Postschool Services and Postschool Outcomes for Individuals With Mild Intellectual Disability

Abstract

Understanding the relationship between services and outcomes is important for students with disabilities. While research exists regarding relationships between services and supports provided in school and adult life outcomes for students with disabilities, less attention is paid to the supports and services provided after students exit high school. This study was a secondary data analysis of the National Longitudinal Transition Study−2 (NLTS2) to explore the postschool experiences and services received by individuals with mild intellectual disability and to understand the relationship between receipt of postschool services and postschool outcomes. The main findings for this secondary analysis were the lack of postschool services and supports provided to individuals with mild intellectual disability, and a lack of benefit in terms of postschool outcomes if postschool services were received.

Keywords

postschool mild intellectual disability NLTS2

Adult life often consists of employment and/or postsecondary education and then living on one’s own, with one’s spouse, or with a roommate (Shattuck et al., 2012; Test et al., 2009). A successful adult life—employed and living independently—is the presumed goal of almost every secondary student (Mooney & Phelps, 2001; Williams-Diehm & Benz, 2008); these aspects are stated as the central purposes for special education for students with disabilities (Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEIA], 2004). Secondary students want to become independent adults, and independence is often considered a right of passage as individuals age, as is attending postsecondary education after graduation or entering the full-time workforce (Migliore, Timmons, Butterworth, & Lugas, 2012).

Although successful adult life outcomes are the goal of secondary education and transition out of high school, years of research suggest individuals with disabilities struggle with their postschool outcomes. Per the original National Longitudinal Transition Study data, students with disabilities in general have been historically below their peers with regard to rates of competitive employment, attendance at some type of postsecondary education institution, and living independently within 2 to 3 years after leaving high school (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). More recently, aggregated data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study−2 (NLTS2) suggested that students with disabilities are experiencing improvements in postschool outcomes, although the rates are still not comparable with their peers without disabilities (Newman et al., 2011). Newman et al. (2011) also suggested stark contrasts exist in outcomes across different disaggregated disability categories. For example, students with intellectual disability experience lower success postschool as compared with other disability categories (Baer, Daviso, Flexer, Queen, & Meindl, 2011; Grigal, Hart, & Migliore, 2011; Newman et al., 2011).

The category of intellectual disability is a heterogeneous one; when one uses the term intellectual disability, they are referring to individuals with a range of IQ of around 70 to below 40 as well as variations in adaptive skills (Bouck, 2012a; Schalock et al., 2010). Specifically, the encompassing category of intellectual disability includes individuals with mild intellectual disability (i.e., IQ between 55 and 70), moderate intellectual disability (i.e., IQ between 40 and 55), and severe intellectual disability (i.e., IQ below 40; Schalock et al., 2010). Previous research suggests that students with mild versus moderate/severe intellectual disability receive different in-school services and educational programs, as well as experience different postschool outcomes (Bouck, 2012b; Bouck & Joshi, 2012; Bouck & Satsangi, 2015). For example, students with mild intellectual disability were found to experience more successful postschool outcomes when considering being employed, attending postsecondary education, and living independently compared with students with moderate intellectual disability (Bouck, 2012b; Bouck & Joshi, 2012).

When students exit secondary schools, they can be eligible to receive postschool services. Postschool services include such services as employment services (e.g., job placement, job training), daily living services (e.g., counseling), and transportation (Dutta, Gervey, Chan, Chou, & Ditchman, 2008). Often, postschool services for individuals with intellectual disability are provided by such agencies as vocational rehabilitation and/or a state’s Developmental Disability Agency (Simonsen & Neubert, 2013). Yet, little research systematically examines the receipt and impact of receiving postschool services for students with mild intellectual disability (Grigal, Migliore, & Hart, 2014). Given previous research suggesting students with mild intellectual disability differ from students with moderate intellectual disability, it is imperative that discussion of services, supports, and outcomes—both in-school and postschool—are disaggregated for students with mild intellectual disability and students with moderate/severe intellectual disability (Bouck & Satsangi, 2015).

Previous research suggests the following: (a) receipt of in-school experiences and services impact the postschool outcomes of individuals with intellectual disability (e.g., Bouck & Joshi, 2012; Carter, Austin, & Trainor, 2012; Papay & Bambara, 2014; Simonsen & Neubert, 2013), (b) individuals with intellectual disability utilize—or have access to—postschool services to a greater extent than individuals with other disabilities (Baer et al., 2011), and (c) students with mild intellectual disability differ qualitatively and quantitatively from students with moderate/severe intellectual disability (Bouck & Satsangi, 2015). Given these findings, this current research project sought to explore the receipt of postschool services by individuals with mild intellectual disability who recently exited high school, as well as explore the relationship between receipt of postschool services and postschool outcomes. Note, exited school refers to that a student was no longer attending because they graduated, dropped out, aged out, or for some other reason were not enrolled in school. The specific research questions for this study included the following:

Research Question 1: What are the postschool outcomes of individuals with mild intellectual disability relative to employment, postsecondary education participation, and independent living?

