies continue to implement provisions of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) to provide employment-related transition services to youth with disabilities, it is unclear if implementation plans include predictors of post-school employment and evidence-based transition practices. We conducted a content analysis of 54 state/territory VR agency WIOA plans from 2020 to determine the extent to which research-based transition recommendations (RBTRs) were included. Our findings indicate that there was substantial variability in the number of RBTRs present within plans but that most plans (n = 46) included between 50% and 70% of RBTRs. Career awareness, interagency collaboration, and general work experience activities were most frequently represented. Of note, student involvement in transition planning, technology skills instruction, and career technical education did not appear as frequently in plans. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.

Keywords

adolescents public policy transition

Much of the U.S. federal government’s effort to improving meaningful employment outcomes for people with disabilities can be traced back to passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This landmark legislation extended grant funding to states to provide vocational rehabilitation (VR) services, emphasized that these services be made available to people with the most significant disabilities, and expanded employment-related research and training (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). However, research conducted since the law’s passage consistently highlights dismal employment outcomes facing youth with disabilities after leaving high school (e.g., Brown et al., 1984; Roux et al., 2015; Wehman et al., 2003; Winsor et al., 2021). Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (NLTS-2) indicated a clear lack of progress in improving outcomes, with employment rates for out-of-high school youth with disabilities decreasing from 62% to 56% between 1990 and 2005 (Newman et al., 2010). Furthermore, data from the American Community Survey collected between 2006 and 2013 showed the employment rate of youth with disabilities between the ages of 16 and 21 was both annually below that of their peers without disabilities and decreased over time, from a 31% employment rate for youth with disabilities in 2006 to 23% in 2013 (Butterworth & Migliore, 2015).

The most recent reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA), signaled the federal government’s intention to improve employment outcomes of individuals with disabilities through some of the most significant changes to employment policy since the original enactment of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Wehman et al., 2018). One significant shift relates to the VR services used to support youth with disabilities. This policy change was made in the context of growing evidence demonstrating the importance of early transition experiences (e.g., Cimera et al., 2014; Mazzotti et al., 2021) and the need to provide coordinated, more effective work-related transition services to youth prior to graduation. The emphasis of that commitment to youth with disabilities is evident in several key provisions of WIOA. First, WIOA (2014) requires state VR agencies to provide specific pre-employment transition services (Pre-ETSs) to students with disabilities in the areas of job exploration counseling, work-based learning experiences, counseling on opportunities for enrollment in comprehensive transition or post-secondary education programs, instruction in self-advocacy, and workplace readiness training (Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance Center, 2016). Second, in contrast to VR policy for individualized services, which requires potential participants to go through a rigorous and lengthy application process, there are minimal screening and application requirements for Pre-ETS. Students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), 504 plans, and documented disabilities are all eligible to receive Pre-ETS.

WIOA (2014) also mandates that state VR agencies collaborate with state educational agencies and local schools to ensure the coordination and provision of Pre-ETS (WINTAC, 2016). To ensure that this policy commitment to students with disabilities is upheld in practice, WIOA (2014) also requires that states set aside 15% of their annual budgets exclusively for Pre-ETS. States are then required to report their plans for and progress toward implementation of key WIOA mandates across all state agencies involved in workforce development, including VR-focused transition services. These WIOA state plans are submitted biennially by states and territories to the federal government and are made publicly available on the WIOA State Plan website (n.d.). The implementation plans provide information on specific transition-focused services and programming offered by VR agencies, efforts to coordinate services with educational agencies, and progress made toward state-specific transition-related goals and objectives. It is important to note that WIOA’s focus on students with disabilities is not limited to Pre-ETS. The WIOA (2014) provides for a continuum of transition services, including Pre-ETS, individualized VR services, and supported employment, which youth with disabilities can access if found eligible for services.

Predictors of Successful Adult Outcomes and Effective Transition Practices

This shift in policy toward providing services to transition-age youth with disabilities while in high school is grounded in evidence showing that providing services prior to graduation results in improved employment outcomes (e.g., Cimera et al., 2014). A recent synthesis of the research literature by Mazzotti et al. (2021) reported several predictors of post-school success, which describe practices, services, experiences, and other malleable factors linked with improved outcomes. These predictors of post-school success include such factors as: career awareness, paid employment, interagency collaboration, inclusion in general education, self-determination, and parent expectations and involvement (Mazzotti et al., 2021). In addition, a separate literature review revealed several research- and evidence-based practices related to promoting functional and vocational skills during transition, which included Project SEARCH, self-advocacy instruction, person-centered planning, video modeling, and self-management instruction (Rowe et al., 2021).

Together, these two reviews provide a foundation for establishing best practices for promoting better outcomes for transition-age youth with disabilities. However, there are limitations related to our current knowledge of transition best practices. As Rowe and colleagues (2021) state in their review, there is a need to “better understand . . . who is teaching the skills . . . [and] under what conditions the skills are being taught” (p. 40). To date, research on transition-age youth with disabilities has focused primarily on school-based services and post-school outcomes, much of it derived from studies using NLTS-2 data. Substantially less research has focused on identifying transition-specific best practices delivered by non-school providers, including VR agencies. Although researchers in the field of rehabilitation counseling and VR have conducted similar systematic reviews of the research in identifying best practices leading to competitive integrated employment (CIE; e.g., Leahy et al., 2018), the resulting evidence-based practices are inclusive of—but not focused on—transition service delivery. For example, secondary transition services for youth with disabilities emerged as an evidence-based practice within VR, but this practice is broadly defined (Leahy et al., 2018). Although Leahy et al. (2018) emphasize the importance of VR providers in the transition process, highlighting key overlapping practices (e.g., Project SEARCH and paid work experience), much remains to be learned about the effective provision of VR services for transition-age youth.

