document resume ed 368 132 ec 302 888 author sitlington, … · 2014-05-07 · document resume ed...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 368 132 EC 302 888

AUTHOR Sitlington, Patricia L.; Frank, Alan R.TITLE Adult Adjustment of Individuals with Learning

Disabilities Three vs. One Year Out of School. IowaStatewide Follow-Up Study.

INSTITUTION Iowa State Dept. of Education, Des Moines. Div. ofElementary and Secondary Education.

PUB DATE Oct 93NOTE 75p.; For a related study, see ED 350 742.PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Adjustment (to Environment); *Education Work

Relationship; *Employment; Followup Studies; GraduateSurveys; High School Graduates; High Schools;Independent Living; Interviews; *LearningDisabilities; Transitional Programs; *VocationalAdjustment; Wages; Young Adults

IDENTIFIERS *Iowa

ABSTRACTThis study investigated the adult adjustment of

randomly selected students with learning disabilities in the classesof 1984 and 1985, 1 and 3 years after they exited Iowa high schools.A total of 939 students were interviewed 1 year out of high school,of which 784 were also interviewed 3 years out of school. Results arereported in terms of: (1) general status information such as maritalstatus and living arrangements; (2) information about those employed(wages earned, hours worked per week, fringe benefits received); (3)

"successful" adult adjustment relative to specific criteria; and (4)a comparison across the two graduating classes and between years 1and 3. Data are presented for the total group, by gender, by programmodel, and by graduation status. Among conclusions are the following:subjects showed significant gains in adult adjustment between the1-year and 3-year interviews, with dropouts showing the least gains;at the 3-year interview, 38 percent met either the low (27 percent)or high (11 percent) standard of "success," with about one-halfliving independently; most conclusions seemed valid across bothclasses; and the results support the need for formal transitionplanning and provision of transition support during the post-schoolphase. (Contains 20 references.) (DB)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

*********************************************************************

s-

U.S. 13..PARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOnce or Edu Atronal Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER IERIC/

/This document nes Men reproduced asrecoved tram the person Or Organizationoriginating it

r Minor changes have .-men made to improvereproduct on Quality

Rousts of new or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent officialOE RI positron or poky

..101111.11M.,

IowaStatewide Follow-up Study

Adult Adjustment of Indivicbials withLearning Disabilities

Three vs. One Year Out of School

' PERMISSION TO RE PRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERICI

1993

BIST

State of IowaDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Grimes State Office BuildingDes Moines, Iowa 50319-0146

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Ron J. McGauvran, President, ClintonBetty L. Dexter, Vice President, DavenportC. W. Ca llison, BurlingtonMarcia Dudden, ReinbeckThomas M. Glenn, Des MoinesCorine Hadley, NewtonFrancis N. Kenkel, DefianceGregory D. McClain, Cedar FallsAnn W. Wickman, Atlantic

ADMINISTRATION

William L. Lep ley, Director and Executive Officer of theState Board of Education

Mavis E. Kelley, Special Assistant

Division of Elementary and Secondary Education

Ted Stilwill, AdministratorFrank Vance, Chief, Bureau of Special EducationJeananne Hagen, Assistant Chief, Bureau of Special Education

It is the policy of the Iowa Department of Education not to discriminate on thebasis of race, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disability.

The Department provides civil rights technical assistance to public schooldistricts, nonpublic schools, area education agencies, and community colleges tohelp them eliminate discrimination in their educational programs, activities, oremployment. For assistance, contact the Bureau of School Administration andAccreditation, Iowa Department of Education.

Iowa Statewide Follow-up Study:Adult Adjustment of Individuals with Learning Disabilities


Patricia L. SitlingtonUniversity of Northern Iowa

Cedar Falls, IA

Alan R. FrankThe University of Iowa

Iowa City, IA

Published byIowa Department of Education

October, 1993

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

Iowa Statewide Follow-up Study Task Force Members

Preface xi

Abstract xii

Introduction 1

Method 2

Participants 2

Instrumentation 6

Procedure 6

Results 7

Total Group 7

General Status 7

Information on Employment 10

Perceptions of High School 12

Successful Persons 14

Comparison of Groups 1 and 2 14

By Gender 15

Males 15

General Status 15





Females 21

General Status 21





By Program Model . 28

Resource Teaching Programs 28

General Status 28





Special Classes with Integration 35

General Status. 35





By Graduation Status 40

Graduates 40

General Status. 40


ivI;