Research Question 2: What postschool services or support (i.e., supports individuals received after leaving—graduating, dropping out, or aging out—secondary school) are individuals with mild intellectual disability receiving?

Research Question 3: What are the relationships between receipt of postschool services, individuals’ mental skills, and postschool outcomes?

Method

Participants

This study was a secondary analysis of data from the NLTS2. Reports on initial data collection may be found at the NLTS2 website (http://www.nlts2.org) and in related literature (cf. Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, & Epstein, 2005). In the current study, the weighted number of individuals was 121,335. Individuals were included in the study if they were identified as having mild intellectual disability per their Individualized Education Program (IEP)—as reported in the school survey dataset of the NLTS2, enrolled in school at Wave 1 or Wave 2 of the NLTS2 data collection, and out of school at Wave 2, 3, 4, or 5 of the NLTS2 data collection.

Individuals’ ages postschool ranged from 17 to 25 years (μ = 20.2). Population breakdown by ethnicity was as follows: White (66.7%, Standard Error [SE] = 5.2), African American (23.6%, SE = 4.3), Hispanic (8.8%, SE = 4.3), and Asian/Pacific Islander (0.1%, SE = 0.0). Most individuals attended schools in suburban areas (49.7%, SE = 6.2), followed by individuals who attended schools in urban areas (31.5%, SE = 5.9), and rural areas (18.8%, SE = 3.7). Family income was also reported, with the majority of families earning US$25,000 or less (39.4%, SE = 4.8), followed by US$25,001 to US$50,000 (31.3%, SE = 6.1), and more than US$50,000 (29.2%, SE = 4.6). The majority of individuals with mild intellectual disability were out of school because they graduated (89%, SE = 3.3). Other reasons individuals were out of school were because they aged out (4.8%, SE = 3.0), dropped out or stopped going (3.3%, SE = 1.4), tested out (2.6%, SE = 0.9), or another reason not specified. Last, the average of individuals’ “mental skill” level, which was comprised of four skills (i.e., how well the individual could tell time on a clock with hands, read and understand common signs, count change, and look up phone numbers and use a phone), was 11.4 (SE = 0.5). This represented a medium mental skill level according to the NLTS2 (Wagner, Cameto, & Newman, 2003).

Data Collection

Initial NLTS2 data collection occurred over a period of 10 years, from 2000 to 2009. Each wave of data collection lasted approximately 2 years. For this secondary analysis, in-school data pertaining to demographic characteristics were obtained from Waves 1 and 2. Postschool data, including postschool services received and postschool outcomes, were obtained from Wave 2, 3, 4, or 5, based on when individuals exited high school. Overall, postschool data were analyzed on individuals who left school 1 to 3 years prior.

Of the six data collection instruments in the original NLTS2 study, two were used for the current study. The School Program Survey provided in-school data for Waves 1 and 2, while the Parent/Youth Survey provided postschool data—including services and outcomes—in Waves 2, 3, 4, and 5. During initial data collection, school personnel (typically special education teachers) provided information for the School Program Survey. These individuals were identified as those most familiar with the students. Although the School Program Survey solicited information pertaining to students’ backgrounds, coursework, services, transition planning, achievement, and other performance, for the purposes of this secondary analysis, only demographics—including disability status as reported in the IEP—were obtained from this survey. The Parent/Youth Survey reflected information about students’ school experiences, family characteristics, extracurricular activities, and postschool experiences. In Wave 1, parents completed the Parent/Youth Survey, typically via telephone, although they were mailed a survey if they could not be reached by phone. In subsequent waves, students were surveyed via telephone, or mail questionnaire if they could not be reached via phone. If students were unable to answer survey questions, their parents were surveyed. Each survey took approximately 30 min to complete.

Procedures

The current study included data from the School Program Survey and Parent/Youth Survey. We used School Program Survey data pertaining to demographic characteristics (i.e., ethnicity, gender, special education eligibility, school urbanicity, family income, and specific disability per student’s IEP). From the Parent/Youth Survey, we used data addressing services individuals received after leaving school in various domains: job training services, life skills training services, and postsecondary education accommodations and services. We also used data reporting postschool demographic information, including individuals’ age and mental skills, and data on whether individuals were enrolled in secondary school. For outcome variables, we focused on variables in the Parent/Youth Survey that addressed postsecondary education completion (i.e., community college, vocational school, or university degrees), employment (e.g., paid employment, full-time employment, earnings), and individuals’ living situation.

Seven original datasets were used to form this study’s analyses, one from each of the associated waves for the School Program Survey (Waves 1 and 2) and Parent/Youth Survey (Waves 2, 3, 4, and 5). All variables except the relevant and aforementioned variables in each dataset were removed from the original datasets. From there, individual cases were deleted if they did not meet the following criteria: identified as a student with a mild intellectual disability (School Program Survey) and identified as someone not enrolled in secondary school in the past year (Parent/Youth Survey). Following extraneous variable deletion, the datasets were merged.

