Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities
2009, Vol. 34, No. 2, 1–12
Evaluation of a Multicomponent
Intervention Package to Increase Summer
Work Experiences for Transition-Age
Youth With Severe Disabilities
Erik W. Carter, Audrey A. Trainor, Nicole Ditchman, and Beth Swedeen
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Laura Owens
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Early work experiences have been advocated as an impor-
tant avenue for equipping youth with disabilities with the
skills, attitudes, opportunities, and aspirations needed to tran-
sition successfully to meaningful careers after high school.
We examined the efficacy and social validity of a multicom-
ponent intervention packageVcomposed of summer-focused
planning, community connectors, and employer liaisonsV
aimed at connecting youth with severe disabilities to summer
work experiences. Sixty-seven youth were randomly assigned
to intervention and comparison groups from within six di-
verse high schools. Youth in the intervention group were
3.5 times more likely to have community-based work experi-
ences during the summer and worked more hours per week.
Key stakeholders generally perceived the intervention strat-
egies to be acceptable, feasible, and effective. We present a
detailed analysis of the summer experiences of youth with
severe disabilities and offer recommendations for improving
students’ access to early work and community experiences
as part of comprehensive transition education.
DESCRIPTORS: employment, transition, interven-
tion, high school, adolescence, community inclusion
The experiences youth have during high school can
play an instrumental role in shaping their future career
aspirations and outcomes. Although early work experi-
ences can convey important benefits to all adolescents
(Zimmer-Gembeck & Mortimer, 2006), they have partic-
ular salience in the lives of youth with severe disabilities.
Such work experiences can make important contributions
to adolescent development by helping youth formulate
The research reported here was supported by the Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through
Grant R324S060023 to the University of Wisconsin at Madison
and Milwaukee. The opinions expressed are those of the authors
and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education.
Address all correspondence and reprint requests to Erik Carter,
PhD, Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Edu-
cation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706.
E-mail: ewcarter@wisc.edu
1
Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on August 5, 2015
copyright 2010 by
TASH
their future goals and plans, explore their strengths and
interests, develop essential workplace skills and assets,
and establish relationships in their communities. Suc-
cessful, community-based jobs during high school can also
elevate expectations among parents, educators, employ-
ers, community members, and youth themselves for what
young people with severe disabilities can contribute to the
workforce (McIntyre, Kraemer, Blacher, & Simmerman,
2004; Siperstein & Romano, 2006). Research document-
ing the strong empirical link between early job experiences
and improved postschool outcomes further underscores
the importance of ensuring that youth with disabilities ac-
cess meaningful career development experiences while
still in high school (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000;
Benz, Yovanoff, & Doren, 1997; Brown, Shiraga, & Kessler,
2006).
Although multiple avenues exist through which youth
with severe disabilities might acquire valuable early career
development experiences, summer employment offers sev-
eral distinct advantages over working during the school year
(Carter, et al., 2010; Trainor, Carter, Owens, & Swedeen,
2008). Summer jobs do not compete with students’ access to
the general curriculum, involvement in extracurricular
activities, and interactions with peers during and after the
school day. Because community-based jobs often are not
introduced until later in students’ high school programs,
youth working during the summer can access earlier
work experiences as well as accumulate more extensive
and varied experiences before exiting the school system.
Short-term, part-time summer jobs also may broaden
students’ awareness of career options at younger ages,
enabling more focused and better aligned transition ser-
vices and supports. For students already working during the
school year, maintaining their jobs during the summer could
provide continuity in experiences and programming,
potentially diminishing skill regression and reducing the
need for job development efforts in the fall.
Although more than half of youth without disabil-
ities work during any given summer (Sum, McLaughlin,
Khatiwada, & Palma, 2008; U.S. Department of Labor
2 Carter et al.
Statistics, 2008), connecting youth with severe disabil-
ities to summer work experiences can pose substantial
challenges. Educators and parents may hold low expec-
tations of summer employment for youth with severe
disabilities, which limits the extent to which planning and
support efforts may be directed toward this time frame.
Discussions about summer activities for students with se-
vere disabilitiesVif they occurVare often limited to ex-
tended school year programming, which typically focuses
on academic, functional skill, or other school-based in-
struction. Moreover, the availability of transportation,
on-the-job support, and receptive employers are peren-
nially raised as barriers to youth employment (Peck &
Kirkbride, 2001; Trainor et al., 2008). Consequently, youth
with severe disabilities may be unlikely to obtain and
maintain summer jobs without the focused efforts, sup-
port, and collaborative involvement of schools and other
community stakeholders. Indeed, in our descriptive study
of the summer experiences of 135 high school students
with severe disabilities (Carter, et al., 2010), only 16% of
these youth held a paid, community-based job at any point
during the summer.
Although many schools and agencies across the country
are striving to promote early work experiences for youth
with severe disabilities, the empirical literature includes
relatively few evaluations of educational transition mod-
els focused on increasing the community-based employ-
ment experiences of youth with severe disabilities during
high school or focused explicitly on the summer months
(e.g., Certo & Luecking, 2006; Fabian, 2007; Rutkowski,
Daston, Van Kuiken, & Riehle, 2006). The persistence
and pervasiveness of restricted, segregated, or altogether
unavailable work experiences for youth and adults with
severe disabilities further ‘‘underscore[s] the need to exam-
ine new and alternative strategies that lead to increased
integrated employment opportunities. . .’’ (Johnson, 2004,
p. 243). The purpose of this research project was to
develop and to evaluate a multicomponent intervention
package aimed at increasing access to summer work ex-
periences for youth with severe disabilities.
In this study, we addressed the following research
questions:
1. Will a multicomponent intervention package (i.e.,
summer-focused planning, community connectors,
employer liaisons) improve the summer employment
outcomes of youth with severe disabilities?
2. In what types of employment experiences and com-
munity activities do these youth participate during
the summer?
3. How do school staff and employment liaisons eval-
uate the social validity of the intervention goals,
procedures, and/or outcomes?
Our goal was to develop a feasible set of intervention
strategies that would increase the proportion of youth en-
gaged in paid, community-based work experiences during
Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on August 5, 2015
the summer months. Secondarily, we anticipated that youth
in the intervention group would evidence increased in-
volvement in other non-work-related activities.
Methods
Schools and Recruitment
Six high schools in a Midwestern state participated
in this study. These schools participated in previous de-
velopment phases of our project and evidenced high
participation rates, expressed staff support of involve-
ment in the research, and represented geographically
and economically diverse communities. Average student
enrollment at these six high schools was 1660 (range =
1013–2323) and race/ethnicity of the student population
ranged from 77% to 96% European American (M =
91%), from 1% to 10% Latino (M = 4%), from 1% to
6% African American (M = 2%), from 1% to 6% Asian
American (M = 2%), and from 0% to 2% American
Indian (M = 1%). The percentage of students eligible for
free/reduced-price lunch (FRL) averaged 14% (range =
2–27%). According to the U.S. Census data, one school
served a mid-sized city, three served urban fringes of
large cities, one served a large town, and one served a
small town. Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates for
all working-age adults in this state were slightly lower than
overall national unemployment rates. Midway through the
summer, minimum wage increased from $5.85 to $6.55.
We worked with liaisons from each high school to in-
vite youth with severe disabilities to participate in this
study. Youth had (a) to receive special education services
under the primary or secondary disability category of
cognitive disability, autism, or multiple disabilities; (b) to
attend one of the participating high schools; and (c) to
provide parent consent and individual consent or assent
to participate. Given our project’s focus on youth with
extensive support needs, we directed liaisons to exclude
students who had ‘‘mild disabilities’’ (e.g., mild intellec-
tual disabilities, Asperger’s syndrome). We randomly as-
signed youth to groups from within each participating
high school to increase the likelihood that groups would
be similar on all potentially relevant variables. We pro-
vided teachers with explicit oral and written instructions
for randomly assigning students to the intervention or
comparison (i.e., ‘‘business as usual’’ at the school) groups
prior to their mailing permission forms. Our goal was to
recruit 10 youth with severe disabilities at each school,
divided comparably among the intervention and com-
parison groups. We asked liaisons to (a) use a provided
selection form to list all youth at their school meeting
the criteria, (b) order the list on the basis of their
knowledge of the likelihood that potential participants
would participate in a project focused on summer em-
ployment, and (c) alternately assign every other name an
A or B, beginning with the first name. We then randomly
determined whether A or B would represent the inter-
vention and comparison group at each high school. Per-
mission forms were initially mailed to the first 10 youth
 Youth Employment 3