Previous Research Into WIOA Implementation

Several previous studies have analyzed WIOA state plans to attempt to better understand how this substantial policy shift is being implemented in practice. Roux et al. (2019) used a content analysis method with 51 state plans to identify the extent to which plans focused on individuals with autism and included autism-specific goals, strategies, and programs. Significant differences were identified between states, with 44 referencing autism generally, 19 directly indicating autism as an underserved group, and only 10 defining autism-specific goals, strategies, or programs (Roux et al., 2019). More recently, Carlson et al. (2020) used content analysis with a sample of 38 state policies to determine the impact of Pre-ETS policies on support of youth with disabilities. Their findings showed differences between states in how they interpreted Pre-ETS requirements of WIOA (2014) and how they enacted those policies into practice in terms of the target population, required services, authorized activities, and coordination responsibilities (Carlson et al., 2020). Finally, Taylor et al. (2021) used a cluster analysis sampling technique to identify a cross-section of 10 state plans, which were then analyzed to determine key themes related to how states interpreted and implemented Pre-ETS policy requirements. Findings of the study indicated that state VR agencies showed marked differences in how they approached the challenge of expanding their focus to transition-age youth; these differences were seen in how states set instructional priorities, defined instructional contexts, and built networks of stakeholders (Taylor et al., 2021).

Although research in WIOA implementation is still emerging—particularly with regard to Pre-ETS—we have a clear indication that states differ greatly in terms of who they target for services, the types of services and activities in which they engage, and how they coordinate and collaborate across agencies. Furthermore, previous studies have shown that policy changes introduced by WIOA (2014) spurred innovation in implementing these requirements (e.g., Taylor et al., 2021). As state VR agencies respond to this legislative mandate and pivot to focus on providing effective services to transition-age youth, the potential of this shift toward innovation holds promise, but the direction and focus of this change remains unclear. Previous research on WIOA implementation has shown that state plans can provide meaningful insight into how the intent of federal policy is actualized at the state and local level (e.g., Carlson et al., 2020; Roux et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2021), thus meriting further investigation.

Purpose of the Current Study

Despite this emerging body of transition and Pre-ETS research, additional research is needed to understand how VR agencies intend to address barriers to successful employment outcomes for youth with disabilities. Importantly, it is not clear the extent to which state VR agencies incorporate research-based transition recommendations (RBTRs), including successful outcome predictors (Mazzotti et al., 2021) and transition-focused best practices (Rowe et al., 2021) into WIOA implementation plans. Given the mandate for 15% budget allocation to Pre-ETS, it is critical to understand how states are directing the funding and services they provide in their efforts to improve outcomes for transition-age youth. Because RBTRs are most likely to result in improved employment outcomes for youth with disabilities, it is also important to understand whether they are addressed in VR services and programs. Federal VR appropriation to states totaled US$3.89 billion in 2022, implying that the 15% share dedicated to Pre-ETS would total roughly half a billion dollars annually (Department of Education Rehabilitation Services, 2022). However, despite the scale of this investment in Pre-ETS, little is known regarding how states/territories plan to implement these services and programs and how they prepare youth with disabilities for successful CIE outcomes.

Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine WIOA state/territory plans to determine the extent to which these plans incorporate RBTRs synthesized from two seminal reviews of the transition literature (i.e., Mazzotti et al., 2021; Rowe et al., 2021). The researchers developed the following research question and related sub-questions to address this purpose:

Research Question 1: To what extent do WIOA state plans incorporate RTBRs (i.e., practices and predictors)? (a) Is there variation across states and territories in the extent to which specific RBTRs are being used? (b) Are there patterns related to the use of different RBTRs within state plans?

Method

Data Sources

To receive federal funding under WIOA, all U.S. states and territories are required to submit plans outlining how they intend to implement the requirements of WIOA to the Rehabilitation Services Administration. The research team downloaded all publicly available state and territory plans from the WIOA state plans website (n.d.) between November 2021 and August 2022. A total of 55 plans were available; two plans (i.e., New York and New Jersey) were not publicly available at the time of data collection and were thus not included in data analyses. Palau was also excluded from analysis because its plan stated that VR WIOA requirements were not applicable to their territory (e.g., p. 109). Our content analysis was limited to the sections of plans titled “Program-Specific Requirements for Vocational Rehabilitation.” We analyzed these sections of plans because we wanted to understand how VR agencies are serving transition-age youth with disabilities and those were the sections in which state VR agencies provided details on their plans for WIOA implementation.

Development of Codebook

To develop the codebook, the first, second, and fifth authors reviewed the works of Mazzotti et al. (2021) and Rowe et al. (2021) to identify predictors of post-school success and evidence-based transition practices. Across both reviews, the authors identified a total of 45 practices for consideration. The authors then independently reviewed each of the practices for the following inclusion criteria: (a) practice was malleable (i.e., VR agencies could reasonably influence, such as developing work experience programs) and (b) the practice related to a required Pre-ETS or the coordination of Pre-ETS (e.g., interagency collaboration). Factors which VR counselors could not influence (e.g., exit exam requirements) were excluded. Furthermore, practices that were not related to Pre-ETS were excluded because VR counselors are not required to provide services to transition-age youth beyond the required Pre-ETS. After independently coding the 45 practices based on the inclusion criteria, the authors met to discuss each practice and come to consensus. A total of 28 practices met inclusion criteria as an RBTR to be used in our analysis.