Once the relevant variables were combined into a single dataset, certain variables were recoded for the secondary analysis. Specifically, the four subset mental skill variables—from the original NLTS2—were summed to create a total mental skill variable. As each individual mental skill variable was on a scale of 1 (not at all very well) to 4 (very well), the total mental skills variable was as follows: a score of 4 through 8 indicated a low mental skill level, a score of 9 through 14 indicated a medium mental skill level, and a score of 15 or 16 indicated a high mental skill level (Wagner et al., 2003). This was recoded to an average mental skills variable to indicate whether individuals’ mental skills were at or above average (i.e., 11.4) or below average. The living situation variables were recoded to identify whether individuals lived independently (i.e., alone, with a spouse or roommate, in a college dorm, or in military housing) or dependently (i.e., with parents or another relative/guardian, in foster care, in a residential/boarding school, in a group/assisted living home, in a hospital/medical/mental health facility, in a correctional facility or youth detention center, or in some other situation, as well as if the student was transient, homeless, or lived in a car). The wage variable was recoded to indicate whether individuals, at their current or most recent jobs, earned at or above minimum wage at the time of data collection (e.g., US$5.15).

In addition, we recoded the postschool services variables (i.e., postsecondary education institution accommodations and services, job training services, and life skills services) to reflect (a) whether individuals received any services in each category and (b) the number of services received. Postsecondary education institution accommodations and services included supports intended to help the individual attend college or university, such as test and assignment accommodations, adaptive technology or materials, human aides, physical adaptations to the classroom, therapies, child care, service coordination or management, independent living supports, and out-of-class learning supports. Job training services included supports to help the individual prepare for the workforce, such as interest inventories, job and basic skills training, career counseling, job shadowing or apprenticeships and internships, help finding a job, and job search training. Life skills training services included supports focused on developing daily living skills, such as teaching the individual how to use transportation, finance management training, and training in home and self-care skills, relationship and parenting skills, and self-advocacy skills. To make these three variable categories binary, we recoded them to indicate whether individuals received any of the services (1) or no services (0). Next, we quantified (e.g., summed) the number of services individuals received within each category (i.e., postsecondary education institution accommodations and services, job training services, and life skills training services). Individuals could report receiving up to 11 postsecondary education accommodations and services, nine job training services, and eight life skills training services.

Data Analysis

Frequency counts, F tests, cross-tabulations, and logistic regression analyses were used to conduct the secondary analysis. All data analyzed were weighted to approximate the national population of individuals with mild intellectual disability (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005). Specifically, weights were calculated based on the sampled local educational agencies and student respondents (according to the sampling stratum as well as student disability and age); the weights were provided with the original datasets. We applied the weights to the sample of individuals with mild intellectual disability for the secondary analysis.

First, frequency counts and F tests were performed. Frequency counts provided descriptive information on individuals’ demographic characteristics and services received. Frequency counts also provided information on postschool outcomes for the population of individuals with mild intellectual disability as well as for those who responded to related postschool service variables, such as the frequency of postsecondary diploma attainment for only those who indicated whether they received postsecondary accommodations and services. Next, F tests were conducted to analyze whether the postschool outcomes (i.e., postsecondary education degree, current employment at a paid job, full-time employment at current or most recent job, earning at or above minimum wage at current or most recent job, and living independently) of individuals who received postschool services significantly differed from those who did not receive such services. In addition, postschool outcomes were analyzed for individuals whose mental skills were at or above average compared with those whose mental skills were below average, when considering the average of the population of individuals with mild intellectual disability within the secondary data analysis. Results indicated whether the group differences were significant. Information on the F test, which was provided by SRI International, who conducted initial NLTS2 data collection, may be found in Newman, Wagner, Cameto, and Knokey (2009).

Finally, logistic regression analyses were performed to determine whether receipt of services significantly predicted the five postschool outcomes for individuals with mild intellectual disability: postsecondary education completion, paid job, full-time job, earning above minimum wage, and living independently. Each outcome variable was binary, and only relevant predictors were included in each model. In the postsecondary education degree model, postsecondary accommodations and average mental skills served as the predictor variables. In the paid job, full-time job, and minimum wage models, job training services and average mental skills served as the predictor variables. In the independent living model, life skills training services and average mental skills served as the predictor variables. These variables were selected as predictors for each model based on previous research that indicated related opportunities, such as work study, life skills programs, and career counseling, and were correlated with postschool employment and independent living for individuals with intellectual disability and other developmental disabilities (Carter et al., 2012; Chiang, Cheung, Li, & Tsai, 2013; Cobb, Lipscomb, Wolgemuth, & Schulte, 2013).

Prior to the logistic regression analyses, cross-tabulations were calculated to determine model covariates. Pearson’s Chi-Square Test of Association indicated whether the dependent variables were significantly associated (p < .05) with any of the demographic variables (i.e., gender, ethnicity, school urbanicity, and family income). The demographic variables that were significantly associated with the dependent variables served as model covariates. Gender was a covariate for the full-time job model, ethnicity and urbanicity were covariates for the paid job model, and family income was a covariate for the independent living model.