Dropouts 47

Generai Status 47



Successful Persons ,. 52


Discussion 54

References 59

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Method of Interview 3

Table 2. Numbers of Persons Randomly Selected and Interviewed 4

Table 3. Selected Characteristics of Group 2 Prior to Exiting High School 5

Table 4. Time and Reasons Dropouts Left High School 6

Table 5. Significant Improvements on Key Variables Between G2Y1 and G2Y3 55

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Marital Status 8

Figure 2. Living Arrangements 8

Figure 3. Proportion of Expenses Persons Pay 9

Figure 4. Sources of Financial Assistance 10

Figure 5. Current Job Classification 11

Figure 6. Number of Hours Worked Per Week 11

Figure 7. Length of Time in Current Job 12

Figure 8. Wages Earned from Current Job 13

Figure 9. Job Benefits Received 13

Figure 10. Marital Status - Males 16

Figure 11. Living Arrangements Males 16

Figure 12. Proportion of Expenses Males Pay 17

Figure 13. Sources of Financial Assistance - Males 17

Figure 14. Length of Time in Current Job - Males 19

Figure 15. Wages Earned from Current Job by Males 19

Figure 16. Job Benefits Received by Males 20

Figure 17. Marital Status - Females 22

Figure 18. Living Arrangements Females 22

Figure 19. Proportion of Expenses Females Pay 23

Figure 20. Sources of Financial Assistance - Females 23

Figure 21. Source of Help in Finding Present Job - Females 24

Figure 22. Current Job Classification Females 2S

vii

Figure 23. Number of Hours Females Worked Per Week 25

Figure 24. Length of Time in Current Job - Females 26

Figure 25. Wages Earned from Current Job by Females 27

Figure 26. Job Benefits Received by Females 27

Figure 27. Marital Status - RIP 29

Figure 28. Living Arrangements - RTP 29

Figure 29. Proportion of Expenses Persons Pay - RTP 30

Figure 30. Sources of Financial Assistance - RTP 31

Figure 31. Number of Hours Worked Per Week - RTP 32

Figure 32. Length of Time in Current Job - RTP 32

Figure 33. Wages Earned from Current Job - RTP 33

Figure 34. Job Benefits Received - RTP 33

Figure 35. Marital Status - SCIN 35

Figure 36. Living Arrangements SCIN.. 36

Figure 37. Proportion of Expenses Persons Pay - SCIN 36

Figure 38. Sources of Financial Assistance - SCIN 37

Figure 39. Current Job Classification - SCIN 38

Figure 40. Wages Earned from Current Job - SCIN. 39

Figure 41. Marital Status Graduates.... 41

Figure 42. Living Arrangements - Graduates 41

Figure 43. Proportion of Expenses Persons Pay - Graduates 42

Figure 44. Sources of Financial Assistance - Graduates 42

Figure 45. Current Job Classification - Graduates 44

Figure 46. Number of Hours Worked Per Week - Graduates 44

Figure 47. Length of Time in Current Job - Graduates 45

i0viii

Figure 48. Wages Earned from Current Job - Graduates 45

Figure 49. Job Benefits Received - Graduates 46

Figure 50. Marital Status - Dropouts 48

Figure 51. Living Arrangements Dropouts 48

Figure 52. Proportion of Expenses Persons Pay Dropouts 49

Figure 53. Sources of Financial Assistance - Dropouts 49

Figure 54. Number of Leisure Activities in Which Dropouts Are Involved 50

Figure 55. Current Job Classification - Dropouts 51

Figure 56. Length of Time in Current Job Dropouts 51

Figure 57. Wages Earned from Current Job - Dropouts 53

Figure 58. Job Benefits Received - Dropouts 53

ix 1I

IOWA STATEWIDE FOLLOW-UP STUDYTASK FORCE MEMBERS

John McClure, SupervisorKeystone AEA 1

Irene Koster, SupervisorNorthern Trails AEA 2

Dixey MorrisonSpecial Education DirectorLakeland AEA 3

Dianne BiermaWEC/ConsultantArea Education Agency

Beverly Fisher, SupervisorArrowhead AEA 5

Harold Eiten, WECArea Education Agency 6

Sue Gronewold, SupervisorArea Education Agency 7

Jim Kay, Asst. DirectorMississippi Bend AEA 9

Paula Vincent, SupervisorGrant Wood AEA 10

Jim Kline, WEC/ConsultantHeartland AEA 11

Joe Lux, Asst. DirectorWestern Hills AEA 12

Cal Sinn, SupervisorLoess Hills AEA 13

Brad Riley, WECGreen Valley AEA 14

Bill Marks, Asst. DirectorSouthern Prairie AEA 15

Ed Longanecker, SupervisorGreat River AEA 16

Tom JeschkeSpecial Education DirectorDes Moines Public Schools

Dennis Thurman, SuperintendentIowa Braille and Sight SavingSchool

1 '4'

x

Preface

This monograph is one product of the Iowa Statewide Follow-up Study.