listed for each group, with forms mailed to additional stu- race/ethnicity, Pearson # 2(1, n = 67) = 0.07, p = .793; FRL
dents if the recruitment goal was not met within approxi- eligibility, Pearson # 2(1, n = 67) = 0.12, p = .728; age,
mately 2 weeks. To recruit youth interested in obtaining t(51.65) = j1.74, p = .088; or adaptive behavior composite
summer jobs, invitations specified that the project was de- scores, t(43.69) = j0.76, p = .454.
veloped to help connect high school students to summer
work experiences.
Design and Intervention Package
We used a randomized experimental design (posttest
Participating Youth
only) to examine the effects of a multicomponent inter-
Sixty-seven youth with severe disabilities participated
vention package on the summer employment experiences
in this study. Table 1 displays participant characteristics by
of youth when compared with typical transition educa-
group. Most (74.6%) were eligible for the state’s alternate
tion in the participating high schools. The intervention
assessment and scores on the Vineland Adaptive Behav-
package piloted in this project consisted of five strategies
ior Scales, Second Edition (Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Balla,
developed on the basis of findings from earlier phases
2006) averaged nearly two standard deviations below their
of our overarching project, a review of the transition
same-age peers, suggesting ‘‘low’’ to ‘‘moderately low’’
literature, and our own prior work as educators of youth
adaptive levels. No significant differences were found be-
with disabilities. The first two strategiesVcommunity con-
tween intervention and comparison groups on the vari-
versations and resource mappingVwere broader, indirect
ables of gender, Pearson # 2(1, n = 67) = 0.004, p = .952;
components with potential to benefit all youth with dis-
abilities attending a given high school, regardless of group
Table 1 assignment or participation in our project. The last three
Participant Characteristics by Intervention and strategiesVsummer-focused planning, community connec-
Comparison Group
tors, and employer liaisonsVwere designed as individ-
Variable Intervention Comparison ualized, active components specifically for youth in the
n 38 29 intervention group.
Agea 18.4 (1.5) 17.6 (1.9)
Gender b Community conversations
Female 21 (55.3%) 17 (58.6%) During the spring semester, we hosted an event in each
Male 17 (44.7%) 12 (41.4%) community to foster dialogue around ways that schools,
Race/ethnicityb businesses, agencies, organizations, families, youth, and
African American 1 (2.6%) 2 (6.9%)
Asian/Pacific Islander 0 (0%) 2 (6.9%)
others could work together to expand the employment
European American 34 (89.5%) 25 (86.2%) opportunities of youth with disabilities in their local com-
Latino 2 (5.3%) 0 (0%) munity and to identify new partners willing to collaborate
Native American 1 (2.6%) 0 (0%) with participating schools. During each 2-hour-long even-
b
Free/reduced lunch status ing conversation, we used the World Caf2 model (Brown
Eligible 10 (26.3%) 10 (34.5%)
Not eligible 28 (73.7%) 19 (65.5%) & Isaacs, 2005) to facilitate a series of concurrent small
Disabilityb,c group conversations to exchange ideas, to brainstorm so-
Autism 4 (13.8%) 5 (13.2%) lutions, and to build relationships, and a culminating whole
Cognitive disability 25 (86.2%) 32 (84.2%) group discussion to share themes, strategies, and visions
Orthopedic impairment 1 (3.4%) 1 (2.6%)
Other health impairment 2 (6.9%) 5 (13.2%) emerging at each table. We posed two targeted questions
Speech and language disability 4 (13.8%) 9 (23.7%) to focus the ensuing conversations: (1) ‘‘What can we as
Visual impairment 1 (3.4%) 2 (5.3%) a community do to increase summer employment oppor-
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Editiond tunities for youth with disabilities?,’’ and (2) ‘‘What would
Composite standard scorea 71.8 (10.3) 69.1 (16.8) I be willing to do to facilitate summer employment oppor-
Percentile ranke 3 2
Communication domain a
70.3 (12.6) 68.5 (18.0) tunities for youth with disabilities?’’ Across communities,
Percentile ranke 2 2 attendance at each conversation ranged from 17 to 61
Daily living skills domaina 74.7 (12.2) 71.0 (18.2) (M = 34) and included individuals affiliating themselves
e
Percentile rank 5 3 as adult service agencies, high school staff, family mem-
Socialization domaina 76.7 (10.5) 75.1 (15.2)
Percentile ranke 6 5 bers, employers, youth with disabilities, local government
a
representatives, and others (e.g., local media, community
M (SD). organizations). Ideas generated during the conversation
b
Frequency (%).
c
Special education disability category youth is served under; were compiled into a brief report and shared back with
more than one category could be coded, resulting in totals ex- attendees and other community stakeholders. At the con-
ceeding 100%. clusion of the meeting, attendees provided anonymous
d
Vineland standard score scale has a mean of 100 and a standard feedback about the event and their perceptions of their
deviation of 15.
e
Percentile ranks represent the number of people outperformed community’s capacity to support youth employment (for a
by the individual in his or her age group. Percentile ranks cor- more detailed description of this component, see Carter,
responding to the group averages are presented. Owens, et al., 2009).