Results

Postschool Outcomes

The majority of individuals with mild intellectual disability were employed postschool at the time of data collection (59.8%, SE = 6.7), although most of those who were working were employed part-time at their current or most recent job (60.7%, SE = 10.6). The majority of those with mild intellectual disability who were working earned at or above minimum wage (78.2%, SE = 8.0); the average hourly wage was US$7.08. Most individuals with mild intellectual disability reported positive levels of job satisfaction, as 29.5% (SE = 8.7) reported they liked their job very much, and 43.2% (SE = 11.3) reported they liked their job fairly well. A smaller proportion of individuals reported not liking their job much (15.4%, SE = 12.6) or not liking their job at all (12%, SE = 6.1).

Fewer individuals with mild intellectual disability reported postsecondary education attendance and independent living. Only 20.5% (SE = 4.4) of individuals reportedly attended a postsecondary education institution of any kind—community college, vocational school, or 4-year college or university. A quarter of the individuals attending a postsecondary education institution went on to obtain a degree from any of the postsecondary education institutions within the time period examined (25.4%, SE = 12.6). A low frequency of individuals (8.8%, SE = 2.3) reported living independently after leaving high school.

Frequency analyses of postschool outcomes were also analyzed for only those individuals who responded to the associated postschool service variables (i.e., a smaller N as not all individuals responded to the postschool services questions). Of those individuals who indicated yes or no to receipt of postschool training job services, 61.3% (SE = 7.4) were employed at the time of data collection, but fewer than half were employed full-time (41.6%, SE = 12.0). However, the majority earned at or above minimum wage (61.3%, SE = 7.4). A low frequency of individuals who responded yes or no to receipt of postsecondary education accommodations received a postsecondary education diploma (8.5%, SE = 4.4). Similarly, a low frequency of individuals with mild intellectual disability who responded yes or no to receipt of life skills training services lived independently after leaving high school (7.9%, SE = 2.3).

Postschool Services

Postschool services were categorized into three domains: job training, life skills training, and postsecondary education accommodations. Fewer than half of the individuals reported receiving job training services since leaving high school (42.4%, SE = 8.5), while 16.5% (SE = 5.0) reported receiving life skills training services since leaving high school. Individuals reported receiving a range of zero to eight job training services (μ = 1.77) and a range of zero to five life skills training services (μ = 0.57). The most frequently reported job training service was testing to find out interests (23%, SE = 5.4), followed by help finding a job (22.9%, SE = 6.0), and career counseling (22.6%, SE = 5.3) (see Table 1). The most frequently reported life skills training service was relationship skills training (12.3%, SE = 4.7), followed by training in financial issues (11.2%, SE = 4.6) and home care skills training (8.4%, SE = 2.6). For individuals who attended a postsecondary education institution following high school, few reported receiving postsecondary education accommodations and services (21.4%, SE = 11.0). For those who reported receiving postsecondary education accommodations and services, a range of two to five services were reported (μ = 3.40). The most frequently reported types of postsecondary accommodations and services were testing accommodations (95.1%, SE = 2.9) and assignment accommodations (95.1%, SE = 2.9), followed by materials and technology adaptations (57.6%, SE = 27.5).

Table 1.

Postschool Services Received by Students With Mild Intellectual Disability.

Postschool service	Yes, % (SE)
Job training services
Testing to find out interests	23.0 (5.4)
Training in specific job skills	20.0 (6.2)
Training in basic skills	19.5 (5.7)
Career counseling	22.6 (5.3)
Help looking for job	20.7 (5.3)
Job shadowing opportunities	18.6 (5.2)
Apprenticeship or internship	6.4 (3.4)
Help in finding a job	22.9 (6.0)
Life skills training services
Training in using transportation	5.4 (2.1)
Training in home care skills	8.4 (2.6)
Training in financial issues	11.2 (4.6)
Training in self-care	7.4 (2.5)
Training in relationship skills	12.3 (4.7)
Training in parenting skills	4.1 (2.0)
Training in self-advocacy	5.2 (2.1)
Postsecondary education accommodations and services
Out of class learning supports	—
Physical adaptations in classroom	0 (0)
Independent living supports	—
Testing accommodations	95.1 (2.9)
Assignment accommodations	95.1 (2.9)
Materials technology adaptations	57.6 (27.5)
Service coordination/case management	—
Child care	0 (0)

Note. — refers to an insufficient n who responded yes to report; the National Center for Special Education Research (IES) does not allow the reporting of data in which the raw data are less than 3.

Relationship Between Postschool Services and Outcomes

Using the F test developed by SRI International, individuals’ postschool outcomes were analyzed according to whether they received services. Significantly more individuals who did not receive job training services were employed full-time compared with those who received job training services (p < .01; see Table 2 for the frequency of postschool outcomes obtained relative to postschool services received). In addition, significantly more individuals who did not receive job training services earned at or above minimum wage compared with those who received job training services (p < .05). There was no significant difference between those who did and did not receive postsecondary accommodations and services with regard to receipt of a postsecondary education diploma, nor were there significant differences between those who did and did not receive job training services with regard to paid employment and those who did and did not receive life skills training services with regard to independent living.