The first, second, and fifth authors then independently reviewed the 28 practices and collapsed any practices that were similar in nature into specific RBTRs (e.g., family involvement, self-determination). The authors met multiple times to discuss and come to consensus about which practices should be combined into each RBTR. A total of 16 unique RBTRs were identified (see Table 1). The authors then developed a codebook based on the two main reviews and respective studies mentioned in each review. The final codebook included definitions, examples, and non-examples for each RBTR. The RBTRs were then classified by the authors into five categories for organizational purposes: (a) career awareness, (b) work preparation experiences, (c) collaboration, (d) workplace readiness and skill development, and (e) transition planning. A panel of two experts in the field of secondary transition reviewed the list of RBTRs, definitions, and categories. The panel confirmed that the list was comprehensive and aligned with their understanding of best practices in secondary education.

Table 1.

Research-Based Transition Recommendations, Definitions, and Examples.

Transition-based recommendations	Definitions	Examples
Career awareness
Career awareness	Learning about opportunities, education, and skills needed in various occupational pathways to choose a career that matches one’s strengths and interests	Job shadowing, job exploration counseling, career speakers, job talks, informational interviews, job fairs
Mentoring	Support, counsel, friendship, reinforcement, and constructive examples provided to help another person to reach his or her work and life goals	Peer mentors, industry mentors, disability mentors
Work preparation experiences
Paid work experiences	Working for pay while in high school. It can include existing standard jobs in a company or organization, or customized work assignments negotiated with the employer, but the student is always paid a competitive wage directly by the employer	Student receives wages from either the school, vocational rehabilitation, or employer, summer paid work experiences, supported employment/customized employment
General work experiences	Work experience not specifically described as being paid employment that puts the student in a real-life workplace	Unpaid service learning, student-led enterprises, volunteering, work-based learning experiences
Project SEARCH	School-to-work internship program that is explicitly described as Project SEARCH	Specifically called “Project Search”
Work study	Combines work experiences with instruction to help students develop work-related skills	Specifically called “work study”
Career technical education	Organized educational activities that offer course(s) preparing students to enter a specific field of employment or a specific post-secondary education program in preparation for employment or to obtain an industry-recognized certificate or credential	Programs in which students participate in coursework to build technical work skills; students may or may not receive a certificate or a credential for completion (e.g., industry-recognized credentials)
Collaboration
Family involvement	Collaboration with families to identify how the school and family/guardian can support the student in achieving desired post-school goals	Family involvement in transition planning, family trainings and workshops, conferences
Interagency collaboration	Interagency collaboration is a purposeful and carefully designed process that promotes cross-agency, cross-program, and cross-disciplinary collaborative efforts leading to tangible transition outcomes for youth	Groups of local (e.g., schools, businesses) or state level (e.g., Vocational Rehabilitation, Social Security Administration) stakeholders have informal/formal agreements about and/or work together
Workplace readiness and skill development
Self-determination	Instruction/activity that promotes students’ ability to make choices, solve problems, set goals, evaluate options, take initiative to reach one’s goals and accept consequences of one’s actions	Self-advocacy
Independent living/self-care skills	Instruction/activity that promotes students’ ability to manage their personal self-care and the skills needed to be independent in adult life	Travel training, transportation training, driver’s education
Social skills	Instruction/activities that promote students’ ability to facilitate communication and cooperation	Social skills instruction, soft skills instruction, mock interviews
Technology skills	Instruction/activities that promote students’ ability to use computers, hand-held devices, and other technology	Instruction on how to use AAC, AT and other technologies
Community-based instruction	Teaching functional skills to students in a variety of settings within the community in which skill use would naturally occur	Focus of instruction is on functional skills (i.e., social skills, independent living skills) versus employment
Transition planning
Person-centered planning	Structured planning process with students and families explicitly focused on planning for students’ future	Planning process emphasizes student’s individualized strengths, preferences, goals; person-centered planning in meetings
Student involvement in transition planning	Structured planning process that promotes student participation in developing and leading support plan meetings	Descriptions of how student will be involved in transition planning and/or meetings (IPE/IEP)

Note. Definitions were developed based on a review of the literature. IPE/IEP = Individualized Plans for Employment/Individualized Education Program.

Data Analysis

First Round of Coding

To ensure coders interpreted the codebook correctly, all five authors used the RBTR descriptions to independently code one state plan. The NVivo 13 was used to conduct all data analysis. The authors first identified text that reflected how the state was currently providing, planning to provide, providing training about, or currently implementing the RBTRs for transition-age youth with disabilities. Students were considered transition-age if they were described as youth with disabilities, transition-age youth with disabilities, or students with disabilities. Research-based transition recommendations provided to students during high school or while students were dually enrolled were also included. Research-based transition recommendations described as applying to people with disabilities without specifying that they were for transition-age youth were excluded. Furthermore, text that described RBTRs as an area of need was excluded.

Research-based transition recommendations were coded as “included” (1) if the recommendation was identified at least one time in the Program Specific Requirements for VR section of the plan. If the RBTR was not identified at least one time, it was coded as “excluded” (0; see Table 2). After independently coding the first state plan, the authors met to calculate interrater reliability (IRR) for the inclusion or exclusion of each RBTR. Interrater reliability for the plan was calculated by dividing the total number of agreements by the total number of agreements plus disagreements. Interrater reliability for the first plan was 88.7%. The authors discussed all disagreements and came to consensus. As a result of discussions, some definitions in the codebook were revised, and examples and non-examples were added or removed. For example, the codebook was revised to include specific mentions of RBTRs that overlapped with required Pre-ETS activities (e.g., instruction in self-advocacy) without further elaboration. The authors repeated this process for three additional state plans; IRR ranged from 87.50% to 91.25%. Once internal validity of the codebook was established, each author was randomly assigned plans to independently code. The authors met on a weekly basis to discuss their interpretations of the WIOA text and codes and to refine the codebook as needed. The authors continued this process until all state/territory plans were coded.

