Perspectives of pre-employment transition services providers on preparing youth with disabilities for employment

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Improving employment outcomes for youth with disabilities requires strong collaborations between educators and adult agencies. The advent of pre-Employment Transition Services (pre-ETS) introduces a new context for Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) to come alongside schools in preparing youth with disabilities for the world of work.

OBJECTIVE:

This study examines how providers of pre-ETS view the career-related transition practices and employment prospects of youth with disabilities.

METHODS:

We examined the perspectives of 164 providers on pre-ETS and the employment needs of the students with disabilities whom they served.

RESULTS:

Although providers expressed confidence in their knowledge of pre-ETS, they still desired additional training in each of the five core areas. Likewise, they viewed their collaborations with the school as positive, but expressed the value of establishing more extensive collaboration. Overall, providers agreed that multiple barriers stand in the way of serving students with disabilities and that preparation for employment must be further strengthened. Some differences in views were found based on the community (rural versus non-rural) of providers.

CONCLUSIONS:

We offer recommendations for research, policy, and practice to aid providers in preparing students with disabilities for employment.

Keywords

Employment transition vocational rehabilitation pre-employment transition services

1 Introduction

Since 1990, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its amendments have mandated that students with disabilities receive a coordinated set of transition services and supports. Although views on the purpose and scope of transition education have evolved over the last thirty years, its overarching goal remains the same—to prepare students with disabilities for further education, employment, and independent living. Unfortunately, the post-school outcomes of young adults with disabilities remain disappointing. The Office for Disability Employment Policy (ODEP [2019]) reports that among youth ages 20 to 24, only 43.9% of youth with disabilities were employed, compared to 74.4% of their peers without disabilities. In their longitudinal study, Newman et al. (2011) found that only 60.2% of young adults with disabilities were employed up to eight years after leaving high school. Moreover, postsecondary education completion rates were just 40.7% for young adults with disabilities compared to 52.4% for their peers without disabilities. The transition from high school to the workplace remains complex to navigate and far too many young adults are not attaining their goals for life after graduation.

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014 was passed with the goal of increasing preparation, education, and supports that address employment for low-income, at-risk, and vulnerable populations. Specific to students with disabilities, WIOA requires that 15% of federal dollars be allocated to delivery of five pre-Employment Transition Services (pre-ETS) categories: job exploration counseling, work-based learning experiences, counseling on postsecondary enrollment, workplace readiness training, and instruction in self-advocacy. Pre-ETS are delivered by Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) specialists or the providers with whom they contract. Critical to the success of pre-ETS is the required partnerships between VR, their contracted partners, and local schools. Pre-ETS are intended to supplement, rather than replace, what takes place in the classroom, which requires that teachers and providers work together effectively. The WIOA directives are aimed at improving employment and related adult outcomes for students with disabilities. However, WIOA is still in its infancy, as reporting regulations were not introduced until 2016 and few studies have examined its rollout and impact (e.g., Neubert et al., 2018). Therefore, it is unclear what providers know about pre-ETS and the manner in which it might be delivered to youth with disabilities.

Although the introduction of both WIOA and pre-ETS are encouraging developments, multiple factors must be examined to ensure its successful application. Providers of pre-ETS must be adequately prepared to serve students with disabilities effectively. Personnel preparation in the area of transition is a frequent topic of conversation in the field, but research consistently highlights the absence of available training for both educators and providers alike (e.g., Benitez et al., 2009; Morningstar & Benitez, 2013; Plotner et al., 2014). Likewise, staff working with outside agencies that provide services to students with disabilities report having limited knowledge about effective transition services and supports (e.g., Oertle & Trach, 2007; Oertle, et al., 2013; Plotner et al., 2012). In a survey of general and transition-specific VR counselors in three states, Plotner et al. (2014) found that half of participants had received only two to four days of transition training; only 30% received more than four days of training. Studies are needed to address what providers know about pre-ETS and whether that knowledge varies based on the roles they play in its delivery.

In addition to providing training to providers, a strong partnership between those providers and local schools is essential to quality pre-ETS delivery. The necessity of interagency collaboration is a strong theme throughout the transition literature (e.g. Awsumb et al., 2020; Kohler, 1996; Noonan et al., 2008; Riesen et al., 2014). Unfortunately, available research often finds that the participation of VR and other outside agencies is minimal and insufficient to substantially benefit youth with disabilities (e.g., Agran et al., 2002; Balcazar et al., 2013; Oertle et al., 2013; Plotner et al., 2014; Riesen et al., 2014). In contrast, when schools and providers work closely and continuously, such collaborations can yield positive outcomes (Johnson et al., 2003; Luecking & Luecking, 2015; Noonan et al., 2008). With the recent roll-out of pre-ETS nationally, it is important to understand the extent to which providers and schools are working in concert to serve students with disabilities.

Finally, the introduction of pre-ETS presents a new opportunity to examine the needs of students across diverse communities. When delivering pre-ETS, the types of communities in which students live may have an impact on their employment experiences and outcomes. Rural communities can differ substantially from urban and suburban communities in the opportunities and resources available to support employment. For example, differences in the availability of public transportation, community services, and job opportunities may be apparent (Goe & Ipsen, 2013; Miller et al., 2018; Sheehey & Black, 2003; Test & Fowler, 2018).

The purpose of this study was to explore how providers of pre-ETS view the employment prospects of youth with disabilities and the transition practices that might prepare them for the world of work. Specifically, we addressed the following research questions:

RQ1: How do providers describe their knowledge of the five areas of pre-ETS and their ability to implement each?

RQ2: How do they describe the employment preparation and outcomes of students with disabilities in their school?

RQ3: How do they assess current collaborations between their school and VR agencies?

RQ4: What do they consider to be barriers to youth employment in their local communities?

RQ5: To what extent do these answers vary based on type of community (i.e., rural versus non-rural)?

We conducted this descriptive study on the views of providers to inform the work of our technical assistance project focused on designing new training, resources, and supports for pre-ETS providers and schools. We chose to survey a large number of pre-ETS providers across the entire state in order to ensure our work aligned with the needs and views of these critical stakeholders. Such surveys of professionals and practitioners is advocated as a data-driven approach for identifying professional development needs (cf., Brock et al., 2014; Knight et al., 2019).

2 Method

2.1 Participants

Participants were 164 providers serving people with disabilities in Tennessee. To be included in the study, participants were required to (a) work directly for vocational rehabilitation or (b) work for an organization contracted with vocational rehabilitation to provide transition or pre-ETS services. Study participants reported the following roles: 45.12% were VR counselors, 17.07% were pre-Employment Transition Specialists, 18.29% were Transition School to Work program personnel, and 19.51% were community rehabilitation providers. Less than half of providers reported that they served only students with disabilities (40.85%). A majority of participants (80.49%) were female; 18.29% were male. The age of participants varied: 0.61% were 18–24, 11.59% were 25–34, 24.39% were 35–44, 32.32% were 45–54, 23.17% were ages 55–64, and 3.66% were 65 or over. Most participants were White (67.68%) or Black/African American (23.17%); the remainder were American Indian/Alaskan Native (4.27%), Asian American (1.83%), Hispanic/Latino (1.83%), Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (1.22%), and other race/ethnicities (0.61%). Most participants held a master’s degree (75.61%), followed by a bachelor’s degree (13.41%), less than a bachelor’s degree (7.32%), and a doctoral degree (1.22%). Almost half of participants (43.90%) reported working primarily in a rural community; the remainder (56.10%) worked in non-rural communities (i.e., suburban or urban).