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on August 5, 2015

4 Carter et al.
Resource mapping
Community resource mapping involves identifying and
compiling the informal and formal resources that might
be harnessed to improve outcomes for youth with disabil-
ities (Crane & Mooney, 2005; Tindle, Leconte, Buchanan,
& Taymans, 2005). We initially compiled information about
disability-specific and generically available programs and
supports available to youth with disabilities in each local
community as well as informational resources available
at the state and national levels. Additional resources were
contributed by participating school staff, attendees at
each community conversation, and from any community
member via a Web-based submission form. Entries were
organized by select transition domain (i.e., finding and
maintaining employment, transportation, recreation/leisure,
volunteering) and included both resource descriptions and
contact information. Print and electronic versions of each
resource map were given to school staff, with updated ver-
sions posted on the project’s Web site.
Summer-focused planning
In this intervention, planning with the students was fa-
cilitated by community connectors, focused explicitly on
the upcoming summer months, and was designed to assist
youth in the intervention group to connect to specific sum-
mer work and other community experiences that might
further their transition education (see Carter, Swedeen, &
Trainor, 2009). We developed a written, two-page planning
tool template that was used by all community connectors
to structure their conversations with youth and other par-
ticipating stakeholders (e.g., other teachers, parents,
potential employers). The planning tool listed a series of
open-ended questions designed to help link students’ sum-
mer experiences to their goals for life after high school and
to identify potential supports. These questions assisted
connectors in identifying students’ long-term, ‘‘big picture’’
goals for life after high school, their short-term goals for
the spring semester and upcoming summer, possible places
in the community to meet these goals, individuals who
might be able to help, needed supports or resources, and
persons taking responsibility for each element of the plan.
We embedded prompting questions into the planning tool
template to encourage discussion and consideration of
key challenges and barriers identified in the literature
(e.g., logistics, scheduling, needed supports). Community
connectors conducted this planning during the spring
semesterVafter the local community conversations and
the distribution of the community resource mapsVso that
they would have access to information and connections
with key stakeholders, including business liaisons. Planning
forms were completed on average 38 days (SD = 21.5 days,
range = 11–97 days) before the start of the summer. An
average of four individuals (SD = 1.9, range = 2–9) con-
tributed directly to the planning process. All planning
meetings involved both youth and the community con-
nector. Eighteen of the meetings also involved a parent,
eight involved an employer, and two directly involved the
Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on August 5, 2015
employer liaison. All but one of the completed planning
forms submitted to us clearly reflected students’ interests
in obtaining a summer job.
Community connectors
Recognizing that the effectiveness of planning efforts
alone would remain limited unless deliberate efforts were
made to connect youth to summer jobs (Hughes et al.,
2004; Trainor, 2007), we identified a person at each school
to serve in the role of ‘‘community connector’’ for youth
with severe disabilities (n = 7; two were involved at one
school). Four were special educators, one was a program
support teacher, one was a paraprofessional, and one
was an employment specialist. They averaged 18.7 years
(range = 2–30 years) of school experience, and all but
one was female. Their role was to (a) attend their local
community conversation and suggest others to invite; (b)
facilitate the planning process for youth; (c) collaborate
with the employer liaison, as needed; (d) serve as a link
between parents, school staff, employer liaison, and
others to facilitate progress toward meeting youths’ sum-
mer plans; and (e) follow up with the youth, parents, or
others during the summer to help problem solve any
challenges. We did not require connectors to provide
direct support to youth in the summer themselves but
rather asked them to identify and connect youth to
resources and supports that could be drawn upon to this
end. Connecting youth to summer jobs involved identi-
fying job areas and local opportunities that reflected
students’ interests, contacting local employers about job
openings, assisting students to apply and interview for
these jobs, arranging needed on-the-job supports, and
addressing transportation, scheduling, parental concerns,
and logistical issues related to maintaining the job. For
those youth already working during the school year,
connectors took responsibility for identifying and re-
cruiting the supports students would need to maintain their
jobs into the summer. When developing the summer-
focused plans, connectors identified which of these tasks
they, other school staff, parents, community agencies, em-
ployer liaisons, and/or others would complete. For ex-
ample, when students needed assistance finding a job,
community connectors reported asking students’ parents
and relatives, other school staff, and/or employer liaisons
to assist them in identifying job possibilities. Similarly,
when it was determined during the planning process that
students would require on-the-job support during the sum-
mer, the connectors reported arranging school-funded
job coaching, helping families obtain agency-funded job
coaching, or providing direct support themselves. Infor-
mation about the actions of connectors was provided to us
in submitted summer plans and through follow-up inter-
views with connectors. In recognition of the amount of time
required to assist with recruitment efforts, to complete
several project-related assessment tools, and to attend the
training, each connector received stipends in the amount
of $100 for each youth with whom they worked.
 Youth Employment
Employer liaison
We identified a person to serve as an employer liaison
in each of the six communities, including three chamber
of commerce directors, four local employers, and two in-
dividuals affiliated with nonprofit organizations (three
communities identified more than one person). Their role
was to (a) attend their local community conversation; (b)
draw upon their existing networks and relationships
to help community connectors make linkages between
youths’ interests and employment, internship, or volun-
teer opportunities in the local community; (c) collaborate
with the community connector, as needed; and (d) attend
the planning process for youth with disabilities, when
appropriate. Because the degree to which youth needed
additional help and connections from the employer liai-
son varied, we anticipated that this component would be
important for some students, but not others. Moreover,
we encouraged community connectors and employer
liaisons to self-determine the avenues through which they
would collaborate (e.g., telephone calls, personal meet-
ings). Recognizing the time required to attend the train-
ing, the community conversation, and the meetings with
connectors, liaisons were offered a stipend on the basis of
the number of youth with whom they worked ($100 per
youth); most did not accept this stipend.
We provided training to community connectors and
employer liaisons during one of two trainings held before
the start of the spring semester. These half-day meetings
addressed the impact of early employment experiences
on youth outcomes, the focus of the project, their roles
within the project, and time for questions. Individual
meetings were held with those unable to attend these
trainings. Although we remained available to assist them
in their roles within this project, our direct involvement
in the three active components was minimal.
Intervention Fidelity
The extent to which each of the five intervention com-
ponents was used with each participant varied by com-
munity and by each student’s need. We did not specify
the specific services, supports, experiences, or connections
youth with disabilities had to receive during the school
year or summer months, nor did we require schools to
follow through on summer plans in a specified way aside
from completing a two-page form describing individual
plans. To gauge fidelity to the intervention package, we
asked community connectors to complete a checklist iden-
tifying which of the five components had been used for
each student. Community connectors were identified for
all youth in the intervention group, and planning tools were
turned in to us for 36 youth (94.7%). Employment liai-
sons were identified for each community but were directly
involved in assisting only 20 youth (52.6%). Community
conversations and resource mapping were completed in
every community. However, community connectors re-
ported that a specific idea, connection, or strategy from the
community conversations was used to help connect youth
Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on August 5, 2015
5
to summer work or other community activities for 14 youth
(36.8%). Community connectors reported drawing upon
information contained in the resource maps to connect
16 youth (42.1%) to summer activities.
Outcome Measures
We used a structured telephone interview protocol to
gather information about the employment and commu-
nity experiences of participating youth at two time points
during the summerVbeginning mid-June and again be-
ginning early August. Consistent with other follow-along
and follow-up studies (e.g., Bullis & Yovanoff, 2006; Na-
tional Longitudinal Transition Study-2), responses from
either close family members and/or youth themselves were
used to profile the summer employment and community
experiences of participating youth. Multiple calls were
made over a 2-week window. Our interview protocol was
used with almost 400 youth with disabilities in a previous
descriptive phase of our project (cf. Carter, et al., 2010).
Almost two thirds (n = 84, 66.1%) of all telephone inter-
views were conducted with parents/guardians, 33 (26.0%)
with youth themselves, 8 (6.3%) with youth and a parent/
guardian, and 2 (1.6%) with another person (i.e., uncle,
sister). Information regarding employment status was
gathered via survey at the beginning of the school year
for three students not reached at one or both time points
during the summer.
Employment status
We asked whether youth were currently working at the
time of the telephone interviews and, during August,
whether youth had worked at any point during the sum-
mer. Work status was coded as (a) not working; (b)
sheltered work experience (i.e., working within a congre-
gate work program for piece rate or subminimum wage);
(c) unpaid, community work experience; or (d) paid, com-
munity work experience. For youth holding any type of
job, we asked a series of questions to obtain information
about their primary job responsibilities, hours worked per
week, typical work schedule, hourly pay, length of employ-
ment, person(s) helping youth find the job (if any), pro-
vision of school or agency support (i.e., whether or not
staff from the high school or an employment agency peri-
odically checked in with the student on the job to see how
he or she is doing), and transportation modes. (Table 2
provides example response options and the interview pro-
tocol is available from the corresponding author.) If youth
were not working, we asked whether they were still inter-
ested in finding summer employment. If the answer was
yes, we asked respondents to describe (a) how long youth
had been looking, (b) the steps youth had taken to search
for a job, and (c) who helped youth with their search. If the
answer was no, we asked respondents to share why youth
were not looking for summer work.
Community activities
To gauge the extent to which youth with disabilities were
participating in other activities in their communities, we
6 Carter et al.