Table 2.

Research-Based Transition Recommendations Included by Each State/Territory.

State/territory	n	%	State/territory	n	%
Alabama	15	93.8	Missouri	9	56.3
Alaska	12	75.0	Montana	10	62.5
American Samoa	8	50.0	Nebraska	8	50.0
Arizona	11	68.8	Nevada	13	81.3
Arkansas	12	75.0	New Hampshire	4	25.0
California	12	75.0	New Mexico	10	62.5
Colorado	9	56.3	North Carolina	11	68.8
Connecticut	8	50.0	North Dakota	9	56.3
Delaware	9	56.3	Northern Marianas	11	68.8
District of Columbia	12	75.0	Ohio	9	56.3
Florida	11	68.8	Oklahoma	11	68.8
Georgia	12	75.0	Oregon	11	68.8
Guam	5	31.3	Pennsylvania	12	75.0
Hawaii	12	75.0	Puerto Rico	8	50.0
Idaho	13	81.3	Rhode Island	10	62.5
Illinois	9	56.3	South Carolina	11	68.8
Indiana	8	50.0	South Dakota	10	62.5
Iowa	8	50.0	Tennessee	10	62.5
Kansas	12	75.0	Texas	11	68.8
Kentucky	13	81.3	Utah	10	62.5
Louisiana	5	31.3	Vermont	9	56.3
Maine	10	62.5	Virginia	11	68.8
Maryland	9	56.3	Virgin Islands	9	56.3
Massachusetts	10	62.5	Washington	8	50.0
Michigan	9	56.3	West Virginia	12	75.0
Minnesota	10	62.5	Wisconsin	11	68.8
Mississippi	11	68.8	Wyoming	13	81.3

Note. States could have included a total of 16 research-based transition recommendations.

Second Round of Coding

The authors then engaged in a second round of coding to ensure they accurately coded and captured all relevant text. Each author was randomly assigned state plans that they had not previously coded. They were provided with the WIOA state plan text and assigned codes identified by the original coder in the first round. The authors then reviewed the text to determine whether previously included data aligned with their interpretation of the codebook inclusion criteria. When no text was coded for a specific RBTR, the authors used a keyword search to identify potential text that may meet inclusion criteria. Keywords were derived from the definitions and examples within the codebook (e.g., “paid,” “wage,” and “competitive” for the “paid work experience” transition recommendation) or were representative of the transition recommendation itself (e.g., “project search” for the “Project Search” transition recommendation). Of the 880 codes (i.e., 55 states and territories × 16 RBTRs), there were 61 disagreements (6.9%). The authors met to discuss each disagreement and came to consensus. Once data were finalized, descriptive statistics were used to calculate the total number of RBTRs included in each state/territory plan and the total number of states/territories that included each RBTR in their plan.

Results

We analyzed 54 publicly available WIOA plans to determine whether they included 16 RBTRs for transition-age youth with disabilities. Our analysis demonstrated variance across a number of dimensions. In alignment with our research sub-questions, our findings are reported below in terms of variance between designated units (i.e., states and territories) and between specific RBTRs.

RBTRs Across States and Territories

On average, plans included 10.21 different types of RBTRs (SD = 1.98, range = 4–15). States/territories described a variety of RBTRs they will continue to provide as well as new services they plan to provide. Of the 54 plans reviewed, Alabama included the most RBTRs, incorporating 15 of 16 (93.75%) of the total. Several states incorporated 13 (81.25%) of RBTRs, including: Idaho, Kentucky, Nevada, and Wyoming. The majority of states and territories (n = 46) included between eight and 12 (50%–75%) of RBTRs in their plan. States and territories with five or less (31.25% or less) RBTRs in their plans included Guam, Louisiana, and New Hampshire (see Table 2 for details).

Prevalence of RBTRs

The extent to which RBTRs were present in WIOA plans varied greatly. Some RBTRs (i.e., career awareness and interagency collaboration) were present in all plans. Similarly, all but one state plan (i.e., South Dakota) included general work experiences. It is important to note that although the South Dakota plan did not describe general work experiences, the plan did describe Project Skills, which was coded separately as a paid work experience for transition-age students with disabilities. Some RBTRs were only included in a few plans, such as work study (n = 2), community-based instruction (CBI, n = 4), or student involvement in transition planning (n = 6).

Trends appeared in plan descriptions of RBTRs. In some instances, RBTRs were listed in plans without any additional context or details (“instruction in self-advocacy” or “work experiences”). These RBTRs were often part of generic statements related to states providing the five required Pre-ETS. On the other hand, some RBTRs were also defined in great detail in other sections of plans, identifying the target student population, service providers involved, location of experience, and instructional content addressed. Furthermore, plans sometimes highlighted programs that included multiple RBTRs. For example, Delaware’s plan described,

The Start on Success Program (SOS) is a collaboration among a variety of partners including DVR, DOE, community businesses, local school districts and Humanim, a community rehabilitation program [interagency collaboration] . . . SOS which is a successful employment training program targeting three main factors for transition students: 1) Job Exploration [career awareness], 2) Workplace Readiness, and 3) Work-based Learning [general work experiences]. The major focus is a four-month paid internship [paid employment] in a business where students learn on site experience through various work opportunities. Students are mentored by current employees at the business [mentoring] and supported by SOS staff from Humanim. (p. 172)

Career Awareness

All plans included at least one of the two types of career awareness RBTRs (n = 54, 100.0%). On average, state/territory plans included 1.69 different types of career awareness recommendations (SD = 0.47, range = 1–2). Career awareness activities were included in all state plans. Some career awareness activities provided students with opportunities to learn about themselves. For example, Arizona’s plan described how students would participate in self-assessment activities around interests, learning styles, aptitudes, and strengths; disability awareness and accommodations, and career exploration (p. 126). Other career awareness activities helped students to learn about careers. Alaska’s plan specified, “ADVR will inform . . . Teachers of community events, such as job fairs, transition fairs, and career days to introduce and expose students with disabilities to possible career goals and objectives” (p. 142).