2.2 Procedures

Data collection began in September 2018 and lasted two months. To identify our sample of relevant staff, our partner, the Tennessee Department of Human Services, provided us the email addresses of all agency personnel meeting our inclusion criteria. In addition, we were provided email addresses for the lead contacts for all agencies contracted with VR. We emailed all agency personnel directly and asked the lead contact in contracted agencies to forward our email to all of their staff who were eligible for participation (see prior section). In addition, the email explained the purpose of the research and included an electronic link that directed participants to a secure online survey (REDCap; Harris et al., 2009). We specified that the purpose of the study was to understand providers’ self-identified needs related to preparing youth disabilities for employment in the state. To ensure sufficient participation, each respondent received a $10 gift card to their choice of four businesses. Participants were assured that their individual responses would not be shared with the Tennessee Department of Human Services.

2.3 Survey instrument

We developed a survey (available by request) to examine participants’ (a) current knowledge of pre-ETS practices and policies, (b) views on the employment preparation and outcomes of youth with disabilities in their community, (c) assessments of their collaborations with local schools, and (d) views regarding barriers to employment for youth with disabilities in their community. The research team included faculty and staff with scholarly expertise and professional experience related to transition services provided by both VR and secondary schools. We reviewed the available literature on pre-ETS (e.g., Benitez et al., 2009; Mazzotti & Plotner, 2014; Noonan et al., 2013; Neubert et al., 2018; Plotner et al., 2014; Riesen et al., 2014) and used a consensus approach to develop an initial set of survey items. The survey was reviewed internally and went through multiple rounds of revision. In addition, it was reviewed by leadership within the state’s VR program to address clarity, accessibility, length, and thoroughness of the survey.

2.3.1 Knowledge of pre-ETS

We asked participants to respond to six questions addressing each of the five areas of pre-ETS: job exploration counseling, work-based learning, counseling on postsecondary educational enrollment opportunities, workplace readiness, and instruction on self-advocacy (see Table 1 for actual items). The six question stems were: “I can describe best practices related to —,” “I am familiar with requirements related to delivering —,” “I feel youth with disabilities need service related to —,” “I have personal experience implementing practices related to —,” “I have the resources I would need to implement practices related to —,” and “I desire additional training related to —.” Each of the five areas was accompanied by a definition drawn from the CRP (Community Rehabilitation Provider) Guidebook from the Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance Center (WINTAC, 2016). For example: “Instruction in self-advocacy includes activities and lessons that help students learn about their rights and responsibilities, as well as how to request accommodations, services, and supports needed during their transition to postsecondary education and employment” and “Job exploration counseling includes activities that aid students in learning more about their career interests and options, as well as local labor market information.” For each of the 30 items, educators responded using a 4-point, Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha for this section was 0.93, indicating high internal consistency.

Table 1
Views Regarding Pre-ETS Practices

Percentage selecting Relation to other variables

Item Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree M (SD) Type of community^a

I can describe best practices related to:

Job exploration counseling 1.22 2.44 46.34 50.00 3.45 (0.61) –0.26

Work-based learning 1.83 3.05 53.66 41.46 3.35 (0.63) –0.08

Counseling on PSE enrollment opportunities 1.22 5.49 46.95 46.34 3.38 (0.65) –0.02

Workplace readiness 1.83 1.22 48.17 48.78 3.44 (0.62) –0.18

Instruction on self-advocacy 1.22 3.66 50.00 45.12 3.39 (0.62) –0.11

I am familiar with requirements related to delivering:

Job exploration counseling 0.00 6.71 50.61 42.68 3.36 (0.61) –0.12

Work-based learning 0.61 10.37 52.44 36.59 3.25 (0.66) –0.11^*

Counseling on PSE enrollment opportunities 0.61 6.71 47.56 45.12 3.37 (0.64) –0.17

Workplace readiness 0.00 6.71 48.78 44.51 3.38 (0.61) –0.20

Instruction on self-advocacy 0.00 9.15 48.78 42.07 3.33 (0.64) –0.19

I feel youth with disabilities need services related to:

Job exploration counseling 0.61 0.61 17.68 81.10 3.79 (0.46) 0.22

Work-based learning 0.61 1.22 16.46 81.71 3.79 (0.48) 0.15

Counseling on PSE enrollment opportunities 0.00 1.83 23.17 75.00 3.73 (0.48) 0.30

Workplace readiness 0.61 0.61 15.85 82.93 3.81 (0.45) 0.16

Instruction on self-advocacy 0.61 0.61 20.73 78.05 3.76 (0.48) 0.17

I have personal experience implementing practices related to:

Job exploration counseling 0.00 5.49 41.46 53.05 3.48 (0.60) –0.02

Work-based learning 0.61 21.95 37.80 39.63 3.16 (0.76) –0.28

Counseling on PSE enrollment opportunities 1.22 5.49 45.73 47.56 3.40 (0.65) –0.25

Workplace readiness 0.61 7.93 42.07 49.39 3.40 (0.66) –0.15

Instruction on self-advocacy 0.61 9.15 40.85 49.39 3.39 (0.68) –0.26

I have the resources I would need to implement practices related to:

Job exploration counseling 0.61 9.76 49.39 40.24 3.29 (0.66) –0.38^*

Work-based learning 2.44 21.95 45.12 30.49 3.04 (0.79) –0.65^*

Counseling on PSE enrollment opportunities 1.22 10.37 45.73 42.68 3.30 (0.70) –0.34^*

Workplace readiness 1.22 13.41 46.95 38.41 3.23 (0.72) –0.61^*

Instruction on self-advocacy 1.22 10.98 46.95 40.85 3.27 (0.70) –0.50^*

I desire additional training related to:

Job exploration counseling 3.05 25.61 45.12 26.22 2.95 (0.80) 0.04

Work-based learning 3.05 20.12 50.61 26.22 3.00 (0.77) 0.20

Counseling on PSE 3.05 21.95 48.78 26.22 2.98 (0.78) 0.14

Workplace readiness 3.66 19.51 51.83 25.00 2.98 (0.77) 0.14

Instruction on self-advocacy 1.83 20.73 48.78 28.66 3.04 (0.75) 0.09

	Percentage selecting	Relation to other variables
I can describe best practices related to:
Job exploration counseling	1.22	2.44	46.34	50.00	3.45 (0.61)	–0.26
Work-based learning	1.83	3.05	53.66	41.46	3.35 (0.63)	–0.08
Counseling on PSE enrollment opportunities	1.22	5.49	46.95	46.34	3.38 (0.65)	–0.02
Workplace readiness	1.83	1.22	48.17	48.78	3.44 (0.62)	–0.18
Instruction on self-advocacy	1.22	3.66	50.00	45.12	3.39 (0.62)	–0.11
I am familiar with requirements related to delivering:
Job exploration counseling	0.00	6.71	50.61	42.68	3.36 (0.61)	–0.12
Work-based learning	0.61	10.37	52.44	36.59	3.25 (0.66)	–0.11^*
Counseling on PSE enrollment opportunities	0.61	6.71	47.56	45.12	3.37 (0.64)	–0.17
Workplace readiness	0.00	6.71	48.78	44.51	3.38 (0.61)	–0.20
Instruction on self-advocacy	0.00	9.15	48.78	42.07	3.33 (0.64)	–0.19
I feel youth with disabilities need services related to:
Job exploration counseling	0.61	0.61	17.68	81.10	3.79 (0.46)	0.22
Work-based learning	0.61	1.22	16.46	81.71	3.79 (0.48)	0.15
Counseling on PSE enrollment opportunities	0.00	1.83	23.17	75.00	3.73 (0.48)	0.30
Workplace readiness	0.61	0.61	15.85	82.93	3.81 (0.45)	0.16
Instruction on self-advocacy	0.61	0.61	20.73	78.05	3.76 (0.48)	0.17
I have personal experience implementing practices related to:
Job exploration counseling	0.00	5.49	41.46	53.05	3.48 (0.60)	–0.02
Work-based learning	0.61	21.95	37.80	39.63	3.16 (0.76)	–0.28
Counseling on PSE enrollment opportunities	1.22	5.49	45.73	47.56	3.40 (0.65)	–0.25
Workplace readiness	0.61	7.93	42.07	49.39	3.40 (0.66)	–0.15
Instruction on self-advocacy	0.61	9.15	40.85	49.39	3.39 (0.68)	–0.26
I have the resources I would need to implement practices related to:
Job exploration counseling	0.61	9.76	49.39	40.24	3.29 (0.66)	–0.38^*
Work-based learning	2.44	21.95	45.12	30.49	3.04 (0.79)	–0.65^*
Counseling on PSE enrollment opportunities	1.22	10.37	45.73	42.68	3.30 (0.70)	–0.34^*
Workplace readiness	1.22	13.41	46.95	38.41	3.23 (0.72)	–0.61^*
Instruction on self-advocacy	1.22	10.98	46.95	40.85	3.27 (0.70)	–0.50^*
I desire additional training related to:
Job exploration counseling	3.05	25.61	45.12	26.22	2.95 (0.80)	0.04
Work-based learning	3.05	20.12	50.61	26.22	3.00 (0.77)	0.20
Counseling on PSE	3.05	21.95	48.78	26.22	2.98 (0.78)	0.14
Workplace readiness	3.66	19.51	51.83	25.00	2.98 (0.77)	0.14
Instruction on self-advocacy	1.83	20.73	48.78	28.66	3.04 (0.75)	0.09

^aCohen’s d; positive effect sizes are in the direction of rural staff. ^*p < 0.05. PSE = postsecondary education.

We also asked ten questions related to their knowledge about pre-ETS policies (e.g., which students are eligible, how to do outreach, how to assess students’ needs, how to engage partners). Actual items are displayed in Table 2. Educators responded using a 4-point, Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha for this section was 0.92. We then included an open-ended question that asked participants to share the biggest question they had about pre-ETS at present.

Table 2

Knowledge Regarding Pre-ETS Policies

	Percentage selecting
Item	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly agree	M (SD)	Relation to type of community^a
I know which youth with disabilities in my community would be eligible for pre-ETS.	1.22	9.15	50.00	39.63	3.28 (0.68)	0.18
I know which youth with disabilities in my community would benefit from pre-ETS.	1.22	14.02	46.95	37.80	3.21 (0.72)	0.17
I know how to communicate effectively with youth with disabilities who could benefit from pre-ETS in my community.	0.61	4.88	54.27	40.24	3.34 (0.60)	–0.23
I know how to do outreach to youth with disabilities who could benefit from pre-ETS in my community.	1.22	12.20	52.44	34.15	3.20 (0.69)	–0.04
I know how to work with youth with disabilities and their families in the area of pre-ETS.	1.22	12.20	53.05	33.54	3.19 (0.69)	0.06
I know how to assess the needs of youth with disabilities in relation to pre-ETS.	0.61	14.63	50.61	34.15	3.18 (0.69)	–0.04
I know how to engage partners and education programs to collaborate in the delivery of pre-ETS.	1.22	25.61	48.17	25.00	2.97 (0.74)	–0.19
I know how to determine whether access to pre-ETS is positively impacting participating youth with disabilities.	2.44	29.88	40.85	26.83	2.92 (0.81)	–0.07
I know how to track and report outcomes related to the delivery of pre-ETS.	4.27	39.63	39.02	17.07	2.69 (0.80)	–0.17
I have received sufficient training on the goals and delivery of pre-ETS for youth with disabilities.	7.32	39.63	39.02	14.02	2.60 (0.82)	–0.09

^aCohen’s d; positive effect sizes are in the direction of rural staff. ^*p < 0.05.

2.3.2 Employment preparation

We asked participants about the preparation and outcomes of youth with disabilities in their community in nine areas (see Table 3 for actual items). For each, responses were provided using a 4-point, Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha for this section was 0.80, indicating good internal consistency.

Table 3
Views of Employment Preparation of Youth with Disabilities

Percentage selecting

Item Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree M (SD) Relation to type of community^a

Most youth with disabilities in my community ...

Need substantial help preparing for the world of work 1.22 5.49 45.73 47.56 3.40 (0.65) 0.02

Expect to work after high school 1.83 21.95 67.07 9.15 2.84 (0.60) –0.13

Have access to career and technical education 6.10 28.05 56.71 9.15 2.69 (0.72) 0.15

Expect to access postsecondary education after high school 4.27 39.02 49.39 7.32 2.60 (0.69) 0.07

Are successful in achieving their employment goals 4.27 39.02 49.39 7.32 2.60 (0.69) 0.07

Have clear career goals 10.37 43.90 41.46 4.27 2.40 (0.73) –0.26

Are successful in achieving their postsecondary education goals 10.37 54.88 31.10 3.66 2.28 (0.70) –0.19

Graduate well-prepared to enter the workforce 19.51 57.32 17.68 5.49 2.09 (0.77) –0.15

Have realistic career goals 14.02 73.17 10.37 2.44 2.01 (0.59) 0.00

	Percentage selecting
Most youth with disabilities in my community ...
Need substantial help preparing for the world of work	1.22	5.49	45.73	47.56	3.40 (0.65)	0.02
Expect to work after high school	1.83	21.95	67.07	9.15	2.84 (0.60)	–0.13
Have access to career and technical education	6.10	28.05	56.71	9.15	2.69 (0.72)	0.15
Expect to access postsecondary education after high school	4.27	39.02	49.39	7.32	2.60 (0.69)	0.07
Are successful in achieving their employment goals	4.27	39.02	49.39	7.32	2.60 (0.69)	0.07
Have clear career goals	10.37	43.90	41.46	4.27	2.40 (0.73)	–0.26
Are successful in achieving their postsecondary education goals	10.37	54.88	31.10	3.66	2.28 (0.70)	–0.19
Graduate well-prepared to enter the workforce	19.51	57.32	17.68	5.49	2.09 (0.77)	–0.15
Have realistic career goals	14.02	73.17	10.37	2.44	2.01 (0.59)	0.00

^aCohen’s d; positive effect sizes are in the direction of rural staff. ^*p < 0.05.

2.3.3 Collaborations with schools

Given the emphasis placed on partnerships in both WIOA (2014) and IDEA (2004), we asked agency personnel to share their views on collaborating with local schools to provide pre-ETS to youth with disabilities (see Table 5 for items). These 20 items addressed current collaborations (n = 7 items) or potential barriers to collaboration (n = 13 items). Responses were provided using a 4-point, Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha for this section was 0.76, indicating acceptable internal consistency. In addition, we included an open-ended question asking participants to indicate what they saw as the biggest barrier to stronger collaborations with schools in their community around pre-ETS.

