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 - 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.
View full synthesis report: Research Synthesis: Employment Programs and Demonstrations for SSI and SSDI Beneficiaries
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 80
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study examined the impact of the SourceAmerica Pathways to Careers program on obtaining competitive integrated employment (CIE) for at least 90 days. The study used a nonexperimental…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of motivational interviewing (MI) training on self-perceptions of MI competence. The study was a randomized controlled trial that used survey…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Work-Related Social Skills Training (WRSST) on self-efficacy and work motivation. The study was a randomized control trial using pre and…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Wisconsin PROMISE (Promoting the Readiness of Minors in Supplemental Security Income) on youth employment, earnings and wages, and education and…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Compensatory Cognitive Training (CCT) on attaining competitive employment, weeks worked, wages earned, mental illness symptom severity, and…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Work Success (CBTw) on employment status, hours worked per week, and hourly earnings. The study uses an…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to measure the impact of the Social Security Administrations’ online iClaim system on changes in Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) applications, appeals, awards…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study's objective was to examine the impact of Breaking Barriers on employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt outcomes. The study was a randomized controlled trial that randomly assigned…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The authors assessed the relationship between male Vietnam-era veterans’ scores on the Clinician-Administered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Scale (CAPS), a clinically administered scale of…Study Type: Implementation Analysis
This report presented an implementation and impact analysis of the Utah Benefits Offset Pilot Demonstration Project (BOPD). The study examined pilot procedures and potential challenges for national…
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.