Compared with career awareness activities, fewer plans included mentoring opportunities (n = 37, 68.5%) for transition-age youth with disabilities. Mentors typically included peers with disabilities or community members, such as employers. Georgia’s plan described the potential benefits of mentoring from employers, where the formation of early relationships with employers could lead to potential employment opportunities after graduation (p. 228).

Work Preparation Experiences

Similar to career awareness, all plans (n = 54, 100.0%) included at least one work preparation experience for transition-age youth with disabilities. State/territory plans included approximately three of the five different types of work preparation experiences (M = 3.0, SD = 0.91, range = 1–5). Almost all states/territories (n = 53, 98.1%) described at least one type of general work experience. In many instances, states outlined steps to increase or maintain general “work-based learning experiences,” one of the five required Pre-ETS. Some state plans were more specific about providing opportunities for students to participate in work experiences, such as internships, apprenticeships, and summer work programs that were not explicitly described as being paid.

Compared with general work experiences, fewer states and territories (n = 42, 77.8%) described opportunities for transition-age youth with disabilities to participate in paid work during the school year or over summer. Some states described programs in which students enroll in courses or receive vocational instruction while they participate in paid employment. For example, Maine described Step-Up, “a 5-week summer residential program held on a college campus. Step-Up includes a 3-credit undergraduate course, paid work experience, and social skill instruction among other components” (p. 235). For students with more significant support needs, plans described how VR counselors use customized or supported employment to provide students with access to CIE opportunities.

Almost three-fourths of plans (n = 38, 70.4%) included Project SEARCH for transition-age youth with disabilities. Project SEARCH was often provided in collaboration with schools and businesses. Most states had Project SEARCH programs established prior to the development of their WIOA implementation plan; these states described ways in which they would continue to fund, expand, or recruit students for the program. For instance, Delaware’s plan indicated that VR would promote Project SEARCH at the Annual Transition Conference, Transition Cadre meetings, district and school open houses, and outreach at other conferences throughout the state (p. 169).

Over half of states and territories (n = 30, 55.6%) described career technical education for transition-age youth with disabilities. Whereas some plans included general career technical education programs (e.g., Kansas, p. 208), other plans included opportunities in which students may receive training in specific vocations, such as electrical work, welding, and training to become a certified nursing assistant (e.g., Nebraska, p. 254).

Only two plans (3.7%) included work study for transition-age students with disabilities. In Hawaii, schools and VR collaborated to provide a work study program in which students received classroom instruction, in-school work experiences, and community work experiences. The Oklahoma plan described how they used School Work Study contracts with schools to provide students with opportunities to work part time in the school district or in the community.

Interagency Collaboration

All 54 states and territories identified at least one way they collaborate with other agencies or families to provide services to transition-age youth with disabilities. On average, plans included 1.85 (SD = 0.43, range = 1–2) different types of collaboration activities. All plans (n = 54, 100.0%) described interagency collaboration. Plans often described how VR collaborates with other agencies “to avoid the duplication of services and enhance the service delivery process for consumers” (Kentucky, p. 129). States collaborated with a wide range of stakeholders at state (e.g., state interagency councils, University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities), regional (e.g., universities), and local levels (e.g., local education agencies, local workforce groups).

Fewer states (n = 46, 83.6%) described how they involve families in the transition planning process. Vocational rehabilitation often collaborated with families to “assist with a seamless transition to post-secondary training or job placement” (Florida, p. 197). To assist with a seamless transition, VR counselors discussed service options with families, provided trainings to families (e.g., Family Employment Awareness Trainings), and supported families in developing Individualized Plans for Employment (IPE).

Workplace Readiness

A total of 53 states and territories (98.1%) included at least one of the five types of workplace readiness RBTRs for transition-age youth with disabilities in their plans. On average, plans included 2.87 (SD = 1.05, range = 0–5) different types of workplace readiness activities. Self-determination was the most frequently reported workplace readiness activity (n = 48, 88.9%). Opportunities for students to increase their self-determination were frequently described as a part of Pre-ETS activities (i.e., instruction in self-advocacy). Few states or territories were specific about how they would increase students’ self-determination or what components of self-determination they would focus on.

The majority of states and territories (n = 45, 83.3%) also described efforts to develop students’ independent living skills. Similar to self-determination, most references to independent living were in the context of listing required Pre-ETS activities (i.e., workplace readiness training to develop social skills and independent living). Some plans included more specific types of independent living skills in which VR counselors would help students develop discrete skills. For example, plans described instruction in financial literacy, drivers’ education, travel training, and budgeting.

Approximately, three-quarters of plans (n = 41, 75.9%) described how VR counselors support transition-age students with disabilities to develop social skills. Social skills frequently included interviewing skills and soft skills. Some states had specific programs focused on developing students’ social skills, such as Alabama, which described Smart Work Ethic Training, a “social skills curriculum that addresses communication skills and workplace behaviors needed to obtain and maintain successful competitive employment” (p. 239).

Technology skills were less frequently described in plans (n = 17, 31.5%). States and territories who did include technology skills focused primarily on basic computer skills and training students to use assistive technology. For example, in Washington D.C., “youth were provided with assistive technology devices and job coaching apps were installed that assisted the youth with completing work assignments and tasks” (p. 237).