Table 2.

Postschool Outcome Attainment by Postschool Services Received and Mental Skill Level.

Outcomes	Attained^a (population)	Attained^b (responded to services items)	Postsecondary education accommodations		Job training services		Life skills services		At or above average mental skills
Outcomes	Attained^a (population)	Attained^b (responded to services items)	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Postsecondary education degree	25.4 (12.6)	8.5 (4.4)	1.9 (1.6)	10.3 (5.6)					16.3 (9.4)	28.8 (20.3)
Paid employment	59.8 (6.7)	61.3 (7.4)			56.2 (12.6)	65.3 (8.4)			68.2 (7.5)	60.7 (11.0)
Full-time job	39.3 (10.6)	41.6 (12.0)			16.5** (7.5)	62.7** (12.8)			53.8 (11.4)	37.4 (18.6)
At or above minimum wage	78.2 (8.0)	76.2 (10.1)			56.0* (15.5)	90.4* (5.6)			78.7 (7.2)	72.4 (14.6)
Living independently	8.8 (2.3)	7.9 (2.3)					3.4 (2.3)	8.8 (2.7)	11.1* (3.9)	1.0* (0.7)

Data reported for population of individuals with mild intellectual disability. ^bData reported for individuals with mild intellectual disability who responded yes or no to service variables related to that outcome (i.e., the service variable with data listed for the respective outcome row).

p < .05. **p < .01.

The F test was also used to analyze individuals’ postschool outcomes according to their mental skill level. Individuals with mild intellectual disability whose reported mental skills were at or above the population average (μ = 11.4) were more likely to live independently than those whose reported mental skills were below the population average (p < .05). There were no significant differences between those with at or above average mental skills and those with below average mental skills with regard to receipt of a postsecondary education degree, paid employment, full-time employment, and earning at or above minimum wage.

The logistic regression models for receipt of a postsecondary degree, full-time employment, wages, and living situation were significant; the logistic regression model for paid employment was not (please see Table 3 for a summary of the logistic regression results). With regard to attainment of a postsecondary education degree, receipt of postsecondary education accommodations and services negatively predicted whether individuals obtained a postsecondary education degree (p < .01). Individuals who did not receive postsecondary education accommodations and services were 11.72 times more likely to obtain a postsecondary degree compared with those who received accommodations and services. Individuals’ mental skill level also significantly predicted their odds of obtaining a degree (p < .01), as those whose mental skills were at or above average were 32.73 times more likely to obtain a postsecondary education degree compared with those whose mental skills were below average.

Table 3.

Summary of Logistic Regression Analyses: Employment, Postsecondary Education, and Independent Living Outcomes.

Outcome	Postsecondary education accommodations		Job training services		Life skills services		At or above average mental skills
Outcome	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Postsecondary education degree
B	0.000^a	2.461**					0.000^a	−3.488**
SE(B)	—	0.680					—	0.694
Exp(B)	0.085	11.721					32.728	0.031
p	<.01	<.01					<.01	<.01
Paid employment
B			0.000^a	0.667			0.000^a	−0.297
SE(B)			—	0.643			—	0.582
Exp(B)			0.513	1.949			1.345	0.743
p			.303	.303			.612	.612
Full-time job
B			0.000^a	2.277**			0.000^a	0.276
SE(B)			—	0.758			—	0.907
Exp(B)			0.103	9.750			0.759	1.318
p			<.01	<.01			.762	.762
At or above minimum wage
B			0.000^a	2.074*			0.000^a	0.465
SE(B)			—	0.762			—	0.582
Exp(B)			0.126	7.955			0.628	1.591
p			<.05	<.05			.431	.431
Living independently
B					0.000^a	0.452	0.000^a	−1.899*
SE(B)					—	0.924	—	0.744
Exp(B)					0.637	1.571	6.682	0.150
p					.626	.626	<.05	<.05

Note. Exp(B) = exponentiated B.

Set to zero because the parameter was redundant.

p < .05. **p < .01.

With regard to employment and independent living outcomes, job training significantly predicted individuals’ odds of working full-time (p < .01). Individuals who did not receive job training services were 9.75 times more likely to work full-time compared with those who received job training services. Receipt of job training services also significantly predicted individuals’ odds of earning at or above minimum wage (p < .05); individuals who did not receive job training services were 7.96 times more likely to earn at or above minimum wage compared with those who received job training services. Individuals’ mental skill level did not significantly predict their odds of working full-time or earning at or above minimum wage. Last, although life skills training services did not significantly predict individuals’ odds of living independently, individuals’ mental skill level did (p < .05). Those whose mental skills were at or above average were 6.68 times more likely to live independently than those whose mental skills were below average.