Table 2 egies needed to improve the summer outcomes of youth.

Job Characteristics of Youth Employed in Community-Based
Seven of nine employer liaisons (representing five of the
Jobs Across the Summer by Groupa
six communities) completed feedback forms asking them
Intervention Comparison to rate each of the five intervention components on the
n (%) n (%)
basis of their feasibility for someone in their role as well
Type of community work experiences as rate various statements about the overall intervention
Paid 17 (68.0%) 3 (60.0%) package (i.e., not at all, a little, somewhat, very).
Unpaid 8 (32.0%) 2 (40.0%)
Job dutiesb Data Analysis
Cleaning (janitorial, maid) 11 (44.0%) 3 (60.0%)
First, we performed chi-square tests to compare the
Childcare center 4 (16.0%) 0
Food services (busboy, 3 (12.0%) 1 (20.0%) proportion of youth in the intervention and comparison
waiter, cook) groups employed in community-based jobs (paid or un-
Clerical (filing, secretary, 3 (12.0%) 0 paid) at any point during the summer. We excluded from
typist) this analysis two youth with severe disabilities in the com-
Animal care (dog walking, 1 (4.0%) 0
veterinary assistant) parison group who were not working at Time 1 and who
Babysitting (informal) 1 (4.0%) 0 could not be reached at Time 2, rendering their overall
Computers (data entry, 1 (4.0%) 0 summer work status undeterminable. Second, we used
programming) logistic regression to examine the extent to which addi-
Grounds maintenance or 1 (4.0%) 2 (40.0%)
tional demographic variables and adaptive behavior rat-
landscaping
Lawn mowing (around the 1 (4.0%) 0 ings predicted summer employment status (i.e., working
neighborhood) a paid or unpaid community-based job) over and above
Stocking (grocery, drug, other 0 1 (20.0%) group assignment. Third, we used descriptive statistics to
store) explore the summer work experiences of youth with se-
Other job duties 7 (28.0%) 1 (20.0%)
Who helped youth find the jobb vere disabilities in each group. For youth working multiple
Teacher or other school staff 22 (88.0%) 4 (80.0%) jobs at a given time, we aggregated hours and duties and
Parent 2 (8.0%) 1 (20.0%) averaged hourly pay to best represent the individual’s cur-
Friend of youth or family 1 (4.0%) 0 rent work experience. Because the nature of their work
Employment agency 3 (12.0%) 0
experiences changed across the summer for some youth,
Another relative 3 (12.0%) 0
Neighbor 1 (4.0%) 0 weekly hours and pay were averaged, whereas job duties
Youth himself/herself 0 0 were aggregated to reflect the individual’s overall sum-
On-the-job support provided 22 (88.0%) 4 (80.0%) mer work experience. For unemployed youth who were
during the summerc looking for work, we summarized and compared their
a
For students working more than one job, characteristics were job search efforts at both interview time points to show
aggregated across jobs. Percentages reflect the proportion of changes in job seeking patterns. Likewise, we categorized
working youth only.
b reasons given for not looking for work at both time points.
More than one category could be coded, resulting in totals
exceeding 100%. Fourth, to obtain an overall picture of which additional
c
School or agency support was provided for at least one of the nonwork activities youth participated in during the sum-
jobs during the summer months. mer months, we calculated the percentage of youth re-
ported to be involved in each of 24 categories of activities
also asked whether youth were involved in each of 23 non- at either or both interview time points and constructed
work-related activities (e.g., going on vacation, volunteer- a summative index of the total number of activity cate-
ing, hanging out with friends; see Carter, et al., 2010) gories to represent each student’s overall involvement
during the previous 2-week period. If respondents men- in activities outside of work. We used independent sam-
tioned additional activities that could not be subsumed ple t tests to compare differences in the average number
under an existing category (e.g., therapy, tutoring), we of activity categories reported by youth (a) who were
tallied it as an ‘‘other activity.’’ or were not working and (b) in the intervention or com-
parison groups. Fifth, we summarized the social validity
Social Validity
ratings provided by community connectors and employer
All of the community connectors completed feedback
liaisons.
forms asking them (a) to rate each of the five intervention
components on the basis of their perceived helpfulness,
feasibility, and likelihood for future use as well as various
Results
statements about the overall intervention package (i.e., Is a Multicomponent Intervention Package Effective
not at all, a little, somewhat, very); and (b) to provide open- at Improving the Summer Employment Status of
ended recommendations for additional strategies that Youth With Severe Disabilities?
may be needed. In addition, we conducted individual in- A significantly higher proportion of youth with severe
terviews with six of the seven community connectors to disabilities in the intervention group (n = 25, 65.8%)
gather in-depth feedback about the intervention and strat- participated in a paid or unpaid community-based work