A total of four states (7.4%) described CBI. Of these states, three described using CBI as one component of a program (Connections Program in Alabama, Community-Based Instruction Program in Kentucky, and Pathways to Life in South Dakota). Wyoming provided a more general description of CBI. In Wyoming, VR counselors, “develop community and work experiences that provide opportunities for students to participate in skills development in community settings” (p. 203).

Transition Planning

Plans included RBTRs related to transition planning less frequently than the other types of RBTRs. A total of 31 states and territories (57.4%) included at least one type of transition planning recommendation (M = 0.61, SD = 0.62; range = 0–2). Approximately, half of the plans (n = 29, 53.7%) referenced person-centered planning. States and territories plan to implement person-centered planning by matching students to services that align with their individualized preferences, interests, needs, and strengths. For example, the Georgia plan described using “a multi-disciplinary model of service delivery and incorporating strength based assessment strategies, individualized vocational rehabilitation plans are developed to ensure that the unique strengths of students are built upon to maximize their vocational readiness and personal growth” (p. 241). A total of six states and territories (11.1%) described how they plan to involve students in the transition planning process. Student involvement typically focused on the development of the IEP or IPE. For instance, students with disabilities in North Carolina are “expected to fully participate in the development of the plan and any plan amendments” (p. 185). Tables 3 and 4 provide additional details on the extent to which RBTRs were represented within plans.

Table 3.

Prevalence of Research-Based Transition Recommendations Across States/Territories (N = 54).

Research-based transition recommendation	n	%
Career awareness
Career awareness	54	100.0
Mentoring	37	68.5
Work preparation experiences
General work experiences	53	98.1
Paid work experiences	42	77.8
Project SEARCH	38	70.4
Career technical education	30	55.6
Work study	2	3.7
Collaboration
Family involvement	54	100.0
Interagency collaboration	46	85.2
Workplace readiness and skill development
Self-determination	48	88.9
Independent living/self-care skills	45	83.3
Social skills	41	75.9
Technology skills	17	31.5
Community-based instruction	4	7.4
Transition planning
Person-centered planning	29	53.7
Student involvement in transition planning	6	11.1

Table 4.

Most and Least Common Research-Based Transition Recommendations (N = 54).

Transition-based recommendations	n	%
Most common
Interagency collaboration	54	100.0
Career awareness	54	100.0
General work experiences	53	98.1
Self-determination	48	88.9
Family involvement	46	85.2
Least common
Person-centered planning	29	53.7
Technology skills	17	31.5
Student involvement in transition planning	6	11.1
Community-based instruction	4	7.4
Work study	2	3.7

Discussion

We conducted a content analysis of 54 state and territory plans to determine the extent to which RBTRs were included. Our findings indicate several trends and implications across our analysis of these plans. First, we noted a high level of variance in the number of RBTRs represented in both state and territory plans, ranging from 4 to 15. In addition, we noted substantial variance in the frequency of usage of specific RBTRs within state and territory plans, with career awareness and interagency collaboration occurring in all 54 plans, and work study only appearing in two plans. At present, it is unclear what accounts for this wide range of RBTRs included across plans or in terms of the differences across states and territories. It could be that these differences in the inclusion of RBTRs are related to other state-level variables, such as funding for state VR services, state-level policies and laws that promote Employment First policies, or engagement in training and technical assistance services to support successful coordinated service delivery between VR agencies and schools. However, research to date has not been conducted that investigates the relation between state characteristics and the types of practices included in state and territory plans. We also noted that most plans included 50% to 75% of all possible RBTRs. While these findings are encouraging in terms of the types of services offered to transition-age youth with disabilities, it is also concerning that more RBTRs were not included more consistently. Given the evidence indicating that these RBTRs are supported by research to promote improved employment, college, and career outcomes for youth with disabilities (Mazzotti et al., 2021; Rowe et al., 2021), it is important for states and territories to further incorporate RBTRs into their implementation plans. Further progress in this area is needed to improve the dire outcomes currently experienced by transition-age youth in terms of successful skill development, coordinated services delivery, and employment outcomes.

Career awareness, interagency collaboration, and general work experience were represented across a greater proportion of state and territory plans than any other RBTR. It seems likely that these areas reflect not only VR mandates, but also current expertise, knowledge, and resources within state agencies. For instance, WIOA state and territory plan components require that VR state agencies describe their efforts to coordinate services with schools. Given that mandate, it makes sense that interagency collaboration would be well represented within plans. Also, career awareness is one of the first steps in career development (Brolin, 1997) and is a frequent activity in which high school students with disabilities engage (Rooney-Kron & Dymond, 2022). As result, it is not surprising that all plans described career awareness activities. The overwhelming inclusion of career awareness activities may indicate that state agencies feel more prepared to provide career awareness than more time-and resource-intensive interventions (e.g., paid employment). However, research indicates that actual work experiences while in school are one of the strongest predictors of post-school employment success for students with disabilities (Carter et al., 2012; Mazzotti et al., 2021; Wehman et al., 2015). Therefore, it is important for state and territory VR agencies to ensure that services include actual preparation for jobs and careers through the provision of work experiences while students with disabilities are still in high school.