Discussion

This study was a secondary data analysis of the NLTS2. The focus of this study was to explore the postschool services and outcomes received by individuals with mild intellectual disability and to understand the relationship between these two. The main findings for this secondary analysis were the lack of postschool services and supports provided to individuals with mild intellectual disability, and a lack of benefit in terms of postschool outcomes if postschool services were received.

Across the three domains examined—job training, life skills training, and postsecondary education accommodations and services—less than 50% of individuals with mild intellectual disability reported receiving support after high school. The most frequently reported support received by individuals with mild intellectual disability involved job training services (42.4%, SE = 8.5), such as testing to find one’s interests or help finding a job. Less than one fifth of individuals with mild intellectual disability received postschool life skills training (16.5%, SE = 5.0), and less than one fourth of individuals with mild intellectual disability who went on to attend any form of postsecondary education (i.e., vocational/technical, community college, 4-year college or university) reported receiving accommodations and services (21.4%, SE = 11.0).

While not known, multiple hypotheses may exist for the low reported receipt of postschool services for individuals with mild intellectual disability. For one, it may be that there is a decline in the receipt of postschool services, such as vocational rehabilitation services, for students with intellectual disability. Migliore, Butterworth, and Zalewaska (2014) found a decline in the percentage of individuals with intellectual disability who received vocational rehabilitation services from 2006 to 2010; a similar decline may have occurred from the early 2000s to the mid-2000s. A second hypothesis is that individuals who received the postschool services had more severe or intense needs than the individuals who did not receive such services, when considering employment and independent living. As noted by Wehman, Fong, Ditchman, and Kang (2014), postschool supports, such as those provided by vocational rehabilitation programs, are often prioritized for students with more severe or intense needs (e.g., significant disabilities). It may be that individuals with mild intellectual disability are not prioritized to the extent of students with moderate and severe intellectual disability or individuals with autism with regard to postschool services provided by vocational rehabilitation. In support of this theory, for postschool employment services, significantly more individuals with mild intellectual disability with below average mental skills received job training services than those with at or above average mental skills (p < .05). However, a similar result was not found for life skills training services. Relatedly, individuals with mild intellectual disability may also not have been prioritized or provided postschool services under the presumption or assessment that they had obtained the skills related to the postschool services provided in their high school education.

While a similar argument may be made for the lack of receipt of accommodations and services in postsecondary education for individuals with mild intellectual disability (i.e., they were provided to students more in need), it is more unlikely. Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, reasonable accommodations are to be provided to individuals with a disability at any institution that receives federal funds (Yell, 2012). Accommodations would seem reasonable for any students with a mild intellectual disability, as they would also for a student with a learning disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and visual impairment. However, the self-identification involved in postsecondary education accommodations is also likely a factor (i.e., students need to identify themselves as having a disability and in need of an accommodation; Newman, 2005). Aggregated analyses of the NLTS2 suggest that more than 50% of students with disabilities decide they do not have a disability by the time they reach postsecondary education or purposively select not to identify as having a disability (Newman, 2005). Another hypothesis related to the lack of postsecondary education accommodations and services received by this population is that postsecondary education programs are not required to provide all accommodations, and hence there is great interpretation to the guidelines for the provision of accommodations (Newman, 2005).

Aside from the limited postschool services individuals with mild intellectual disability reported receiving, a concern also exists regarding the lack of positive relationship between receiving such services and postschool outcomes. This secondary data analysis found that students who did not receive a postschool service (e.g., job training) were more likely to be successful in that service’s related postschool outcome (i.e., working full-time). The finding of more successful outcomes for students who did not receive a postschool service goes against the expectation that receiving postschool services would benefit students in terms of successful postschool outcomes. These data, along with the positive relationships found between higher mental skills and postschool outcome attainment, support the earlier hypothesis that perhaps individuals who received the services had more intense needs.

The lack of relationship between postschool services and postschool outcomes for individuals with mild intellectual disability is concerning on another level. Previous research suggested a lack of relationship between in-school services and postschool outcomes for this population. For example, Bouck and Joshi (2012) found the curriculum students with mild intellectual disability received in school—functional versus academics—did not impact students’ postschool outcomes. Similarly, receipt of assistive technology in school by students with mild intellectual disability did not impact their postschool outcomes (Bouck, Maeda, & Flanagan, 2012). Although previous work experience or employment did positively impact the postschool outcomes for these individuals, other employment-related transition activities did not (e.g., vocational education; Joshi, Bouck, & Maeda, 2012). Hence, there is little understanding—outside of the relative consistency of demographics (e.g., mental skills)—of what educators can do to improve the postschool outcomes of individuals with mild intellectual disability.

Implications for Practice

The low reported rates of postschool services for individuals with mild intellectual disability suggest the need to ensure that secondary education programs are focused on preparing these students for adult life. If low percentages of individuals with mild intellectual disability receive postschool services, then secondary education becomes the potential last opportunity to provide these individuals with formal education and programming. The value in providing students with mild intellectual disability services they need while in school is supported by the negative relationship between receipt of postschool services and postschool outcomes. Preparing students with mild intellectual disability in school seems more promising—and realistic—than assuming they will receive services as adults as well as actually receiving said services.

