Several programs have attempted to improve labor market outcomes for youth and working-age adults with disabilities. To be successful, these programs must address the various barriers to employment typically encountered by this population. This topic area focuses on research determining which programs have been most effective at improving direct labor market outcomes such as employment and earnings; improving education and health status, which may affect a person’s ability to work; and decreasing federal disability benefit receipt.
Disability Employment Policy
Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area currently covers 1985 - 2022.
Synthesis Reports
Synthesis reports look at the research evidence across studies within a topic area. They also highlight gaps in the literature, and suggest areas in which further research is needed.
479
Findings:
Many disability employment interventions improved participant employment and earnings outcomes but few improved education and training, health, or public benefits receipt outcomes.
Transition programs and support services interventions improved the widest variety of outcome categories.
VR interventions improved employment and earnings outcomes but the effectiveness differed by disability type and the types of services received.
Supported employment interventions improved employment and earnings outcomes but the evidence base is small.
The two high-rated studies on benefits offsets showed no significant impact on earnings outcomes and an unfavorable impact on public benefits receipt outcomes.
The only high-rated study of a mental and behavioral health supports intervention showed promise.
Studies assessing the PROMISE intervention across multiple time points reported changes in outcomes.
Studies assessing the same intervention across multiple sites reported differing results.
View full synthesis report: Disability Employment Policy Research Synthesis
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 131
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the net impact of 12 workforce development programs in Washington state on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses on the…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Supported Employment (SE), through Vocational Rehabilitation (VR), on competitive employment. The study used a regression matched comparison…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of State Vocational Rehabilitation Agency (SVRA) services on employment and public benefits receipt outcomes. The study used a nonexperimental…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Achieving Success by Promoting Readiness for Education and Employment (ASPIRE) services on employment. The study used a nonexperimental design…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Benefit Offset National Demonstration (BOND) on earnings and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the comparison between the group…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Benefit Offset National Demonstration (BOND) on earnings and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the comparison between the group…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Benefit Offset National Demonstration (BOND) on earnings and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the comparison between the group…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Virtual Interview Training for Transition Age Youth (VIT-TAY) on employment outcomes for transition-age youth with disabilities. The study used…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Mental Health Treatment Study (MHTS) intervention on earnings. The study was a randomized controlled trial. Using interview and…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Project SEARCH plus Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Supports on employment outcomes. The study was a randomized controlled trial. Using…
CLEAR Icon Key
Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.
High Causal Evidence
Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence
Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence
Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis
Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis
Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis
Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
Favorable
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
Mixed
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
None
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
Unfavorable
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
Not applicable
Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
Favorable - low evidence
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Mixed - low evidence
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
None - low evidence
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Unfavorable - low evidence
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.