As we consider the different types of work experiences represented within state/territory plans, general work experience was most prevalent, occurring within 98.1% of all plans. General work experiences encompass a wide range of different types of work activities, including unpaid service learning, student-led enterprises, volunteering, and work-based learning. While these types of experiences showed up frequently within plans, research indicates that paid work experiences specifically are associated with successful employment outcomes for youth with disabilities (Carter et al., 2012; Mazzotti et al., 2021; Wehman et al., 2015). However, paid work experience was described to a lesser extent (77.8%) within plans. Furthermore, there has been a substantial body of research on the effectiveness of the Project SEARCH model, which incorporates classroom instruction on work skills with 9 months of intensive internship experiences, all embedded within a local business (Leahy et al., 2018; Rowe et al., 2021; Wehman et al., 2020). This specific model, Project SEARCH, was represented within 70.4% of plans. The inclusion of these different types of work experiences within state/territory plans signals efforts to move beyond career awareness activities into providing actual work experiences for youth with disabilities, which is an important focus for VR agencies. However, we do not know from the plans the dosage, intensity, or effectiveness of specific programs, or who they are specifically targeted for. Additional research about the implementation and quality of work experiences is needed to gain a better understanding of how VR agencies are using them to prepare youth with disabilities for CIE.

Finally, several RBTRs were underrepresented within plans. Work study and CBI were least represented within plans, at 3.7% and 7.4%, respectively. It could be that terminology is not consistently used, or it could be that the low percentages of representation reflect changes in actual service delivery models, where states/territories are not using work study or CBI as much. Also, student involvement in transition planning was described in only 11.1% of plans. This finding is in stark contrast to the development of self-determination skills, which was the most frequently reported workplace readiness activity, appearing in 88.9% of plans. These findings may reflect in part the fact that instruction in self-advocacy skills is a required Pre-ETS activity. However, VR involvement through Pre-ETS does not appear to extend to supporting student involvement in transition planning. Finally, career technical education and technology skills instruction were mentioned less frequently within plans either, with career technical education referenced in 55.6% of plans and technology skills instruction referenced in 31.5% of plans. This finding is troubling given that these are critical areas for increasing students’ college and career readiness, improving employment outcomes, and ensuring youth with disabilities have the skills needed to be independent (Mazzotti et al., 2021; Rowe et al., 2021; Wagner et al., 2016, 2017).

Limitations

Several limitations should be considered when evaluating the findings from this study. First, RBTRs were synthesized from two systematic literature reviews (i.e., Mazzotti et al., 2021; Rowe et al., 2021) of peer-reviewed research on transition predictors and practices. While these two comprehensive literature reviews provide some of our best understanding of “what works” in supporting successful employment outcomes for youth with disabilities, they are also drawn primarily from school-based research and interventions. The process used in this study to develop RBTRs from the existing literature helped ensure that the resulting codes would be relevant in evaluating the transition-based services described within WIOA state plans, but it is possible that some effective strategies or approaches were omitted from our analysis. Second, coding of RBTRs was based on the information available within the plans. Some descriptions of programming and strategies were brief, and sometimes state plan terminology mirrored language from WIOA mandates (i.e., stating that instruction in self-advocacy, a required Pre-ETS activity, would be provided to students). It is also possible states/territories intended to provide RBTRs that they did not include in their plans. Finally, it is important to note that the documents used in this content analysis describe state and territory plans for WIOA implementation, but they do not necessarily depict actual service provision within states. We cannot assume that the information provided within plans mirrors transition service delivery provided to youth with disabilities.

Directions for Future Research

Findings from this study highlight the need to better understand how employment-focused transition services are delivered to youth with disabilities in order to increase successful CIE outcomes for this population. For instance, possible relationships between state characteristics (e.g., state population, state spending on VR services, transition-related expertise, adoption of Employment First policies) and the extent to which state VR agencies incorporate RBTRs into their plans for providing services to youth with disabilities warrant further investigation. This type of analysis is important for identifying malleable factors that could improve the overall quality of state plans, and potentially increase the likelihood of improved employment outcomes for youth with disabilities. Research is also needed that investigates relationships between the provision of transition-related VR services, including Pre-ETS, and successful CIE outcomes for youth with disabilities. Future studies, using case record data from the Rehabilitation Services Administration, could help pinpoint relationships between variations in service implementation and actual outcomes for youth with disabilities. Finally, model demonstration project studies are needed that investigate the implementation of coordinated transition-based services between VR agencies and schools to identify new best practices and ultimately, to ensure both the responsible stewardship of federal funds and that youth who receive VR services have access to the experiences, supports, and resources needed to find and maintain CIE.

Implications for Policy and Practice

Findings from this study have potential implications for how policies can support the implementation of practices to improve employment outcomes for youth with disabilities. As discussed previously, while RBTRs related to career exploration, traditional work experiences, and interagency coordination were frequently described within plans, critical RBTRs, such as student involvement in transition planning, career technical education, and technology skills instruction were mentioned much less frequently. However, these are important practices and predictors that have been shown to improve outcomes for youth with disabilities. While it may not be feasible for state VR agencies to include all 16 RBTRs within their plans, federal and state policies should emphasize the use of RBTRs in state-level transition service planning efforts. To better support state VR agencies and schools in their work around improving coordinated service delivery, policy leaders should allocate additional training on RBTRs to VR counselors and other VR staff responsible for delivering transition services. These training opportunities could also be extended to school staff, community rehabilitation program providers, and other affiliated organizations (i.e., workforce development boards, centers for independent living) whenever possible to establish a shared foundational understanding of RBTRs and facilitate a seamless transition for youth with disabilities. Finally, efforts should be made to disseminate research findings and provide targeted professional development opportunities to state and territory VR leaders responsible for developing WIOA plans to ensure these critical planning documents reflect state/territory needs and incorporate effective strategies/approaches for delivering high-quality transition services to youth with disabilities.

