Research Database: Article Details

Citation:  Kim, J.; Park, S.; Castruita-Rios, Y.; Weathers, M.; Park, M.; Inge, K.; Riesen, T.; Keeton, B.; Avellone, L.; & Tansey, T. (2024). Customized employment for transition-age youth in state vocational rehabilitation program PY2017 - PY2020: Analysis of service outcomes and related factors. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 60 (3), 281-297.
Title:  Customized employment for transition-age youth in state vocational rehabilitation program PY2017 - PY2020: Analysis of service outcomes and related factors
Authors:  Kim, J.; Park, S.; Castruita-Rios, Y.; Weathers, M.; Park, M.; Inge, K.; Riesen, T.; Keeton, B.; Avellone, L.; & Tansey, T.
Year:  2024
Journal/Publication:  Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation
Publisher:  IOS Press
DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-240013
Full text:  https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-vocational-rehabil...    |   PDF   
Peer-reviewed?  Yes
NIDILRR-funded?  Yes

Structured abstract:

Background:  Customized employment (CE) is positively correlated with competitive integrated employment (CIE) outcomes and potentially supports transition-age youth in achieving sustainable employment.
Purpose:  This study examines the employment outcomes and related factors for transition-age youth with disabilities who received CE services through state vocational rehabilitation agencies (SVRAs) and their vendors from program year 2017 to 2020.
Data collection and analysis:  Employing a combination of descriptive analysis, binary logistic and multiple regression, chi-square tests, and t-tests, the study investigates the demographics, potential barriers, and vocational rehabilitation (VR) services received by the research sample using the RSA-911 dataset.
Findings:  The sample comprised 672 individuals with a mean age of 22.30 years. The most prevalent barrier to employment among CE participants was long-term unemployment, while Supplemental Security Income (SSI) was the most common social security benefit. Furthermore, only 13.2% of transition-age youth achieved CIE status, compared to 30.1% of adults. The key predictors of employment outcomes, including CIE status, weekly earnings, and working hours were identified.
Conclusions:  The research reveals significant differences in employment outcomes between transition-age youth and adult VR consumers. These insights emphasize the necessity for SVRAs to consider a range of factors, including demographics, potential employment barriers, and the effects of various VR services, to increase the CE service effectiveness for transition-age youth.

Populations served:  Transition-age youth (14 - 24)
Interventions:  Vocational rehabilitation