Monographs have been developed, or are currently being completed, on the other major

disability groups. An Action Group of the Iowa Statewide Follow-up Study Task Force

also has been formed to draft specific programming recommendations based upon the data

collected.

The follow-up study is a five-year project funded by the Iowa Department of

Education, Bureau of Special Education, using EHA Part B discretionary funds. The pur-

pose of this project is to determine the adult adjustment of special education graduates and

dropouts (of all disabilities and program models) throughout the state of Iowa. The Iowa

Statewide Follow-up Study is a joint effort of the Bureau of Special Education, Iowa

Department of Education; the 15 Area Education Agencies in Iowa; Des Moines Public

Schools; Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School; and the Division of Special Education,

University of Iowa.

We gratefully acknowledge Merry Maitre, who originated the Iowa Statewide

Follow-up Study; Dr. Timothy Z. Keith, who helped refine the data gathering procedures;

Valerie Cool and Linda Cooper, who served as research associates for the project; and the

Special Education Directors, Task Force members, and interviewers, who made the project

a success. We also thank the individuals with disabilities who generously shared their sto-

ries and experiences with us.

For more information on the Iowa Statewide Follow-up Study, contact:

Dr. Patricia L. Sitlington, Project DirectorDepartment of Special Education

University of Northern IowaEducation Center 150

Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0601(319) 273-3264

Abstract

This study investigated the adult adjustment of randomly selected students with learning

disabilities in the Classes of 1984 and 1985 one and three years after they exited high

school. Four hundred twenty-two (90% of those selected) from the Class of 1984 were

interviewed one year out of high school; 271 from this same class were interviewed three

years out of school. Five hundred seventeen students (82% of those selected) from the

Class of 1985 were interviewed one year out of high school; 513 were interviewed again

three years out of high school. Results are reported in terms of: (a) general status infor-

mation, such as marital status, living arrangements; (b) information about those employed

(wages earned, hours worked per week, fringe benefits received); (c) "successful" adult

adjustment relative to criteria presented in this monograph; and (d) a comparison across

graduating classes and between Years 1 and 3. Data are presented for the total group, by

gender, by program model, and by graduation status.

14xii

Iowa Statewide Follow-up Study:

Adult Adjustment of Persons with Learning Disabilities


The adult adjustment of individu-als with mild disabilities has been exam-ined through a number of studies (Clark,Hayden, & Lezzer, 1987; Edgar, 1987;Halpern, 1990; Halpern & Benz, 1987;Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe, 1985; Mithaug,Horiuchi, & Fanning, 1985; Sitlington,Frank, & Carson, 1993).

Some studies have focused ex-clusively on the adult adjustment of indi-viduals labeled learning disabled (LD)while in school. For example, Humesand Brammer (1985) conducted a follow-up study of 29 individuals with LD inVirginia. Approximately 90% were eitheremployed or in training programs. Ofthose employed, most were in unskilledor semiskilled jobs on an entry level.Schalock, Wolzen, Ross, Elliott, Werbel,and Peterson (1986) studied the post-sec-ondary community placement of 65youths with LD who had been graduatedfrom high school between 1979 and1983. The researchers found 72% wereemployed (typically less than full time),and an additional 8% were attendingtechnical schools or colleges. Only onefourth of the respondents were living in-dependently, yet the majority (71%) saidthe primary source of their income waspersonal. White, Schumaker, Warner,Alley, and Deshler (1980) examined thestatus of 47 individuals labeled LD whohad been out of school from one to sevenyears. These persons held jobs at ap-proximately the same rate as their peers,but their jobs carried less social status andthe individuals with LD were less satis-fied with their employment than weretheir non-disabled peers.

In a summary of findings of fol-low-up studies concerning the adult ad-justment of persons labeled LD while inhigh school, Okolo and Sitlington (1988)pointed out that, despite methodologicalconcerns about these studies, some con-sistent results were found. The individ-uals studied appeared to be employed atapproximately the same rate as non-dis-abled peers. However, their employmentwas often part time and at entry level orminimum wage. Moreover, these indi-viduals frequently received little voca-tional counseling in high school.