Another implication for practice involves the negative relationship between receipt of postschool services and postschool outcomes (i.e., students who did not receive services having higher frequencies of postschool success and students not receiving services being more likely to have successful outcomes). The negative relationships occurred for postschool job training services and working full-time and earning above minimum wage, and for receipt of accommodations and obtaining a degree from a postsecondary institution. While this secondary analysis focused exclusively on postschool services, some of the services individuals received—or did not receive—after high school were the same or similar to the services offered to students in school or are part of students’ transition planning (Bouck & Joshi, 2014). The job training skills examined included testing to find out job interests, help in finding a job, career counseling, training in specific job skills, help looking for a job, training in basic job skills, job shadowing opportunities, and an apprenticeship or internship. The lack of positive prediction between receiving such services and both working full-time and earning above minimum wage calls into question the value in terms of time and money of providing such services not only after high school but also in-school. Of course, additional research needs to be conducted to validate the findings and examine the efficacy of postschool services. And some of the postschool job training services received by individuals with mild intellectual disability were commonly reported as being received as in-school transition services by students with mild intellectual disability (Bouck & Joshi, 2014). Bouck and Joshi (2014) found 76.8% of students with mild intellectual disability reported receiving job skills training in school, while 48.6% reported receiving a vocational assessment, 43.1% career counseling, 31.5% job shadowing, and 13.5% an apprenticeship or internship. The attention and inclusion of these transition services for individuals with mild intellectual disability could be called into question based on the results of this secondary analysis.

Limitations and Future Directions

Various limitations must be considered when interpreting the results of this study. First are the limitations inherent in a secondary analysis of longitudinal data. These include limitations in the type of survey questions asked, missing data (e.g., due to participant attrition or failure to respond to certain items), and the age of the data, which were collected in the 2000s. In addition, the number of accommodations and services reported may not correspond to unique cases; that is, the same individuals may have endorsed receiving multiple accommodations and services, while others may have reported receiving very few to none. However, this was unable to be confirmed. By extension, those who reported receiving multiple accommodations and services may have external supports, such as agency personnel or family members, who advocate on their behalf for postschool services. Some individuals with mild intellectual disability or their families may also have better knowledge of where and how to get postschool services within their community than others. Researchers previously noted support from parents and increased levels of self-advocacy are associated with successful postschool outcomes (Schall, Wehman, & McDonough, 2012).

An additional limitation involves the dated nature of the secondary analysis. The NLTS2 represents older data. Yet, and until the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 becomes available, the NLTS2 provides researchers, educators, and policymakers the best opportunity to understand the relationship between services and outcomes for students with disabilities. Finally, a limitation involves the population examined—individuals with mild intellectual disability. To study students with mild intellectual disability through the NLTS2, the researchers relied on the disability category reporting in students’ IEPs and then reported on the School Program Survey by teachers. The NLTS2 does not provide researchers an opportunity to verify or validate the disability category reported; IQ data are not reported with the NLTS2.

Given the lack of predictive relationships between receipt of services and accommodations and the targeted postschool outcomes, it will be important for future research to investigate what other means of support can help individuals with mild intellectual disability achieve desired postschool outcomes. For instance, perhaps more informal means of support (such as family members and other community contacts) help these individuals obtain employment and independent living. Furthermore, it may be important to analyze other variables related to receipt of services and their relationship to postschool success, such as whether individuals seek out accommodations on their own versus others advocating for accommodations on their behalf, whether services were provided by the institution or obtained from other sources, or whether their beliefs on the utility of the services received with regard to obtaining desired outcomes.

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.

References

Baer

R. M.

Daviso

A. W.

III Flexer

R. W.

Queen

R. M.

Meindl

R. S.

(2011). Students with intellectual disabilities: Predictors of transition outcomes. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 132–141. doi:10.1177/088572881399090

Blackorby

Wagner

(1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the national longitudinal transition study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399–413.

Bouck

E. C.

(2012a). Intellectual disability/mental retardation. In Banks

J. A.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity in education (pp. 1202-1204). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Bouck

E. C.

(2012b). Secondary students with moderate/severe intellectual disabilities: Considerations of curriculum and postschool outcomes from the NLTS2. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities Research, 56, 1175–1186.

Bouck

E. C.

Joshi

G. S.

(2012). Functional curriculum and students with mild intellectual disability: Exploring postschool outcomes through the NLTS2. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 139–153.

Bouck

E. C.

Joshi

G. S.

(2016). Transition and students with mild intellectual disability: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 39, 154–163. doi:10.1177/2165143414551408

Bouck

E. C.

Maeda

Flanagan

(2012). Assistive technology and students with high-incidence disabilities: Understanding the relationship through the NLTS2. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 298–308.