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on August 5, 2015

 Youth Employment
experience at some point during the summer relative to
youth in the comparison group (n = 5, 18.5%), Pearson
# 2(1, n = 65) = 14.19, p G .001. Specifically, youth in the
intervention group were 3.5 times more likely to have
had any community-based work experience than youth
in the comparison group. Among youth in the interven-
tion group, 17 (44.7%) held paid competitive jobs at
some point in the summer, 8 (21.1%) held unpaid jobs,
3 (7.9%) exclusively held sheltered jobs, and 10 (26.3%)
did not work at any point during the summer. In the
comparison group, 3 youth (11.1%) held paid competi-
tive jobs at some point during the summer, 2 (7.4%) held
unpaid jobs, 3 (11.1%) exclusively held sheltered jobs,
and 19 (70.4%) did not work.
To What Extent Are Additional Participant
Characteristics Associated With Work Outcomes?
To examine whether additional variables may have
contributed to work status over and beyond that of group
assignment, we first entered group into the analysis. The
omnibus test for the logistic regression model was found
to be statistically significant, # 2 = 15.03, p G .001. The
Negelkerke R2 was computed to be .276, indicating that
27.8% of the variance in work outcome can be explained
by group assignment. This initial model correctly classi-
fied 72.3% of cases. In the second step, we added demo-
graphic variables (i.e., age, gender, FRL status) to the
model, which correctly classified 76.9% of cases. How-
ever, this improvement was not significant (p = .086).
In the third step, we added Vineland Adaptive Behav-
ior Scales, Second Edition composite scores. The revised
model correctly classified 78.5% of cases; however, this
improvement also was not significant (p = .066).
What Are the Characteristics of Summer Jobs and
Search Efforts of Youth?
Among youth who were working, substantial differ-
ences were not always apparent in the nature of their
work experiences between intervention and comparison
groups (see Table 2). Therefore, we present aggregated
job characteristics across groups and note any differences
where they were apparent. Youth with severe disabilities
working community-based jobs reported a wide range
of job responsibilities, including cleaning (n = 14), food
services (n = 4), and childcare (n = 4); all youth holding
sheltered jobs completed duties related to assembly work.
Some youth worked more than one job at some point
during the summer, including seven youth in the inter-
vention group and two in the comparison group.
Youth in the intervention and comparison groups re-
ported a similar average overall hourly pay ($6.53 and
$6.89, respectively). Youth in the intervention group, how-
ever, reported working twice as many hours per week on
average than youth in the comparison group (11.7 and
5.6, respectively). Youth worked almost exclusively dur-
ing the weekdays (i.e., Monday through Friday), typically
in the mornings and/or afternoons. For most working
youth in the intervention and comparison groups, school
Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on August 5, 2015
7
staff had been responsible for helping youth find their
employment experiences. In addition to school staff,
youth in the intervention group also received help from
an employment agency or another relative, whereas youth
in the comparison group indicated receiving help from a
parent. Over half of working youth reported getting to
their jobs via a ride from a family member, followed by
special transportation or walking/riding a bike. Most
youth in the intervention (n = 22) and comparison (n =
4) groups received at least intermittent support on the
job from someone from their school or an employment
agency during the summer. Among youth receiving some
external support, most youth in the intervention group
(n = 15, 71.4%) received support daily or almost daily for
at least one job, 4 (19.0%) received support weekly, and
2 (9.5%) had someone check in once or twice throughout
the summer. All youth receiving support in the compari-
son group received support daily or almost daily.
Changes over time
At the beginning of the summer, 21 youth in the inter-
vention group held community-based jobs. By the end of
the summer, 16 (76.2%) of these youth were still work-
ing in the same jobs and 5 (23.8%) were no longer work-
ing. Of the 13 youth in the intervention group who were
not working at the beginning of the summer, 11 (84.6%)
were still not working toward the end of the summer,
and 1 worked briefly between our two interviews. Of the
4 students working sheltered jobs toward the beginning of
the summer, 1 student switched to an unpaid, community-
based job by the end of the summer, whereas the rest
were no longer working. All 5 youth in the comparison
group working toward the beginning of the summer held
the same jobs toward the end of the summer. Of the
21 youth not working early in the summer, 19 (90.5%)
remained unemployed by the end of the summer and
2 (9.5%) could not be reached.
Job search efforts
More than one third (n = 12, 36.4%) of youth who were
not working at the beginning of the summer reported to
be actively looking for work. The median length of time
youth had been looking for work was 30 days. More than
half (n = 7, 58.3%) were reported to have submitted at
least one application for summer work. Youth in the in-
tervention group primarily received help with their job
search efforts from school staff (n = 4) and/or family (n =
4); youth in the comparison group primarily received help
from family (n = 5) or school staff (n = 1). Toward the
end of the summer, 2 youth had found a job, 7 were still
looking for work, 2 had given up looking, and 1 could not
be reached.
Reasons for not looking for work
Among the 7 unemployed youth in the intervention
group not actively looking for work at the beginning of
the summer, the most frequently cited reasons for not
looking for work among these youth included waiting to
8 Carter et al.

hear back from a teacher or an employment agency Table 3

Stakeholder Perspectives on the Social Validity of the Overall
(n = 3) and scheduling conflicts or involvement in other
Intervention Package
activities (n = 2). Among the 14 unemployed youth in
the comparison group not actively looking for work, Community Employer
connectors liaisons
6 respondents reported scheduling conflicts and involve-
ment in other activities and 5 cited barriers to finding or Statement M (SD) M (SD)
maintaining work (e.g., lack of transportation, support, 1. I think it is important for 3.6 (0.5) 3.5 (0.5)
or needed skills). students with disabilities to
have work experiences during
To What Extent Are Youth Involved in Other Activities the summer months.
During the Summer Months? 2. Summer work experiences will 3.9 (0.4) 3.5 (0.5)
Across groups, youth with severe disabilities partici- further students’ long-term
employment goals.
pated in a broad range of activities at either or both inter- 3. I think the intervention strategies 3.4 (0.5) 3.2 (0.4)
view time points. The most commonly reported activities were an appropriate way to
were doing chores at home (93.8%), watching television address the summer employment
(86.2%), doing hobbies (76.9%), shopping (73.8%), and needs of students with disabilities.
using the computer (67.7%). The least commonly reported 4. I expect these intervention 3.4 (0.5) 3.1 (0.5)
strategies will result in more
activities were involvement in a disability-oriented support/ students with disabilities
advocacy group (6.2%); congregational youth groups working in summer jobs.
(9.2%); music, art, or dance lessons (10.8%); or sports 5. Most special educators 3.4 (0.5) NA
lessons (12.3%). Youth participated in an average of 6.8 would find these intervention
strategies to be an acceptable
(SD = 2.5, range = 0–12) different nonwork activities to-
approach for increasing summer
ward the beginning of summer and 7.8 (SD = 2.3, range = job outcomes for students
3–14) different activities toward the end. Youth in the with disabilities.
intervention (M = 9.4, SD = 2.5) and comparison (M = 9.5, 6. I would recommend these 3.4 (0.5) NA
SD = 2.8) groups did not differ significantly in the total intervention strategies to teachers
and staff at other schools.
number of different activities in which they participated 7. These intervention strategies 3.6 (0.5) NA
(p = .812). However, 66.7% of nonworking youth in the would be appropriate for students
intervention group reported traveling or going on vacation served under a variety of different
compared with 21.1% of nonworking youth in the com- disability categories.
8. Serving in the role of [community 3.7 (0.5) 3.2 (0.4)
parison group. Similarly, youth who had community-based
connector/employer liaison] fit
jobs (M = 9.5, SD = 2.4) did not differ significantly from well within my job responsibilities.
youth who were not working (M = 9.0, SD = 2.8) in their 9. Serving in the role of [community 3.1 (0.7) 3.2 (0.4)
total number of different activities (p = .412). connector/employer liaison] was
fairly easy for me to do.
How Do Stakeholders View the Social Validity of 10. Serving in the role of [community 2.3 (0.8) 3.2 (0.4)
the Intervention Package? connector/employer liaison] did
Community connectors and employer liaisons generally not take too much of my time.
11. These intervention strategies led 3.0 (0.6) 2.8 (0.4)
attributed moderate to high social validity to the overall to stronger connections between
intervention package (see Table 3), considered the goals our school and local employers.
of the intervention to be important (Statements 1–3), the 12. These intervention strategies 3.0 (0.7) 2.9 (0.2)
strategies to be appropriate (Statements 4–7), their re- led to stronger connections
between our school and the
spective roles to be generally feasible (Statements 8–10), larger community.
and the outcomes to be beneficial (Statements 10–12).
Note. Response options ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 =
The ratings of employer liaisons were slightly lower than
strongly agree. NA = Not asked.
those of the community connectors on all but one state-
ment (Statement 10). Community connectors overall indi-
cated that serving in this role took a considerable amount actively to identify and connect students to summer oppor-
of their time, an assessment not shared by the employer tunities was very helpful. Of the five components, the
liaisons. resource map was considered to be the least helpful. The
Individual components of the intervention package, planning and community connector components also re-
when considered separately, received varied ratings from ceived the highest ratings with regard to feasibility and
both community connectors and employer liaisons (see likelihood of being used the following year. Holding a
Table 4). All of the components of the intervention package community conversationVwhile considered somewhat
except for resource mapping were rated by commu- feasibleVwas unlikely to be implemented again the fol-
nity connectors as somewhat to very helpful. Specifically, lowing year. Employer liaisons were asked to rate how
all reported that summer-focused planning with students feasible each of the intervention components would be to
was very helpful and most (85.7%) indicated that working implement without the involvement of the project staff.