Several implications for practice also emerge from the present study. First, our results describe how interagency collaboration was included within all WIOA state plans. While this reflects the structure of state plans (i.e., coordination efforts with state educational agencies are a required component of plans), it also highlights the importance of coordinated service delivery for providing transition services to youth with disabilities. The provision of high-quality employment-related transition services requires state VR agencies and schools to work together. Given VR’s expertise and established focus in career exploration and work experience activities, state VR agencies and schools may wish to consider how they can partner together to ensure that other underrepresented RBTRs, such as technology instruction, are systematically planned for and incorporated into coordinated service delivery models. To that end, model demonstration programs are needed that identify how to incorporate RBTRs into service delivery models. Transition-focused funding to support pre-service transition professionals, in both special education and rehabilitation counseling programs, would help support the focus and implementation of WIOA transition-related provisions. Finally, while it is not essential that VR agencies become jacks-of-all-trades in implementing the full range of transition best practices, it is critical that services to transition-age youth with disabilities provided by VR are grounded in research evidence and clearly coordinated to ensure student success.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Holly N. Whittenburg

References

Brolin

D. E.

(1997). Life centered career education: A competency-based approach (5th ed.). Council for Exceptional Children.

Brown

Shiraga

York

Kessler

Strohm

Rogan

Sweet

Zanella

VanDeventer

Loomis

(1984). Integrated work opportunities for adults with severe handicaps: The extended training option. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9(4), 262–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079698400900403

Butterworth

Migliore

(2015). Trends in employment outcomes of young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities 2006–2013. Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston.

Carlson

S. R.

Thompson

J. R.

Monahan

(2020). An analysis of state pre-employment transition services policies. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 52(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-191059

Carter

E. W.

Austin

Trainor

A. A.

(2012). Predictors of postschool employment outcomes for young adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207311414680

Cimera

R. E.

Burgess

Bedesem

P. L.

(2014). Does providing transition services by age 14 produce better vocational outcomes for students with intellectual disability? Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 39(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796914534633

Department of Education Rehabilitation Services. (2022). Fiscal year 2022 budget request. https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget22/justifications/j-rehab.pdf

Leahy

M. J.

Del Valle

R. J.

Landon

T. J.

Iwanaga

Sherman

S. G.

Reyes

Chan

(2018). Promising and evidence-based practices in vocational rehabilitation: Results of a national Delphi study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 48(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-170914

Mazzotti

V. L.

Rowe

D. A.

Kwiatek

Voggt

Chang

W.-H.

Fowler

C. H.

Poppen

Sinclair

Test

D. W.

(2021). Secondary transition predictors of postschool success: An update to the research base. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420959793

10.

Newman

Wagner

Cameto

Knokey

A.-M.

Shaver

(2010). 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 (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2010-3008). SRI International.

11.

Rooney-Kron

Dymond

S. K.

(2022). Work-based learning experiences of students with intellectual disability. Inclusion. Advance online publication. http://aaidd.org/publications/journals/articles-accepted-for-publication

12.

Roux

A. M.

Garfield

Shattuck

P. T.

(2019). Employment policy and autism: Analysis of state Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) implementation plans. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 51(3), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-191046

13.

Roux

A. M.

Shattuck

P. T.

Rast

J. E.

Rava

J. A.

Anderson

K. A.

(2015). National Autism Indicators Report: Transition into young adulthood. Life Course Outcomes Research Program, A.J. Drexel Autism Institute, Drexel University.

14.

Rowe

D. A.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Fowler

C. H.

Test

D. W.

Mitchell

V. J.

Clark

K. A.

Holzberg

Owens

T. L.

Rusher

Seaman-Tullis

R. L.

Gushanas

C. M.

Castle

Chang

W.-H.

Voggt

Kwiatek

Dean

(2021). Updating the secondary transition research base: Evidence- and research-based practices in functional skills. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420958674

15.

Taylor

J. P.

Whittenburg

H. N.

Rooney-Kron

Gokita

Lau

S. J.

Thoma

C. A.

Scott

L. A.

(2021). Implementation of pre–employment transition services: A content analysis of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act state plans. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 45(2), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143421993027

16.

U.S. Department of Education. (2017). About ED/overview: The Rehabilitation Act of 1973. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/reg/narrative.html

17.

Wagner

M. M.

Newman

L. A.

Javitz

H. S.

(2016). The benefits of high school career and technical education (CTE) for youth with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(6), 658–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415574774

18.

Wagner

M. M.

Newman

L. A.

Javitz

H. S.

(2017). Vocational education course taking and post–high school employment of youth with emotional disturbances. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(3), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143415626399

19.

Wehman

Revell

W. G.

Brooke

(2003). Competitive employment: Has it become the “first choice” yet? Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14(3), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073030140030601

20.

Wehman

Schall

McDonough

Sima

Brooke

Ham

Whittenburg

Brooke

Avellone

Riehle

(2020). Competitive employment for transition-aged youth with significant impact from autism: A multi-site randomized clinical trial. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(6), 1882–1897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-03940-2

21.

Wehman

Sima

A. P.

Ketchum

West

M. D.

Chan

Luecking

(2015). Predictors of successful transition from school to employment for youth with disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 25(2), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9541-6

22.

Wehman

Taylor

Brooke

Avellone

Whittenburg

Ham

Brooke

A. M.

Carr

(2018). Toward competitive employment for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities: What progress have we made and where do we need to go. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 43(3), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796918777730

23.

Winsor

Timmons

Butterworth

Migliore

Domin

Zalewska

Shepard

(2021). StateData: The national report on employment services and outcomes through 2018. Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston.

24.

WIOA State Plan. (n.d.). The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act state plan. https://wioaplans.ed.gov

25.

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014, 29 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq. (2014).

26.

Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance Center. (2016). Pre-employment transition services. http://www.wintac.org/topic-areas/pre-employment-transition-services