Two recent studies support thesefindings. Sitlington and Frank (1990)surveyed a statewide random sample of911 individuals labeled LD who had beenout of school one year. They found thatalmost all graduates were single and liv-ing with parents, with 77% employed fullor part time. An additional 9% were full-time homemakers, students, or in jobtraining. Of those employed, 68% werein jobs at the laborer or service workerlevel and 70% were working full time.The average wage per hour was $4.39,with females faring much worse thanmales on all employment variables.Results from the National LongitudinalTransition Study of Special EducationStudents (Valdes, Williamson, &Wagner, 1990) indicated that 19% of in-dividual with LD out of school 1-2 yearswere competitively employed part timeand 38% were competitively employed ona full-time basis. Thirty-seven percentwere unemployed. The average hourlywage was $4.60. When data were gath-ered on these individuals three to five

1 5

years out of school, 14% were competi-tively employed part time and 57% wereemployed full time (Wagner, D'Amico,Marder, Newman, Blackorby, 1992).

Results of studies related to indi-viduals with mild disabilities (which in-cluded individuals with LD) are mixedrelative to the effect of gender on adultadjustment. Hasazi, Johnson, Hasazi,Gordon, and Hull (1989) found thatmales worked more hours per week andearned higher hourly wages than females.Roesler, Brolin, and Johnson (1990) re-ported that gender was not related to per-cent of time employed; wage data werenot reported by gender. Kranstover,Thurlow, and Bruininks (1989) found nogender differences in hours worked perweek, but did find that males earned moreper hour than females.

Two studies have compared theadult adjustment of graduates vs.dropouts with LD. Zigmond andThornton (1985) reported significantlyhigher dropout rates and significantlylower basic skills competency levelsamong youths with LD when comparedto a control group of non-LD same-agepeers. Both LD and non-disabled highschool dropouts were employed at thetime of follow -up at a significantly lowerrate (46%) than their graduating peers(80%). Dropouts with vs. without LDwere employed at approximately the samerate (44% and 50%, respectively).deBettencourt, Zigmond, and Thornton(1989) interviewed three school-year co-horts who were enrolled as ninth gradersin rural LD programs and had been out ofschool a minimum of 18 months. Theyalso included a randomly-selected controlsample of non-disabled students fromthese classes. Individuals were consid-ered employed if they were working atleast 10 hours per week. Eighty percentof the graduates with LD were employed,compared to 89% of the dropouts. Ofthose from the non-disabled sample, 74%of the graduates were employed com-pared to 67% of the dropouts.

2

Most of the previously citedstudies, however, report information onthe adjustment of individuals with dis-abilities who have been out of school forone year or for varying amounts of time.In some cases the amount of time be-tween exiting high school and obtainingthe follow-up data wasn't explicitlystated. The present study was a subcom-ponent of the Iowa Statewide Follow-upStudy, which was a five-year project de-signed to survey a random sample ofspecial education graduates and dropouts(of all disabilities and program models)throughout the state of Iowa. This sub-component was designed to investigatethe adult adjustment of graduates anddropouts with learning disabilities whohave been out of school for three years.The adult adjustment of these individualsthree years out of school is compared totheir status one year after graduation oftheir class. Variables addressed in thisstudy include: (a) general adult status(e.g., marital status, place of residence,leisure activities); (b) employment vari-ables (e.g., percent employed, location ofjobs, classification of jobs, wages); and(c) successful adult adjustment (com-posites created by combining severalvariables). Results are reported for thetotal group, by gender, by programmodel, and by graduation status.

METHOD

Participants

The primary focus for this inves-tigation was the Class of 1985 (referredto in this report as Group 2) , surveyedone year (designated G2Y1) and againthree years (designated G2Y3) after thatclass was graduated . A replication sam-ple (referred to in this report as Group 1)was the Class of 1984, also surveyed oneyear (designated GlY1) and again threeyears (designated GlY3) after that classwas graduated . Each of the 15 AreaEducation Agencies (AEAs) (12 AEAs

1 G

participated in GlY1) in the state of Iowaprepared a list of special education stu-dents (all exceptionalities) who weregraduated from, or "aged out" of, highschool at the end of each target year.Similar lists were prepared of dropoutsfrom special education programs whowould have graduated with the corre-sponding classes. For each AEA, 50%of the students on each list were ran-domly selected for inclusion in the sampleeach target year. At Year 3 for eachgroup, interviewers sought to survey theentire 50% random sample of graduatesand dropouts selected at Year 1, with theexception of GIY3, where half of therandom sample were sought for inter-views due to time constraints in conduct-ing the interviews.