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on August 5, 2015

 Youth Employment 9

Table 4
Stakeholder Perspectives on the Social Validity of Individual Intervention Components
Community connectors Employer liaisons
Statement Helpfula Feasibleb Likelyc Feasibled
Summer-focused planning with students about their summer activities 4.0 (0.0) 3.9 (0.4) 3.7 (0.5) 1.9 (1.1)
Using a resource map of organizations, services, and supports available 2.3 (1.0) 3.3 (0.8) 2.7 (0.8) 2.3 (1.0)
to youth in your community/contribute to a resource map
Holding a community conversation focused on increasing youth 3.0 (0.8) 2.9 (0.9) 2.3 (1.0) 2.1 (1.2)
employment/help with or sponsor a community conversation
Working actively to identify summer opportunities for students and 3.9 (0.4) 3.6 (0.5) 3.6 (0.5) 2.7 (1.1)
to help them connect to those/identify specific businesses that might
be willing to hire youth
Working with a person from the business community to help generate 3.0 (1.0) 3.4 (0.5) 3.4 (0.8) 2.9 (0.9)
ideas and connections/working with a person from the school to help
generate ideas and connections
Note. Employer liaisons rated the italicized wording. Response options were as follows: 1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = somewhat, 4 = very.
a
How helpful do you feel this strategy was to connecting the students with whom you worked to summer jobs and other activities?
b
How feasible do you feel it would be to incorporate this strategy into the work you and your colleagues do with students with disabilities
at your school without the direct involvement of Project Summer?
c
How likely are you and your colleagues to use this strategy next year with students at your school?
d
How feasible do you think it would be for someone in your role to do the following strategies without direct involvement of Project
Summer?

Identifying specific businesses that might be willing to hire
youth and working with a person from the school to gen-
erate ideas and connections were considered somewhat
feasible. Conducting planning with students and sponsoring
a community conversation were not considered feasible.
Discussion
Recognition of both the substantial developmental ben-
efits adolescent work experiences can afford and the lim-
ited extent to which youth with severe disabilities access
these opportunities amplify longstanding calls to increase
these students’ involvement in community-based work ex-
periences during high school (Rusch & Braddock, 2004;
Wehman & Revell, 1997). We examined the efficacy of
intervention efforts to improve the summer employment
outcomes of youth with severe disabilities during adoles-
cence. Youth receiving the intervention were significantly
more likely than their peers at the same school to connect
to part-time summer jobs. These findings demonstrate
that with planned efforts, even youth with extensive sup-
port needs can access an array of valuable summer em-
ployment experiences. This study extends the literature on
adolescent employment for youth with disabilities in sev-
eral ways.
First, youth in the intervention group were four times
more likely than youth in the comparison group to have
held a paid, community-based job. This is particularly
striking given that youth in both groups attended the same
high schools and resided in the same communities. In ad-
dition, most youth who were working toward the begin-
ning of the summer maintained their jobs throughout the
summer, despite the backdrop of a severe recession af-
fecting local economies. These findings reinforce that it is
reasonable to expect that youth with severe disabilitiesV
with access to planning and supportVcan work during the
summer months. They also underscore that without fo-
cused efforts, summer employment for these youth will
remain elusive.
At the same time, it is important to note that slightly
more than one quarter of youth in the intervention group
did not ultimately obtain a summer job. Although all
students initially indicated an interest in finding a summer
job when entering the study and all but one participated
in planning to this end, only 17 of these 38 students had
paid, community-based jobs that averaged just 11 hours
per week; 8 held unpaid jobs and 3 had sheltered jobs.
Although employed and unemployed youth did not dif-
fer significantly on measures of adaptive behavior, the
extensive support needs of many youth with severe dis-
abilities can increase the challenges of finding receptive
employers and adequate supports. Telephone interviews
also indicated that several of these youth chose to partici-
pate in other activities (i.e., vacation, traveling, summer
camp) that may have made finding and maintaining a job
difficult or less of a priority. Interviews with community
connectors also indicated that the dominant industry sec-
tor in one community was devastated by intense flooding,
resulting in several prearranged summer jobs dissolving
or turning into unpaid positions.
Second, these findings provide insight into the types of
work experiences youth with severe disabilities have out-
side of the academic year. Almost two thirds of youth in
the intervention group held community-based jobs, of
which most were paid and all were at different businesses
(except for two volunteer jobsites). In other words, stu-
dents were not all simply placed in the same jobs sites
(i.e., groups or enclaves) or connected to a very limited
range of work opportunities. These three characteristicsV
community based, paid, and individualizedVreflect those
values consistently recommended as comprising best prac-
tices (Brooke, Revell, & Wehman, 2009; Brown et al.,

