Skip to main content
  • Disability Employment Policy

    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.

    Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area currently covers 1985 - 2014.

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:
  • Evidence echoes previous literature reviews on the challenges of generating substantive impacts, though customized supports to well-targeted populations show some potential.

  • The most effective interventions provided intensive, customized supports and services focused on job training, placement, and retention to narrowly defined target populations.

  • Interventions that provided support services or incentives to help beneficiaries keep more of their benefits when working had small or no impacts on employment, even if spending on services was high.

  • There is no evidence of SSI or SSDI caseload reductions, even among interventions that improved employment and/or earnings.

  • Little is known about interventions for improving earnings of people with TBI and PTSD.

  • Recruiting beneficiaries to participate in demonstrations was difficult, which limited the generalizability of study findings.

  • Fidelity to the demonstration model is important.

  • Work incentives and supports can be difficult to implement in the context of SSA’s existing work incentives, creating potential confusion for beneficiaries and program staff.

  • A strong technical assistance component, with incentives for service providers to accept the assistance, is important to successful implementation.

  • Demonstrations should be pilot tested before being implemented on a national scale.

Recently Added

CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.

Export Results

Displaying 1 - 10 of 72

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

    High Causal Evidence Icon

    Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.

  • Moderate Causal Evidence

    Moderate Causal Evidence Icon

    Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.

  • Low Causal Evidence

    Low Causal Evidence Icon

    Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.

  • Causal Impact Analysis

    Causal Analysis (No Rating) Icon

    Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.

  • Descriptive Analysis

    Descriptive Analysis Icon

    Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.

  • Implementation Analysis

    Implementation Analysis Icon

    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.

    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.

    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.

    The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.

  • Unfavorable

    The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.

    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.

    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.