2.3.4 Barriers to adult outcomes

We asked participants to rate the extent to which each of 16 factors (see Table 5 for actual items) might serve as barriers to youth employment in the community in which they worked. Responses were provided using a 4-point, Likert-type scale: 1 = no barrier, 2 = minor barrier, 3 = moderate barrier, 4 = major barrier. Cronbach’s alpha for this section was 0.88. We included follow-up questions for four items to understand the direction of the barrier: visibility of the disabilities of youth (i.e., not visible versus too visible), expectations of parents and caregivers (i.e., too idealistic versus too low), expectations of parents and caregivers for independence (i.e., too idealistic versus too low), and involvement of parents and caregivers (i.e., too much or too limited). In addition, we included an open-ended question asking participants to indicate the biggest barrier to the employment of youth with disabilities in their community.

2.4 Data analysis

For the first four research questions (RQ1–RQ4), we summarized responses for each item using descriptive statistics (e.g., percentages, means, standard deviations). When summarizing these findings in the text of the results, we present the percentage of participants agreeing as the sum of agree and strongly agree and the percentage of participants disagreeing as the sum of disagree and strongly disagree. However, all response options are presented individually in the tables.

To address RQ5, we conducted exploratory analyses using independent-samples t tests. We compared ratings based on either type of community—rural versus non-rural (i.e., suburban or urban). Our primary interest was in whether there were distinct views or experiences associated with serving youth with disabilities in rural communities. We examined the magnitude of any differences by calculating Cohen’s d. We divided the difference in group means by the pooled standard deviation. We interpreted effect sizes using guidelines proposed by Cohen (1988): 0.20 was considered small, 0.50 moderate, and 0.80 large.

3 Results

3.1 What is providers’ reported knowledge about pre-ETS and implementation?

When asked about the five areas of pre-ETS, a large majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they could describe best practices, were familiar with the delivery requirements, had personal experience with implementation, and had the resources needed to implement. Nearly all felt that youth with disabilities needed services in each of the five areas and more than two thirds desired additional training in each of these five areas (see Table 1).

Knowledge about the policies of pre-ETS, however, was somewhat more varied (see Table 2). Although the majority of participants agreed that they knew which students would benefit from pre-ETS (89.6%) and would be eligible for pre-ETS (84.8%), fewer indicated they knew how to engage partners and education programs to collaborate in the delivery of pre-ETS (73.2%), knew how to determine whether access to pre-ETS is positively impacting participating youth with disabilities (67.9%), knew how to track and report outcomes related to pre-ETS (36.9%), or knew which agencies were providing pre-ETS locally (56.1%). Almost half (47.0%) disagreed they had received sufficient training on the goals and delivery of pre-ETS.

The results of the exploratory t-tests suggested that agency personnel working in rural communities may differ from those in non-rural communities on a variety of items. Agency personnel in rural areas (M = 3.13, SD = 0.69) reported lower agreement than non-rural personnel (M = 3.35, SD = 0.62) in regard to familiarity with requirements to deliver work-based learning services, t(162) = –2.17, p = 0.031, d = –0.11. In addition, rural participants less often agreed that they had resources to implement job exploration counseling [M = 3.15, SD = 0.62 versus M = 3.40, SD = 0.68; t(158.21) = –2.45, p = 0.015, d = –0.38]; work-based learning [M = 2.76, SD = 0.76 versus M = 3.25, SD = 0.75; t(162) = –4.09, p < 0.001, d = –0.65]; counseling on postsecondary education [M = 3.17, SD = 0.61 versus M = 3.40, SD = 0.76; t(161.92) = –2.21, p = 0.028, d = –0.34]; workplace readiness [M = 2.99, SD = 0.68 versus M = 3.41, SD = 0.70; t(154.26) = –3.94, p < 0.001, d = –0.61]; and instruction in self-advocacy [M = 3.08, SD = 0.67 versus M = 3.42, SD = 0.70; t(155.82) = –3.18, p = 0.002, d = –0.50]. No differences were found on knowledge of pre-ETS policies.

We asked participants to indicate their biggest questions about pre-ETS. Many participants raised issues related to gaining buy-in from schools, families, and students to begin delivering pre-ETS. Others reported collaboration challenges, such as how to have schools work with providers of pre-ETS. The delineation of roles among VR counselors, educators, and pre-ETS providers was highlighted, as well as the ways in which duplicative efforts might be eliminated. Finally, questions were raised about the best way to implement pre-ETS for students who are served primarily in general education classrooms, how to track and report outcomes related to pre-ETS, whether professional development is available, and how students should move from pre-ETS to adult services.

3.2 How do providers describe the employment preparation and outcomes of students?

As shown in Table 3, a majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that students with disabilities expected to work after high school (76.2%), expected to access postsecondary education (56.7%), and needed substantial help preparing for the world of work (93.3%). However, more than half of participants disagreed that youth with disabilities had clear (54.3%) or realistic career goals (87.2%), would graduate well-prepared to enter the workforce (76.8%), or were successful in achieving their employment (54.3%) or postsecondary education (65.3%) goals. We found no differences in views based on the type community in which participants worked.

3.3 How do providers assess current collaborations with local schools?

As shown in Table 4, participants agreed that they worked closely with schools (84.8%), worked with schools to ensure the provision of pre-ETS (76.2%), and would like to collaborate more extensively with schools (82.3%). Overall, they disagreed that collaboration does not lead to better transition outcomes (92.7%) and does not improve youth employment outcomes (92.7%). Additionally, they disagreed that their agency is not interested in collaborating (93.9%), does not make preparing youth for employment a high priority (95.7%), and does not encourage collaboration with one another (86.0%).

Table 4
Views on Collaborations with Schools and Potential Barriers

Percentage selecting

Item Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree M (SD) Relation to type of community^a

Current collaborations

Would like to collaborate more extensively with schools 1.83 15.85 40.85 41.46 3.22 (0.78) 0.14

Work closely with schools 1.83 13.41 47.56 37.20 3.20 (0.74) 0.51^*

Work with schools to coordinate and ensure provision of Pre-ETS 1.22 22.56 48.78 27.44 3.02 (0.74) 0.36^*

Regularly attend IEP/transition meetings when invited 5.49 22.56 41.46 30.49 2.97 (0.87) 0.13

Current partnership with schools is very effective 4.27 20.12 50.61 25.00 2.96 (0.79) 0.11

Often invited to attend IEP/transition meetings 4.27 28.67 40.24 26.83 2.90 (0.85) 0.19

Satisfied with my present level of collaboration with schools 7.32 29.27 43.29 20.12 2.76 (0.86) 0.25

Potential barriers to collaboration

Students and families receive conflicting information from schools and agencies 11.59 18.90 52.44 17.07 2.75 (0.88) –0.08

Insufficient financial resources needed to collaborate 13.41 50.00 27.41 9.15 2.32 (0.82) 0.21

Insufficient time to collaborate 17.68 44.51 26.83 10.98 2.31 (0.89) 0.14

Coordinating services between schools and different agencies is too difficult 19.51 50.61 23.78 6.10 2.16 (0.81) 0.01

Schools are not interested in or willing to collaborate with us 22.56 48.78 22.56 6.10 2.12 (0.83) –0.40^*

Preparing youth for employment is not a high priority of schools 24.39 46.34 23.17 6.10 2.11 (0.84) –0.17

Unaware of effective models for collaborating 26.22 50.00 18.9 4.88 2.02 (0.81) –0.08

Other responsibilities are more pressing than collaborating 28.05 46.95 20.73 4.27 2.01 (0.81) 0.10

We are not encouraged to collaborate with one another 40.24 45.73 9.76 4.27 1.78 (0.79) –0.10

Our agency/organization is not interested in collaborating 48.78 45.12 2.44 3.66 1.61 (0.71) 0.07