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on August 5, 2015

10
2006; Wehman, 2006). At the same time, virtually all of the
jobs held by youth also could be characterized as entry-
level jobs with few benefits, limited hours, and modest
remuneration. Although such part-time jobs are fairly
typical of the work experiences most adolescents hold
during high school in the United States (Oettinger, 2000;
Zimmer-Gembeck & Mortimer, 2006), youth should have
a progression of job experiences over time and into adult-
hood that increase in responsibility and convergence with
their interests.
The summer work experiences of youth, although prom-
ising, also suggest several areas in which the intervention
package could benefit from further refinement. For exam-
ple, strategies for expanding or improving (a) the hours
worked per week, (b) the range of job options, (c) the
alignment between students’ work responsibilities and cur-
rent or future career interests, (d) the quality of supports
provided from within the job site, and (e) the durability
of jobs after the summer ends should be explored further
in subsequent studies. Initiating planning efforts and mak-
ing connections to community jobs earlier in the school
yearVlong before the start of summerVcould provide
school staff with additional time to help youth learn
important work-related tasks, to arrange needed on-the-
job supports, and to develop relationships with employers
and coworkers, enabling youth to maintain or to even
expand their job responsibilities during the summer months.
Youth may also benefit from efforts to explore creative
avenues for weaving together school, vocational rehabili-
tation, community agency, and ‘‘generic’’ supports during
the summer months to expand the work possibilities and
supports available to youth (Noonan, Morningstar, &
Erickson, 2008). Indeed, such efforts are currently being
evaluated within national demonstration projects elsewhere
in the country (Martinez et al., 2008).
Third, secondary transition programming for youth with
severe disabilities is necessarily multifaceted and com-
plex, typically spanning multiple contexts, stakeholders,
and service systems. Consistent with other approaches fo-
cused on improving outcomes for transition-age youth with
disabilities, this intervention package integrated multiple
components. Although this project focused primarily on
developing and demonstrating the promise and feasibility
of an intervention package, an essential next step involves
closer consideration of which componentsVindividually or
in combinationVultimately are responsible for improve-
ments in student outcomes (e.g., increased hours, preferred
schedules, stronger job-interest match, longer job tenure,
greater workplace satisfaction). Future studies should in-
corporate design features and intervention configurations
that enable researchers to disentangle which elements are
necessary, sufficient, beneficial, and/or superfluous to ob-
taining the outcomes documented in this study.
The summer-focused planning and community connec-
tor components represent two strategies that deserve
closer attention. None of the participating youth found
their summer jobs independently. Moreover, almost all of
Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on August 5, 2015
Carter et al.
these students had transportation assistance and most re-
ceived additional supports beyond those naturally avail-
able at the job, which presumably needed to be arranged
by someone other than the youth themselves. Employed
youth in the intervention group also were more likely
than employed youth in the comparison group to receive
external support from community programs (e.g., voca-
tional rehabilitation), suggesting that planning efforts may
have spurred increased connections to a broader range
of needed supports. Summer-focused planning provides
an avenue for identifying the specific connections or sup-
ports a student might need early on, and connecting efforts
can help ensure those linkages and supports are arranged
in advance of the onset of summer.
Fourth, these findings provide insight into the tractability
and acceptability of these intervention strategies. Effec-
tive transition interventionsVlike all education practicesV
must be accompanied by ample evidence of social validity if
they are expected to be implemented readily, widely, and
with fidelity (Snell, 2003). Most community connectors
recognized the importance and value of their own role in
facilitating planning and making connections. For exam-
ple, connectors generally agreed that the strategies fit well
within their job responsibilities, were fairly easy to do, and
would be considered acceptable to other special educators.
Similarly, employer liaisons generally considered working
with a community connector and identifying potential em-
ployers to be fairly tractable (Carter, Trainor, et al., 2009).
At the same time, mixed ratings from connectors and
liaisons suggest that additional refinements may be
needed to increase both the feasibility and the effective-
ness of these strategies. The challenge of limited time is
a persistent concern of secondary special educators and
was raised by some of the community connectors in this
study as well (Lubbers, Repetto, & McGorray, 2008).
Identifying additional or other individuals within (e.g.,
paraprofessionals, multiple special educators, guidance
counselors, transition staff) or outside of (e.g., parents,
employment agencies, community transition team mem-
bers) the school may reduce the time required of any sin-
gle person. Embedding conversations about summer into
existing planning meetings represents another way of in-
creasing both the feasibility and the relevance of such
planning efforts (Carter, Swedeen, & Trainor, 2009). A
clearer understanding of the time and costs required to im-
plement each intervention component, coupled with closer
examination of the long-term impact on students, would
enable researchers to determine the cost-effectiveness of
this intervention package. Future researchers also should
examine how these intervention strategies might be tai-
lored to reflect communities, schools, families, and youth
that differ in important ways from those represented in
this study.
Fifth, employment does not represent the only rele-
vant or viable summer activity for youth. For many youth
with severe disabilities, a broader focus on interventions
to increase summer engagementVversus simply summer
 Youth Employment
employmentVmay be relevant. Many youth were in-
volved in an array of summer activities, ranging from
shopping to sports teams to attending congregational
services. Working did not appear to hinder involvement
in other summer activities, as evidenced by the compa-
rable number of different activities in which youth from
each group participated. Given the relatively low number
of average hours that participating youth worked each
week and the fairly limited involvement of youth with
severe disabilities in extracurricular and after-school ac-
tivities during the school year (Kleinert, Miracle, &
Sheppard-Jones, 2007), youth would appear to benefit
from efforts to connect them to other community ac-
tivities during the summer. Although the intervention
components were primarily directed toward expanding
employment experiences, there is little reason other ac-
tivities could not be addressed as part of planning or
within community conversations and resource mapping.
Limitations and Future Research
Additional research is needed to address several limi-
tations to this study. First, youth with intellectual and
developmental disabilities represent an extremely hetero-
geneous group of adolescents. Although we documented
alternate assessment eligibility and adaptive behavior
ratings, other unexamined disability-related factors (e.g.,
special health care issues, mobility challenges, complex
communication needs) may have influenced employ-
ment outcomes. We know of at least two students whose
acute health care concerns prevented them from seeking
or obtaining summer employment. Second, information
about the summer experiences of youth with severe dis-
abilities came primarily from their parents rather than
from youth themselves. Moreover, we did not ask parents
and youth to share their perceptions of the acceptability
and effectiveness of the intervention package.
Third, although many parents attended their local com-
munity conversations and participated in planning efforts,
this intervention did not include a strong family-focused
component. Strengthening this element of the interven-
tion package is likely to further improve the quality of
students’ summer work and community experiences by
ensuring that activities more closely align with the prior-
ities, needs, routines, and resources of the family. Ad-
ditional research also is needed to identify promising
avenues for elevating parents’ work-related expectations
for their children, partnering with parents more meaning-
fully in planning, and supporting parents to develop and
draw upon their own social networks during transition
(e.g., Kim & Turnbull, 2004).
Fourth, although we were able to examine summer-
focused plans and to document community connectors’