The method of participant inter-view is described in Table 1. The num-bers of LD graduates and dropouts from

each group selected and interviewed arepresented in Table 2. The participantoverlap in Group 2 interviewed in bothfollow-up years was considerable; 88%of the 513 participants in G2Y3 wereamong the 517 persons interviewed inG2Y1 (61% of the 271 participants inG1Y3 were among the 438 persons in-terviewed in GI Y1). Of those LD per-sons not interviewed in G2Y3, 11% re-fused the interview, 43% had moved outof town, 4% were in the military, 2%were deceased, none was in jail, and noreasons were given for the remainingsubjects. Reasons given for no interviewwith G2Y1 persons were as follows:19% refused the interview, 26% hadmoved out of town. 1% were in the mili-tary, 1% were in jail, 1% were deceased,and no reasons were given for theremaining participants.

School records of individuals in

TABLE 1

METHOD OF INTERVIEW

Method of Interview

Group Interviewed by Year*

G2Y1 GIY3 G2Y3

With student

Face-to-face 49% 46% 36%

By telephone 27% 30% 34%

With parent or guardian

Face-to-face 12% 10% 8%

By telcphonc 13% 15% 22%

* Data were not available for G1Y I .

3 1.7

TABLE 2

NUMBERS OF PERSONS RANDOMLY SELECTED AND INTERVIEWED

Group

GlY1G 1 Y3G2Y1G2Y3

Graduates

Randomly Selected Interviewed

405316541544

367(91%)244(77%)451(83%)460(85%)

Group

GlY1G1 Y3G2Y1G2Y3

Dropouts

Randomly Selected Interviewed

66408678

55(83%)27(68%)66(77%)53(68%)

Groups 1 and 2 were examined to obtainrelevant information, including each stu-dent's primary disability label and pro-gram model at the time of exit fromschool. All individuals in Groups 1 and2 met the following criteria:.

1. Had been diagnosed as learningdisabled according to the regula-tions of the state of Iowa.

2. Had been participating in a pro-gram for students with learningdisabilities at the time they exitedhigh school.

Relevant high school data for theparticipants in Group 2 are presented inTable 3. The data show that the partici-pants in G2Y3 and G2Y1 were very simi-lar on all variables included in Table 3.Table 4 provides information fordropouts concerning when they leftschool and why. The term programmodel as used in this monograph is usedsynonymously with type of special edu-

cation model attended by individualswhile in high school. Students attendedthe model designated resource teachingprograms (RTP) for a minimal average ofthirty minutes per day; these students at-tended regular classes for the remainderof each school day. In the special classwith integration model (SCIN), studentsattended special classes for the majorityof the school day, while participating inthe general education curriculum in one ormore academic subjects. Students inspecial classes with little integration(SCIN-L) were integrated into regularclasses for limited participation. Studentsin self-contained special classes (SSC)received all of their instruction from aspecial education teacher. Data are re-ported here for persons who attendedRTP and SCIN programs while in highschool. The number of students attend-ing other types of programs was toosmall to be reported.

4 13

TABLE 3

SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUP 2 PRIOR TO EXITINGHIGH SCHOOL

VariableTotalGroup

Gender (Li = 515)a Male 75/ Female 25

Full Scale IQ (LI = 504)

M 95.aD 9.4

Academic AchievementaMath (LI = 497)

M 7.45.12 2.3

Reading (a = 509)M 6.6512 2.3

Gender (n= 513)% Male 77% Female 23

Full Scale IQ (n = 495)M 95SD 9.3

Academic AchievementaMath (a = 493)

Subgroups

Males Females RTP SCIN Gradi laws Dropouts

G2Y1

(n = 410) (n = 95) (n = 449) (n = 66)72 84 75 7028 16 25 30

(LI = 374) (ri = 129) (n = 400) (n = 94) (n = 440) (n = 64)95 92 95 92 95 939.3 9.0 9.2 9.3 9.5 7.9

(n = 369) (a = 127) (n = 394) (n = 93) (11 = 434) (a = 63)7.5 7.0 7.5 6.7 7.4 7.02.4 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.2