Collaboration is not needed to improve youth employment outcomes 56.10 36.59 3.05 4.27 1.55 (0.75) –0.07

Collaboration does not lead to better transition outcomes 54.88 37.80 5.49 1.83 1.54 (0.69) 0.25

Preparing youth for employment is not a high priority of my agency/organization 55.49 40.24 3.66 0.61 1.49 (0.60) 0.02

Preparing youth for employment is not a high priority for my school 26.67 49.66 19.46 5.20 2.04 (0.81) –0.22

Our school is not interested in collaborating with others 28.02 60.40 9.40 2.18 1.86 (0.67) –0.17

Collaboration does not lead to better transition outcomes for youth with disabilities 35.40 53.86 9.23 1.51 1.77 (0.67) –0.04

Collaboration is not needed to improve youth employment outcomes 42.11 48.66 7.21 2.01 1.69 (0.69) 0.10

	Percentage selecting
Current collaborations
Would like to collaborate more extensively with schools	1.83	15.85	40.85	41.46	3.22 (0.78)	0.14
Work closely with schools	1.83	13.41	47.56	37.20	3.20 (0.74)	0.51^*
Work with schools to coordinate and ensure provision of Pre-ETS	1.22	22.56	48.78	27.44	3.02 (0.74)	0.36^*
Regularly attend IEP/transition meetings when invited	5.49	22.56	41.46	30.49	2.97 (0.87)	0.13
Current partnership with schools is very effective	4.27	20.12	50.61	25.00	2.96 (0.79)	0.11
Often invited to attend IEP/transition meetings	4.27	28.67	40.24	26.83	2.90 (0.85)	0.19
Satisfied with my present level of collaboration with schools	7.32	29.27	43.29	20.12	2.76 (0.86)	0.25
Potential barriers to collaboration
Students and families receive conflicting information from schools and agencies	11.59	18.90	52.44	17.07	2.75 (0.88)	–0.08
Insufficient financial resources needed to collaborate	13.41	50.00	27.41	9.15	2.32 (0.82)	0.21
Insufficient time to collaborate	17.68	44.51	26.83	10.98	2.31 (0.89)	0.14
Coordinating services between schools and different agencies is too difficult	19.51	50.61	23.78	6.10	2.16 (0.81)	0.01
Schools are not interested in or willing to collaborate with us	22.56	48.78	22.56	6.10	2.12 (0.83)	–0.40^*
Preparing youth for employment is not a high priority of schools	24.39	46.34	23.17	6.10	2.11 (0.84)	–0.17
Unaware of effective models for collaborating	26.22	50.00	18.9	4.88	2.02 (0.81)	–0.08
Other responsibilities are more pressing than collaborating	28.05	46.95	20.73	4.27	2.01 (0.81)	0.10
We are not encouraged to collaborate with one another	40.24	45.73	9.76	4.27	1.78 (0.79)	–0.10
Our agency/organization is not interested in collaborating	48.78	45.12	2.44	3.66	1.61 (0.71)	0.07
Collaboration is not needed to improve youth employment outcomes	56.10	36.59	3.05	4.27	1.55 (0.75)	–0.07
Collaboration does not lead to better transition outcomes	54.88	37.80	5.49	1.83	1.54 (0.69)	0.25
Preparing youth for employment is not a high priority of my agency/organization	55.49	40.24	3.66	0.61	1.49 (0.60)	0.02
Preparing youth for employment is not a high priority for my school	26.67	49.66	19.46	5.20	2.04 (0.81)	–0.22
Our school is not interested in collaborating with others	28.02	60.40	9.40	2.18	1.86 (0.67)	–0.17
Collaboration does not lead to better transition outcomes for youth with disabilities	35.40	53.86	9.23	1.51	1.77 (0.67)	–0.04
Collaboration is not needed to improve youth employment outcomes	42.11	48.66	7.21	2.01	1.69 (0.69)	0.10

^aCohen’s d; positive effect sizes are in the direction of rural staff. ^*p < 0.05. VR = vocational rehabilitation.

Some differences were found based on the types of communities in which participants worked. Rural staff had significantly higher agreement than non-rural staff when asked if they work closely with schools [M = 3.40, SD = 0.66 versus M = 3.04, SD = 0.76; t(162) = 3.19, p = 0.002, d = 0.51], and whether they work with schools to coordinate and ensure the provision of pre-ETS [M = 3.17, SD = 0.69 versus M = 2.91, SD = 0.77; t(162) = 2.20, p = 0.030, d = 0.36]. Staff in in rural communities had significantly lower agreement ratings than non-rural personnel in response to the statement: schools are not interested in or willing to collaborate with us [M = 1.94, SD = 0.77 versus M = 2.26, SD = 0.85; t(162) = –2.47, p = 0.015, d = 0.40].

We asked what participants saw as the biggest barrier to stronger collaborations with schools in their community related to pre-ETS. The most common collaboration barrier was a lack of communication and ineffective communication regarding the purpose of pre-ETS. Buy-in from schools was also mentioned frequently as a barrier to collaboration. Many participants said they had difficulty understanding the different roles of each stakeholder. Finally—and not unexpectedly—time was discussed as a barrier to stronger collaborations.

3.4 What do providers consider to be barriers to youth employment?

Overall, agency personnel described every item as a minor, moderate, or major barrier (see Table 5). Nearly all participants rated accessible transportation (96.3%), social skills (98.8%), employment skills (99.4%), and the expectations of parents (98.2%) as representing some degree of barrier. Almost half of participants believed parent expectations were too idealistic (48.78%) whereas a majority were considered to have too low of expectations (60.98%). Concerning parent expectations for independence, participants felt they were too low (72.56%) rather than too idealistic (29.89%). Similarly, the involvement of parents was rated as limited (73.17%) more often than as too much involvement (30.49%). Participants believed the visibility of students’ disabilities presented as a barrier (91.47%), both when the students’ disabilities are not visible (54.88%) and when they are too visible (43.90%). Those areas least often named as a barrier were the expectations of adult agencies (20.1%), the expectations of teachers and school staff (19.5%), and the quality of partnerships with community programs (15.9%).

Table 5
Views of Barriers to the Employment of Youth with Disabilities

Percentage selecting

Item No barrier Minor barrier Moderate barrier Major barrier M (SD) Relation to type of community^a

The availability of accessible transportation 3.66 10.37 23.17 62.80 3.45 (0.82) 0.20

The social skills of youth with disabilities 1.22 14.63 51.83 32.32 3.15 (0.71) –0.14

The employment skills of youth with disabilities 0.61 21.34 44.51 33.54 3.11 (0.75) 0.09

The expectations of parents and caregivers 1.83 21.34 44.51 32.32 3.07 (0.78) 0.09

The parents and caregiver expectations for independence 5.49 23.17 43.29 28.05 2.94 (0.86) 0.11

The involvement of parents and caregivers 6.10 23.78 42.68 27.44 2.91 (0.87) 0.33^*

The motivation of youth with disabilities 3.05 31.10 37.20 28.66 2.91 (0.85) 0.24

The willingness of employers to hire youth with disabilities 5.49 25.61 42.68 26.22 2.90 (0.86) 0.29

The severity of the disabilities of youth 1.22 35.98 39.02 23.78 2.85 (0.79) –0.23

The availability of services and supports after graduation 6.10 31.71 38.41 23.78 2.80 (0.87) 0.21

The lack of opportunities for employment in our community 7.930 37.80 26.22 28.05 2.74 (0.96) 0.70^*