reports of whether each of the five intervention compo-
nents was implemented for participating youth, we did
not corroborate these self-reports through direct observa-
tion and were unable to document whether and how each
component was actually implemented with participating
Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on August 5, 2015
11
youth. In addition, other supports may have been drawn
upon for participating youth apart from those arranged
by community connectors. For example, four youth in the
comparison group also received help from school staff
to find and maintain a summer job. Fifth, although youth
were randomly assigned to intervention and compari-
son groups, we did not randomly select students or high
schools. Given the state of the literature in this area and
the goal of this development project, our primary focus
was on determining intervention promise rather than
on establishing the generality of our findings. Additional
research is needed to explore how the intervention might
be tailored to reflect the diversity of communities, schools,
and families within which youth with severe disabilities
live and learn.
The need for researchers to identify and to rigorously
evaluate both well-established and emerging transition
practices that address the complex and multifaceted needs
of youth with severe disabilities remains present and press-
ing. Although this study identifies one set of strategies that
appears to be both feasible to implement and likely to
lead to increases in the summer employment outcomes
of youth with disabilities, systematic and sustained efforts
are needed to develop a strong and broad evidence base
focused on increasing the access of youth with severe dis-
abilities to early work experiences.
References
Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving
graduation and employment outcomes of students with dis-
abilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Excep-
tional Children, 66, 509–529.
Benz, M., Yovanoff, P., & Doren, B. (1997). School-to-work
components that predict postschool success for students with
and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 151–165.
Brooke, V. A., Revell, G., & Wehman, P. (2009). Quality indi-
cators for competitive employment outcomes: What special
education teachers need to know in transition planning. Teach-
ing Exceptional Children, 41(4), 58–71.
Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). The World Café: Shaping our fu-
tures through conversations that matter. San Francisco: Barrett-
Koehler.
Brown, L., Shiraga, B., & Kessler, K. (2006). The quest for ordi-
nary lives: The integrated post-school functioning of 50 workers
with significant disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 31, 93–121.
Bullis, M., & Yovanoff, P. (2006). Idle hands: Community em-
ployment experiences of formerly incarcerated youth. Journal
of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14, 71–85.
Carter, E. W., Ditchman, N., Sun, Y., Trainor, A. A., Swedeen, B.,
& Owens, L. (2010). Summer employment and community
experiences of transition-age youth with severe disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 76, 74–94.
Carter, E. W., Owens, L., Swedeen, B., Trainor, A. A., Thompson,
C., Ditchman, N., et al. (2009). Conversations that matter: Ex-
panding employment opportunities for youth with significant
disabilities through community conversations. Teaching Excep-
tional Children, 41(6), 38–46.
Carter, E. W., Swedeen, B., & Trainor, A. A. (2009). The other
three months: Maximizing summer opportunities for transition-
age youth with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children,
41(6), 18–26.
12
Carter, E. W., Trainor, A. A., Cakiroglu, O., Cole, O., Swedeen,
B., Ditchman, N., et al. (2009). Exploring school–business
partnerships to expand career development and early work
experiences for youth. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 32, 145–159.
Certo, N. J., & Luecking, R. G. (2006). Service integration and
school to work transition: Customized employment as an out-
come for youth with significant disabilities. Journal of Applied
Rehabilitation Counseling, 37, 29–35.
Crane, K., & Mooney, M. (2005). Community resource mapping
(Essential tools). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Sec-
ondary Education and Transition.
Fabian, E. S. (2007). Urban youth with disabilities: Factors af-
fecting transition employment. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulle-
tin, 50, 130–138.
Hughes, C., Wehby, J. H., Carter, E. W., Plank, D. R., Wilson, L. R.,
Johnson, S. M., et al. (2004). Summer activities of youth with
high incidence disabilities from high poverty backgrounds. Ca-
reer Development for Exceptional Individuals, 27, 27–42.
Johnson, D. R. (2004). Supported employment trends: Implica-
tions for transition-age youth. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 29, 243–247.
Kim, K. H., & Turnbull, A. P. (2004). Transition to adulthood
for students with severe intellectual disabilities: Shifting to-
ward person-family interdependent planning. Research and
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29, 53–57.
Kleinert, H. L., Miracle, S., & Sheppard-Jones, K. (2007). In-
cluding students with moderate and severe intellectual dis-
abilities in school extracurricular and community recreation
activities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 46–55.
Lubbers, J. H., Repetto, J. B., & McGorray, S. P. (2008). Percep-
tions of transition barriers, practices, and solutions in Florida.
Remedial and Special Education, 29, 280–292.
Martinez, J., Manno, M. S., Baird, P., Fraker, T., Honeycutt, T.,
Mamun, A., et al. (2008). The Social Security Administration’s
youth transition demonstration projects: Profiles of the random
assignment project. Washington, DC: Mathematica.
McIntyre, L. L., Kraemer, B. R., Blacher, J., & Simmerman, S.
(2004). Quality of life for young adults with severe intellec-
tual disability: Mothers’ thoughts and reflections. Journal of
Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 29, 131–146.
Noonan, P. M., Morningstar, M. E., & Erickson, A. G. (2008).
Improving interagency collaboration: Effective strategies used
by high-performing local districts and communities. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 154–163.
Oettinger, G. S. (2000). Seasonal and sectoral patterns in youth
employment. Monthly Labor Review, 123, 6–12.
Peck, B., & Kirkbride, L. T. (2001). Why businesses don’t employ
people with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,
16, 71–75.
Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at RUTGERS UNIV on August 5, 2015
Carter et al.
Rusch, F. R., & Braddock, D. (2004). Adult day programs versus
supported employment (1988–2002): Spending and service
practices of mental retardation and developmental disabilities
state agencies. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 29, 237–242.
Rutkowski, S., Daston, M., Van Kuiken, D., & Riehle, E. (2006).
Project SEARCH: A demand-side model of high school tran-
sition. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 25, 85–96.
Siperstein, G., & Romano, N. (2006). A national survey of con-
sumer attitudes towards companies that hire people with dis-
abilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 24, 3–9.
Snell, M. E. (2003). Applying research to practice: The more
pervasive problem? Research and Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 28, 143–147.
Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2006). Vineland
Adaptive Behavior Scale (2nd ed.). Livonia, MN: Pearson.
Sum, A., McLaughlin, J., Khatiwada, I., & Palma, S. (2008). The
historically low summer and year round 2008 teen employment
rate: The case for an immediate national public policy response
to create jobs for the nation’s youth. Boston: Center for Labor
Market Studies.
Tindle, K., Leconte, P., Buchanan, L., & Taymans, J. M. (2005).
Transition planning: Community mapping as a tool for teachers
and students. Research to Practice Brief, 4, 1–6.
Trainor, A. A. (2007). Person-centered planning in two culturally
distinct communities: Responding to divergent needs and pref-
erences. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 30,
92–115.
Trainor, A. A., Carter, E. W., Owens, L., & Swedeen, B. (2008).
Special educators’ perceptions of summer employment and
community participation opportunities for youth with dis-
abilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31,
144–153.
U. S. Department of Labor Statistics. (2008). Employment and
unemployment among youth: Summer 2008. Washington, DC:
Author.
Wehman, P. (2006). Integrated employment: If not now, when?
If not us, who? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 31, 122–126.
Wehman, P., & Revell, W. (1997). Transition into supported em-
ployment for young adults with severe disabilities: Current
practices and future directions. Journal of Vocational Rehabil-
itation, 8, 65–74.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Mortimer, J. T. (2006). Adolescent
work, vocational development, and education. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 76, 537–566.
Received: March 23, 2009
Final Acceptance: February 2, 2010
Editor in Charge: Carolyn Hughes