(n = 379) (a = 129) QL = 405)6.7 6.6 6.92.4 2.2 2.3

(ft = 95) (0. = 444)5.8 6.72.2 2.3

(ll = 65)6.42.3

G2Y3

(n = 413) (Li = 87) (a= 460) (n = 53)74 86 77 7026 14 23 30

(n = 378) (a = 117) (n = 398) (a = 85) (a = 442) (n = 53)95 92 95 93 95 939.4 8.5 9.3 9.2 9.4 8.3

(n = 376) ca = 117) (a = 394) (n = 86) (a = 443) (n = 50)M 7.4 7.5 6.9 7.5 6.7 7.4 6.9512 23 2.4 1.9 2.4 2.0 2.3 2.2

Reading = 503)

M 6.6512 2.3

(n_ = 385) (n= 1l8) = 403) (n = 87) (n =452) (n = 51)6.6 6.5 6.8 5.9 6.6 6.62.4 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5

Note. RTP = Resource Teaching Program, SCIN = Special Class with Integration.

aGrade equivalent scores.

195

TABLE 4

TIME AND REASONS DROPOUTS LEFT HIGH SCHOOL

Variable

Group by Year

GIY1 G2Y1

Mean Age When Dropped

Mean Highest Grade Completed

Reason Dropped (in Percent)*

17.5

10.2

17.8

10.6

School recommendation 7 5

Parents wanted me to drop 2 0

Needed to work 9 5

Personal problems 27 18

I wanted to 47 30

Not specified 40 52

* Numbers may sum to more than 100% because more than one reason was given.

Instrumentation

The survey instrument used inthis study was developed by project staffin conjunction with a task force of repre-sentatives of the 15 AEAs in the state ofIowa, the largest public school district inthe state, and the state schools and cor-rectional facilities. This task force identi-fied the content areas to be covered in theinterview form, based on previous fol-low-up studies conducted in other statesand on other categories of informationtask force members felt would be usefulin making programming decisions in theirAEAs.

The survey instrument was de-signed to provide the following types ofinformation: background information

6

about students (e.g., test scores fromhigh school, disability label, instructionalprogram model); information pertainingto their high school programs (e.g.,number of regular and special vocationaleducation courses taken, extracurricularactivities); evaluations of their school ex-periences (e.g., "Did your school experi-ences help you to keep a job?"); informa-tion about current life circumstances(e.g., marital status, living arrangements,leisure activities); and information oncurrent employment (e.g., location ofcurrent job, salary, hours worked perweek).

Procedure

Interviews were conducted by

20

professionals such as work experiencecoordinators, consultants, school psy-chologists, and teachers from each stu-dent's school district or AEA. These paidinterviewers were trained and supervisedby the Task Force member from their re-spective AEA. In addition, an in-depthinterviewer handbook and sample inter-view forms were developed by projectstaff, and interviewers also participated inone or several one-hour training sessionson using these documents to insure con-sistency across interviewers. The projectdirector was also on call to answer anygeneral or specific questions arising

from actual interviews.All survey forms were first re-

turned to the task force member for aninitial content and completion check.Next, the forms were submitted to theIowa Department of Education for a sec-ond content and completion check and forremoval of any identifying informationother than each student's ID number. Allsurvey forms then were forwarded to TheUniversity of Iowa for a final contentcheck, coding, computer entry and anal-ysis. Data analyses were completed us-ing routines described in SPSS-X User'sGuide (1986).

RESULTS

The results of this study are re-ported in four parts: total group, by gen-der, by program model (RTP and SCIN),and by graduation status (graduates anddropouts). Data reporting focuses onGroup 2 three years (G2Y3) after grad-uation of the Class of 1985. Year 3data (G2Y3) are compared to Year1 data (G2Y1) in this monographfor individual variables only whena difference 15% was found (theauthors viewed a difference .?.15%

7

as a change worth noting, al-though the choice of ..15% wassomewhat arbitrary). Thus, if noYear 1 data are reported, it can be inferredthat a substantial change did not occurfrom Years 1 to 3. Graphs are presented

the Results section for all variables forwhich a difference 15% was found be-tween G2Y3 and G2Y1, and includeYears 1 and 3 data for Group 1 as well.Additional information about compar-isons between Groups 1 and 2 are in-cluded at the end of each part of theResults section.