The quality of the employment preparation our school provides 10.98 33.54 35.37 20.12 2.65 (0.93) 0.17

The visibility of the disabilities of youth 8.54 43.90 35.98 11.59 2.51 (0.81) 0.01

The quality of partnerships we have with community programs 15.85 39.02 28.05 17.07 2.46 (0.96) 0.20

The expectations of teachers and school staff 19.51 34.76 34.15 11.59 2.38 (0.93) 0.22

The expectations of adult agencies and program staff 20.12 42.07 27.44 10.37 2.28 (0.90) 0.38^*

	Percentage selecting
The availability of accessible transportation	3.66	10.37	23.17	62.80	3.45 (0.82)	0.20
The social skills of youth with disabilities	1.22	14.63	51.83	32.32	3.15 (0.71)	–0.14
The employment skills of youth with disabilities	0.61	21.34	44.51	33.54	3.11 (0.75)	0.09
The expectations of parents and caregivers	1.83	21.34	44.51	32.32	3.07 (0.78)	0.09
The parents and caregiver expectations for independence	5.49	23.17	43.29	28.05	2.94 (0.86)	0.11
The involvement of parents and caregivers	6.10	23.78	42.68	27.44	2.91 (0.87)	0.33^*
The motivation of youth with disabilities	3.05	31.10	37.20	28.66	2.91 (0.85)	0.24
The willingness of employers to hire youth with disabilities	5.49	25.61	42.68	26.22	2.90 (0.86)	0.29
The severity of the disabilities of youth	1.22	35.98	39.02	23.78	2.85 (0.79)	–0.23
The availability of services and supports after graduation	6.10	31.71	38.41	23.78	2.80 (0.87)	0.21
The lack of opportunities for employment in our community	7.930	37.80	26.22	28.05	2.74 (0.96)	0.70^*
The quality of the employment preparation our school provides	10.98	33.54	35.37	20.12	2.65 (0.93)	0.17
The visibility of the disabilities of youth	8.54	43.90	35.98	11.59	2.51 (0.81)	0.01
The quality of partnerships we have with community programs	15.85	39.02	28.05	17.07	2.46 (0.96)	0.20
The expectations of teachers and school staff	19.51	34.76	34.15	11.59	2.38 (0.93)	0.22
The expectations of adult agencies and program staff	20.12	42.07	27.44	10.37	2.28 (0.90)	0.38^*

^aCohen’s d; positive effect sizes are in the direction of rural staff. ^*p < 0.05.

Several significant differences were found based on community type. The ratings of barriers among rural staff were higher than non-rural staff for three items: the involvement of parents and caregivers [M = 3.07, SD = 0.85 versus M = 2.79, SD = 0.87; t(162) = 2.04, p = 0.043, d = 0.33], the lack of opportunities for employment in the community [M = 3.10, SD = 0.89 versus M = 2.47, SD = 0.92; t(162) = 4.41, p < 0.001, d = 0.70], and the expectations of adult agencies and program staff [M = 2.47, SD = 0.92 versus M = 2.13, SD = 0.87; t(162) = 2.44, p = 0.016, d = 0.38].

Participants were asked what they saw as the biggest barrier to the employment of youth with disabilities in their community. Many agency staff believed students needed better preparation and supports to enter the workforce. The employment skills of students with disabilities, employment opportunities, and employer training to work with people with disabilities were repeatedly mentioned. A lack of reliable or public transportation options was seen by participants as a detrimental barrier to employment. Finally, parent-related barriers included expectations that are too high or too low, a lack of involvement, and minimal knowledge of services and supports for their student.

4 Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the perceived knowledge, views, and collaborations of agency staff related to the design and delivery of pre-ETS. Although considerable research has addressed the perspectives of special educators and vocational rehabilitation staff regarding transition services more broadly, the launch of pre-ETS introduces a new context for these collaborations as well unique complexities (Neubert et al., 2018). We surveyed 164 agency staff across one state to understand their views on (a) their knowledge about and preparation to deliver pre-ETS, (b) the employment needs and challenges faced by youth with disabilities, (c) their collaborative experiences with schools, and (d) barriers to employment outcomes. Our findings extend the literature in several ways.

First, providers of pre-ETS affirmed the need to further strengthen the preparation youth with disabilities receive for college and careers. Most providers disagreed that youth with disabilities in their communities (a) had clear or realistic career goals, (b) graduated well-prepared to enter the workforce, (c) or were successful in achieving either postsecondary education or employment goals. In fact, nearly all of the respondents indicated that youth with disabilities in their community needed substantial help preparing for the world of work. These perspectives are consistent with prevailing outcomes for young adults with disabilities across the country (e.g. Lipscomb et al. 2017; Newman et al., 2011). Moreover, they support the underlying rationale for the passage of pre-ETS as a much-needed pathway for increasing the employment preparation and outcomes of youth with disabilities. In addition, these findings join the chorus of calls to elevate outcomes for youth with disabilities (e.g. Awsumb et al., 2019; Balcazar et al., 2013; Carter et al., 2016; Riesen et al., 2014).

Second, the need for strong services and supports is reflected in the myriad of barriers to employment identified by participants. Indeed, all 16 issues included on the survey were considered to be moderate or major barriers by the majority of participants. These barriers tend to fall in three main categories: student factors, adult expectations, and community factors. Some of the barriers related to students are malleable and can be addressed through instruction related to employment skills, social skills, and motivation (e.g., Gilson et al., 2017). On the other hand, barriers related to the severity or visibility of a disability are more fixed. Expectations of parents, educators, agency staff, and employers can also be addressed through awareness, training, and resource sharing efforts. Finally, addressing community-level barriers like the availability of local employment options, accessible transportations, and services/supports after graduation will take more coordinated and sustained efforts to address. Affirmation of this constellation of barriers is certainly not new (e.g., Blustein et al., 2016; Test et al., 2009). Indeed, it reflects the complexity and challenges associated with supporting successful transitions for youth with disabilities and the necessity of coordinated investments across systems.

Third, providers of pre-ETS described their collaborative relationships with local schools as mostly positive. Among participants who said they had a close working relationship with schools, most said they were invited to (and attended) IEP meetings, were satisfied with their level of collaboration, considered their partnership to be very effective, and would like to collaborate more extensively with schools. In contrast, a companion study of special educators conducted in the same state found that special educators characterized these collaborations in much less favorable ways (citation masked). The reasons for these differences in perspectives should be explored in future studies. Indeed, positive partnerships are not the prevailing finding within the literature addressing interagency collaboration (Oertle et al., 2017; Riesen et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2016).

Although most participants reported positive collaborative relationships, a modest percentage of participants still highlighted relevant barriers. These barriers include (a) insufficient time to collaborate, (b) insufficient financial resources needed to collaborate, (c) difficulty coordinating services between schools and different agencies, (d) employment preparation as a low priority of schools, (e) a lack of interest or willingness of schools to collaborate, and (f) other responsibilities that are more pressing than collaboration.