Bouck

E. C.

Satsangi

(2015). Is there really a difference? Distinguishing mild intellectual disability from similar disability categories. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 186–198.

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, 50–63. doi:10.1177/1-44207311414680

10.

Chiang

H.-M.

Cheung

Y. K.

Tsai

L. Y.

(2013). Factors associated with participation in employment for high school leavers with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 1832–1842. doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1734-2

11.

Cobb

B. R.

Lipscomb

Wolgemuth

Schulte

(2013). Improving post-high school outcomes for transition-age students with disabilities: An evidence review (NCEE 2013-4011). Jessup, MD: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

12.

Dutta

Gervey

Chan

Chou

Ditchman

(2008). Vocational rehabilitation services and employment outcomes for people with disabilities: A United States study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 18, 326–334. doi:10.107/s10926-008-9154-z

13.

Grigal

Hart

Migliore

(2011). Comparing the transition planning, postsecondary education, and employment outcomes of students with intellectual and other disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 4–17. doi:10.1177/0885728811399091

14.

Grigal

Migliore

Hart

(2014). A state comparison of vocational rehabilitation support of youth with intellectual disabilities’ participation in postsecondary education. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 40, 185–194. doi:10.3233/JVR-140683

15.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA), 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).

16.

Joshi

G. S.

Bouck

E. C.

Maeda

(2012). Exploring employment preparation and postschool outcomes for students with mild intellectual disability. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 35, 97–107.

17.

Migliore

Butterworth

Zalewaska

(2014). Trends in vocational rehabilitation services and outcomes of youth with autism: 2006-2010. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 57, 80–89. doi:10, 1177/0034355213493930

18.

Migliore

Timmons

Butterworth

Lugas

(2012). Predictors of employment and postsecondary education of youth with autism. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 55, 176–184.

19.

Mooney

Phelps

A. L.

(2001). Life after high school: Which postschool outcomes matter for students with and without disabilities in restructured high schools? Research Institute on Secondary Education Reform (RISER) for youth with disabilities brief (No. RISER-4). Madison: Research Institute on Secondary Education Reform, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

20.

Newman

(2005). Postsecondary education participation of youth with disabilities. In Wagner

Newman

Cameto

Garza

Levine

(Eds.), After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities: A report from the National Longitudinal Study−2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://nlts2.org/reports/2005_04/nlts2_report_2005_04_ch4.pdf

21.

Newman

Wagner

Cameto

Knokey

A. M.

(2009). The post-high school 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 2009-3017). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2009_04/nlts2_report_2009_04_complete.pdf

22.

Newman

Wagner

Knokey

A.-M.

Marder

Nagle

Shaver

. . . Schwarting

(2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study−2 (NLTS2). Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2011_09_02/nlts2_report_2011_09_02_execsum.pdf

23.

Papay

C. K.

Bambara

L. M.

(2014). Best practices in transition to adult life for youth with intellectual disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37, 136–148. doi:10.1177/2165143413486693

24.

Schall

Wehman

McDonough

J. L.

(2012). Transition from school to work for students with autism spectrum disorders: Understanding the process and achieving better outcomes. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 59, 189–202. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2011.10.009

25.

Schalock

R. L.

Borthwick-Duffy

S. A.

Bradley

V. J.

Buntinx

W. H. E.

Coulter

D. L.

Braig

E. M.

. . . Yeager

M. H.

(2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of support (11th ed.). Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

26.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

27.

Shattuck

P. T.

Narendorf

S. C.

Cooper

Sterzing

P. R.

Wagner

Taylor

J. L.

(2012). Postsecondary education and employment among youth with an autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics, 129, 1042–1049. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2864

28.

Simonsen

M. L.

Neubert

D. A.

(2013). Transitioning youth with intellectual and other developmental disabilities: Predicting community employment outcomes. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 188–198. doi:10.1177/2165143412469399

29.

Test

D. W.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Mustian

A. L.

Fowler

C. H.

Kortering

Kohler

(2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160–181. doi:10.1177/0885728809346960

30.

Wagner

Cameto

Newman

(2003). Youth with disabilities: A changing population: A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2003_04-1/nlts2_report_2003_04-1_complete.pdf

31.

Wagner

Kutash

Duchnowski

A. J.

Epstein

M. H.

(2005). The special education elementary longitudinal study and the national longitudinal transition study: Study designs and implications for children and youth with emotional disturbance. Journal of Emotional Behavioral Disorders, 13, 23–41.

32.

Wagner

Newman

Cameto

Garza

Levine

(2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study−2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2005_04/nlts2_report_2005_04_execsum.pdf

33.

Wehman

Fong

Ditchman

Kang

H.-J.

(2014). Effect of supported employment on vocational rehabilitation outcomes of transition-age youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A case control study. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52, 296–310. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-52.4.296

34.

Williams-Diehm

Benz

M. R.

(2008). Where are they now? Lessons from a single district follow-up study. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 30(2), 4–15.

35.

Yell

(2012). The law and special education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.