Total Group

General Status

Marital Status/Living_Arrangements

Seventy-five percent of the G2Y3persons said they were single and 23%reported being married. The remainingindividuals were either divorced or clas-sified as "other" in terms of their maritalstatus. A substantial increase was ob-served in those individuals classified asmarried between Years 1 and 3 (from 8%to 23%), and a corresponding decreasewas seen among those individuals whowere single (from 91% to 75%) (seeFigure 1). Almost half of the G2Y3 re-spondents (49%) were living indepen-dently, and 40% were living with a rela-tive. Only a small proportion of personswere living in supervised apartments or inresidential centers (e.g., an institution,mental health, or correctional facility).Substantially more G2Y3 than G2Y1 in-dividuals were living independently (from27% to 49%), and fewer G2Y3 thanG2Y1 persons were living with relatives(from 64% to 40%) (see Figure 2).

4

SINGLE

MARRIED

DIVORCED

OTHER

Fig. 1. MARITAL STATUS

9291

:77g

/

22

0

1

23

CEI GIY1 (n=436)G2Y1 (n=517)

GI Y3 (n=271)G2Y3 (n=513)

INDEPENDENT

RELATIVE

SUPERVISED

RESIDENTIAL

OTHER

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

80

Fig. 2 LIVING ARRANGEMENTS

0

10

20 40 60

PERCENT

70

100

Ea GIYI (n=418)G2Y1 (n=514)

1:1 GIY3 (n=269)G2Y3 (n=512)

8 22

80 100

Financial Status

A portion of the interview wasspent exploring the financial status of re-spondents. Slightly over half (53%) ofthe G2Y3 indicated they paid all theirliving expenses. Thirteen percent re-ported they paid none of their living ex-penses. The proportion of G2Y3 personswho were paying all of their living ex-penses was double the proportion ofG2Y1 who were paying all their livingexpenses (53% vs. 26%) (see Figure 3).Likewise, the percentage of G2Y3 per-sons who were paying none of their liv-ing expenses was about half that of G2Y1individuals (13% vs. 30%).

Respondents also were askedabout sources of financial assistance.Seventy percent of the G2Y3 personssaid they received no financial assistancefrom other individuals or agencies.Substantially fewer (40%) G2Y1 personsindicated they received no financial assis-tance (see Figure 4). Approximately one-

z

02

fourth (21%) of the respondents identi-fied parents as a source of financial assis-tance, down from the 49% of G2Y1 per-sons who were getting support from par-ents.

Postsecondary Training

About one-half (46%) of theG2Y3 respondents had not participated inany postsecondary education or trainingprogram since leaving high school. Ofthose who had, the most frequently men-tioned programs were offered by com-munity colleges (27%), followed by themilitary (10%), private programs (9%),and four-year colleges (4%).

Leisure Activities

Approximately two-thirds (62%)of the G2Y3 respondents said theyparticipated in from 1-3 leisure activities.An additional 17% were involved in 4-6free-time activities, and 10% participated

Fig. 3 PROPORTION OF EXPENSES PERSONS PAY

ALL

SOME

NONE

26: 48

1.111e34"

27

15IEEE 13

30

44

53

52

F2 GI Y I (n=434)G2Y1 (n=512)

O G1 Y3 (n=266)G2Y3 (n=512)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

9 0 '3(

80 100

0

Fig. 4 SOURCES OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

NO ASSISTANCE

PARENTS

DHS

SSI

58

lettot

21

A 64

64

2749

70

G1Y1 (n=438)G2Y1 (n=517)

tfi GI Y3 (n =271)G2Y3 (n=513)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

in more that 6 leisure activities. Theremaining 11% reported that they did notparticipate in any leisure activities.

Information on Employment

A large majority of the G2Y3 re-spondents (83%) were employed at thetime of the Year 3 interview. Among theemployed persons, 99% worked in com-petitive jobs, whereas 1% worked insheltered workshops. Five percent wereotherwise engaged (i.e., were homemak-ers, students, or in job training pro-grams). Twelve percent were unem-ployed. The majority of interviewees(53%) said they had contacted JobService of Iowa concerning employmentopportunities, and 17% had contactedJTPA agencies about work. An addi-tional 9% said they had talked to aVocational Rehabilitation office aboutgetting work, and only 1% had commu-nicated with a sheltered workshop aboutemployment. When the employed re-

10

80 100

spondents were asked about who helpedthem actually obtain their current job,49% reported they found it by them-selves, and another 38% said they hadhelp from family or friends. Only a smallproportion received help from school orcommunity agencies (3% and 5%, re-spectively).