Fourth, participants described their knowledge of pre-ETS practices as generally high. In each of the five areas of pre-ETS, a majority affirmed their ability to describe best practices, their familiarity with delivery requirements, and their personal experiences delivering these services. This finding is encouraging as the legislation and roll-out related to pre-ETS is still fairly new. In contrast, most prior studies of vocational rehabilitation staff indicate they receive insufficient training related to transition (Benitez et al., 2009; Morningstar & Benitez, 2013; Plotner et al., 2014). Although participants reported familiarity with pre-ETS, almost half said they had not received sufficient training on its goals and delivery, and about three quarters wanted additional training in each of the five pre-ETS areas. The request for more training may reflect a desire for a deeper understanding of pre-ETS practices and implementation issues related to the logistics and partnerships necessary to carry out this work successfully. Moreover, a modest percentage of respondents disagreed that they knew how to assess needs related to pre-ETS (15%), determine if pre-ETS has a positive impact (32%), or track and report outcomes (44%). Lastly, providers serving rural communities reported a practical issue in lacking the resources needed to implement each of the pre-ETS in comparison to respondents serving urban areas.

4.1 Limitations and future research

Several limitations to this study should be considered within future research. First, we asked participants to respond honestly to survey questions. Although the survey was anonymous and conducted by an outside organization, it was promoted and endorsed by the state’s VR agency. It is possible that some respondents may have been reluctant to characterize their knowledge and practices in a less-than-positive light. As this was a survey study aimed at understanding initial perspectives, we also did not attempt to verify participant’s actual knowledge about pre-ETS.

Second, our study focused on perspectives from a single state. The policies and procedures of VR agencies vary widely from state to state—including in the area of pre-ETS. Therefore, perspectives in this study may differ from those in other states that have made earlier or later investments related to pre-ETS. As a result, it is important to examine whether or not similar personnel views are held in other states. Other states could readily adopt this data-based approach for examining the perspectives and needs of these important stakeholders.

Third, we asked providers to report broadly about the youth with disabilities in the communities in which they worked, rather than about their perspectives on specific students. Given the diversity of students and the variety of needs and strengths they possess, such global responses could mask individual differences. Future studies should explore variations in the needs of youth within a particular staff’s caseload. This could be accomplished by conducting follow-up interviews or by asking more in-depth survey questions.

Fourth, our study addresses views at a single point in time. In our state, these findings provide a benchmark against which to evaluate the impact of our future training and resource dissemination. For example, we are using these findings to help us determine what content to incorporate and prioritize within an online training portal for pre-ETS providers across the state. Additionally, this information aids the planning process for our statewide annual conference and regional workshops that address pre-ETS implementation and partnership efforts across the state, problem solving strategies, and supports. We take these steps because professional development and training are most effective when aligned to need, incorporate principles of adult learning, and are coupled with coaching or other forms of supported application (Holzberg et al., 2018). Future studies should examine how the perspectives and issues raised in this study can be impacted through training, coaching, and other forms of intervention.

Fifth, this study addressed only perceptions of pre-ETS, not its actual delivery nor the outcomes of youth with disabilities as a result of its implementation. Indeed, pre-ETS is still in the early stages of roll-out across the county and studies have not yet examined its impact on the postsecondary education and employment outcomes of students with disabilities exiting high school. As implementation becomes more widespread, it is essential that impact studies become a focus of future research.

4.2 Implications for practice and policy

The findings of this study have several implications for stakeholders responsible for delivering pre-ETS to youth with disabilities. First, providers of pre-ETS must be properly prepared to deliver services to students with disabilities. It is unclear whether most pre-ETS providers have received substantial training around transition services for students with disabilities. Moreover, pre-ETS providers often have limited training on working with students in various school settings (i.e., general education, special education, or transition classes). Nearly half of our participants indicated they had not received sufficient training in pre-ETS and most desired additional training in each of the five areas. It is critical that state VR agencies reflect on the training and resources providers have already received, as well as the professional development they will need to carry out this new mandate. For example, in Tennessee, we are developing free online professional development modules for pre-ETS providers that include in-depth courses on each of the five pre-ETS areas, along with courses on interagency collaboration, working in schools, collaborations with families, and connecting with employers.

Second, joint professional development involving pre-ETS providers, special educators, career/technical educators, and related service providers could promote shared knowledge and strong collaborative relationships. Participants in this study reported that they would like to collaborate more extensively with schools and most felt students/families received conflicting information from schools and agencies. For example, we have begun offering workshops that bring together these various professionals—both to share about the complexities of their work and to examine how to strengthen collaborations across the state. These trainings were the first time many of these professionals had met each other and they found it very helpful to have learning communities that included school personnel.

Third, research such as this can be used to inform state policies. The questions on this survey were used by the Tennessee Division of Rehabilitation Services to develop their comprehensive statewide needs assessment (CSNA). As required by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, every three years a CSNA is conducted with VR customers, stakeholders, CRPs, WIOA partners, and VR staff. Our findings were incorporated into the report, which is used to inform VR policies and procedures and information sharing with our Tennessee communities. Others should work with their state agency to determine how similar data can be used to inform planning and policy.

Fourth, findings from this paper can help VR agencies and other provider agencies reinforce the importance of agency collaboration at the state and local level. These findings highlight a continued opportunity for local and state agencies to bring together education, VR, and disabilities provider agencies to improve the transition preparation and employment outcomes of youth with disabilities. This can be implemented through different approaches including a standing meeting of related state agencies, a Memorandum of Understanding, or coordinated information campaigns. Part of the information campaigns can be to test and measure website, newsletter, and other access to individuals and families as materials are developed. State agencies charged with delivering pre-ETS services have an opportunity to partner on a state level to implement pre-ETS. Just as the federal government and WIOA mandated pre-ETS, it also mandated the development of a State Plan. Part of the federal guidance was for state agencies to work more closely together. Pre-ETS was intended to be an opportunity to expand the capacity of the system to serve students and families. State and local agencies have an opportunity to make these services seamless for families as they support their youth with disabilities. In its 2016 Final Report to the Secretary of Labor, the Advisory Committee on Increasing Competitive Integrated Employment for Individuals with Disabilities shared “systems integration for seamless transition” as one of the areas needed to increase the capacity of the overall system and capacity building for youth for an effective transition to adult employment (Mank et al., 2016, p. 22).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

Agran,

, Cain,

H. M.

, & Cavin,

M. D.

(2002). Enhancing the involvement of rehabilitation in the transition process. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals25, 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/088572880202500204

Awsumb,

J. M.

, Balcazar,

F. E.

, & Keel

J. M.

(2020). Youth with disabilities: Are vocational rehabilitation services improving employment outcomes?. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation52(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-191060

Balcazar,

F. E.

, Oberoi,

, & Keel,

J. M.

(2013). Predictors of employment and college attendance outcomes for youth in transition: Implications for policy and practice. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling44, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1891/0047-2220.44.1.38

Benitez,

D. T.

, Morningstar,

M. E.

, & Frey,

B. B.

(2009). A multistate survey of special education teachers’ perceptions of their transition competencies. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals32, 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728808323945

Blustein,

C. L.

, Carter,

E. W.

, & McMillan,

(2016). The voices of parents: Post–high school expectations, priorities, and concerns for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education50, 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466916641381

Brock,

M. E.

, Huber,

H. B.

, Carter,

E. W.

, Juarez,

A. P.

, & Warren,

Z. E.

(2014). Statewide assessment of professional development needs related to educating students with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities29, 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357614522290

Carter,

E. W.

, Blustein,

C. L.

, Bumble,

J. L.

, Harvey,

, Henderson,

, & McMillan,

(2016). Engaging communities in identifying local strategies for expanding integrated employment during and after high school. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities121, 398–418. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-121.5

Cohen,

(1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gilson,

C. B.

, Carter,

E. W.

, & Biggs,

E. E.

(2017). Systematic review of instructional methods to teach employment skills to secondary students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities42, 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796917698831

10.

Goe,

, & Ipsen,

(2013). Vocational rehabilitation transition services in rural areas. Rural Institute, University of Montana.

11.

Harris,

, Taylor,

, Thielke,

, Payne,

, Gonzalez,

, & Conde,

(2009). Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap): A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics42, 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010

12.

Holzberg,

D. G.

, Clark,

K. A.

, & Morningstar,

M. E.

(2018). Transition-focused professional development: An annotated bibliography of essential elements and features of professional development. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals41, 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143417742362

13.

Johnson,

L. J.

, Zorn,

, Tam,

B. K. Y.

, Lamontagne,

, & Johnson,

S. A.

(2003). Stakeholders’ views of factors that impact successful interagency collaboration. Exceptional Children69, 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290306900205

14.

Kohler,

P. D.

(1996). A taxonomy for transition programming: Linking research and practice. Transition Research Institute, University of Illinois.

15.

Knight,

, Huber,

H. B.

, Kuntz,

, Carter,

E. W.

, & Juárez,

(2019). Instructional practices, priorities, and preparedness for educating students with autism and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities34, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357618755694

16.

Lipscomb,

, Haimson,

, Liu,

A. Y.

, Burghardt,

, Johnson,

D. R.

, & Thurlow,

M. L.

(2017). Preparing for life after high school: The characteristics and experiences of youth in special education (Vol. 2). U. S. Department of Education.

17.

Luecking,

D. M.

, & Luecking,

R. G.

(2015). Translating research into a seamless transition model. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals38, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143413508978

18.

Mazzotti,

V. L.

, & Plotner,

A. J.

(2014). Implementing secondary transition evidence-based practices: A multi-state survey of transition service providers. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals39, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143414544360

19.

Miller,

, Sevak,

, & Honeycutt,

(2018). State vocational rehabilitation agencies’ early implementation experiences with pre-employment transition services. VR & Youth Rehabilitation Research & Training Center.

20.

Morningstar,

M. E.

, & Benitez,

D. T.

(2013). Teachers training matters: The results of a multistate survey secondary special educators regarding transition from school to adulthood. Teacher Education and Special Education36, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412474022

21.

Neubert,

D. A.

, Luecking,

R. G.

, & Fabian,

E. S.

(2018). Transition practices of vocational rehabilitation counselors serving students and youth with disabilities. Rehabilitation, Research, Policy, and Education32, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1891/2168-6653.32.1.54

22.

Newman,

, Wagner,

, Knokey,

A. M.

, Marder,

, Nagle,

, Shaver,

, & Wei,

(2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school. SRI International.

23.

Noonan,

P. M.

, Gaumer-Erikson,

, & Morningstar,

M. E.

(2013). Effects of community transition teams on interagency collaboration for school and adult agency staff. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals36, 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143412451119

24.

Noonan,

P. M.

, Morningstar,

M. E.

, & Gaumer-Erickson,

(2008). Improving interagency collaboration: Effective strategies used by high-performing local districts and communities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals31, 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728808327149

25.

Oertle,

K. M.

, Plotner,

, & Trach,

J. S.

(2013). Rehabilitation professionals’ expectations for transition and interagency collaboration. Journal of Rehabilitation79(3), 25–35.

26.

Oertle,

K. M.

, Sax,

C. L.

, & Chesley,

(2017). Expectations of statewide special education and vocational rehabilitation transition leaders for their staff’s collaboration activities. Journal of Rehabilitation83(3), 3–20.

27.

Oertle,

K. M.

, & Trach,

J. S.

(2007). Interagency collaboration: The importance of rehabilitation professionals’ involvement in transition. Journal of Rehabilitation73(3), 36–44.

28.

Office of Disability Employment Policy. (2016). Advisory committee on increasing competitive integrated employment for individuals with disabilities. https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/pdf/ACICIEID_Final_Report_9-8-16.pdf

29.

Office of Disability Employment Policy. (2019). Monthly youth labor force participation rate and unemployment rate. Retrieved from https://www.dol.gov/odep/stats/index.htm

30.

Plotner,

A. J.

, Trach,

J. S.

, Oertle,

K. M.

, & Fleming,

A. R.

(2014). Differences in service delivery between transition VR counselors and general VR counselors. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin57, 109–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355213499075

31.

Plotner,

A. J.

, Trach,

J. S.

, & Stauser,

D. R.

(2012). Vocation rehabilitation counselors’ identified transition competencies: Perceived importance, frequency, and preparedness. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin55, 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355211427950

32.

Riesen,

, Morgan,

, Schultz,

, & Kupferman,

(2014). School-to-work barriers as identified by special educators, vocational rehabilitation counselors, and community rehabilitation professionals. Journal of Rehabilitation80(1), 33–44.

33.

Sheehey,

P. H.

, & Black,

R. S.

(2003). Transition outcomes of young adults with disabilities: A research synthesis. Rural Special Education Quarterly22, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050302200202

34.

Taylor,

D. L.

, Morgan,

R. L.

, & Callow-Heusser,

C. A.

(2016). A survey of vocational rehabilitation counselors and special education teachers on collaboration in transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation44, 163–173. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-150788

35.

Test,

D. W.

, & Fowler,

C. H.

(2018). A look at the past, present, and future of rural secondary transition. Rural Special Education Quarterly37, 68–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517751607

36.

Test,

D. W.

, Mazzotti,

V. L.

, Mustain,

A. L.

, Fowler,

C. H.

, Kortering,

, & Kohler,

(2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals32, 160–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728809346960

37.

WINTAC (2016). CRP and pre-ets guidebook. Retrieved from http://www.wintac.org/topic-areas/pre-employment-transition-services/resources/crp-guidebook

38.

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

	Percentage selecting
Item	No barrier	Minor barrier	Moderate barrier	Major barrier	M (SD)	Relation to type of community^a
The availability of accessible transportation	3.66	10.37	23.17	62.80	3.45 (0.82)	0.20
The social skills of youth with disabilities	1.22	14.63	51.83	32.32	3.15 (0.71)	–0.14
The employment skills of youth with disabilities	0.61	21.34	44.51	33.54	3.11 (0.75)	0.09
The expectations of parents and caregivers	1.83	21.34	44.51	32.32	3.07 (0.78)	0.09
The parents and caregiver expectations for independence	5.49	23.17	43.29	28.05	2.94 (0.86)	0.11
The involvement of parents and caregivers	6.10	23.78	42.68	27.44	2.91 (0.87)	0.33^*
The motivation of youth with disabilities	3.05	31.10	37.20	28.66	2.91 (0.85)	0.24
The willingness of employers to hire youth with disabilities	5.49	25.61	42.68	26.22	2.90 (0.86)	0.29
The severity of the disabilities of youth	1.22	35.98	39.02	23.78	2.85 (0.79)	–0.23
The availability of services and supports after graduation	6.10	31.71	38.41	23.78	2.80 (0.87)	0.21
The lack of opportunities for employment in our community	7.930	37.80	26.22	28.05	2.74 (0.96)	0.70^*
The quality of the employment preparation our school provides	10.98	33.54	35.37	20.12	2.65 (0.93)	0.17
The visibility of the disabilities of youth	8.54	43.90	35.98	11.59	2.51 (0.81)	0.01
The quality of partnerships we have with community programs	15.85	39.02	28.05	17.07	2.46 (0.96)	0.20
The expectations of teachers and school staff	19.51	34.76	34.15	11.59	2.38 (0.93)	0.22
The expectations of adult agencies and program staff	20.12	42.07	27.44	10.37	2.28 (0.90)	0.38^*