Approximately one-third (31%) ofthe employed G2Y3 respondents heldjobs as laborers. An additional 17% wereservice workers, a substantial declinefrom G2Y1 when 32% held jobs as ser-vice workers (see Figure 5). Eighteenpercent of the employed G2Y3 individu-als were employed as operatives, 5% asclerical workers, and 18% as craftsmen.The remaining persons (18%) were inother types of jobs. Most employedG2Y3 persons (83%) worked full time, asubstantial increase over Year 1, when68% of the employed persons workedfull time (see Figure 6). Twelve percentof the workers were employed between21-37 hours per week, and 2% worked

r4

LABORER

SERVICE WORKER

OPERATIVE

CLERICAL

CRAFTSMAN

OTHER

Fig. 5 CURRENT JOB CLASSIFICATION

3536

11

0

14

18

20 40 60

PERCENT

GIY1 (n=325)o G2Y1 (n=370)

O G1Y3 (n=217)G2Y3 (n=426)

80 100

Fig. 6 NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED PER WEEK

>37

21- 37

<21

OTHER

25

423

0

1412

108

7

2220

83

GlYI (n=327)G2Y1 (n=376)

O GlY3 (n=219)G2Y3 (n=426)

20 40 60

PERCENT

80 100

less than 21 hours per week. Theremaining 3% worked irregular hours orseasonally. Almost one third (29%) ofthe G2Y3 respondents had worked attheir present job for more than two years;the same percentage had worked at theirpresent job for less than six months.Both percentages were substantialchanges from Year 1, when 8% of theindividuals had worked at their job formore than two years, and 45% hadworked at their job for less than sixmonths (Figure 7).

The average wage per hour forG2Y3 persons was $5.56 (see Figure 8).This wage was $1.15 per hour higherthan the mean wage for G2Y1 individu-als. Approximately one-half of theseworkers received health insurance (51%)and vacation time (50%) as a job benefit.Thirty percent reported getting sick leavefrom their employer. The proportions ofworkers receiving health insurance andvacation time represented substantial in-creases over Year 1, where 29% of the

workers received these benefits (seeFigure 9).

Perceptions of High School

Eighty-six percent of the G2Y3respondents perceived their high schoolprogram as being helpful or very helpfulin teaching them to deal with personalproblems. Almost all individuals (90%)viewed their high school program ashelpful or very helpful in teaching thempractical reading skills; 75% reported theybelieved their high school program washelpful or very helpful in teaching thempractical math skills.

About three-fourths (76%) of therespondents said their high school pro-gram was helpful or very helpful inteaching them to find and keep a job.When asked how they perceived theirschool's assistance in preparing them fortheir present job, 61% of the employedindividuals said their school was helpfulor very helpful.

Fig. 7 LENGTH OF TIME IN CURRENT JOB

<6 MONTHS

6 TO 12 MONTHS

1 TO 2 YEARS

>2 YEARS

EMEE=242451777:77=M: 28

29

=3..fE82019

15

0

3229

GIY1 (n = 325)G2Y1 (n = 376)

GlY3 (n = 219)G2Y3 (n = 425)

1 I 1

20 40 60 80 100

12

PERCENT

26

Fig. 8 WAGES EARNED FROM CURRENT JOB

(Data for wages wereunavailable for GIY1) 44-- Minimum wage

$4.41

HEALTH INSURANCE

VACATION

SICK LEAVE

WAGES PER HOUR

Fig. 9 JOB BENEFITS RECEIVED

3651

35fiNERRESEMEn= 51

51

1

251:1 llill:l 33

30

50

E3 GI YI (n=396)o G2YI (n=377)

GlY3 (n=218)G2Y3 (n=426)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

132 7

80 100

Successful Persons

Composites made up of selectedvariables were constructed as indices for"success" at one and three years follow-ing graduation. For each year, two dif-ferent levels (high and low) of indices ofsuccessful adult adjustment were used.Employed persons who did not reporttheir wages were excluded this these cal-culations.

One year after graduation of theClass of 1985 (G2Y1), the composite de-lineating a high level of success wascomposed of the following components:(a) employment at a job within the com-munity, including either a competitive jobor a job in the community where the in-dividual was supervised by the staff froma sheltered workshop; (b) living arrange-ments where the individual was eitherbuying a home, living independently, orliving with a friend; (c) paying some orall of their living expenses; and (d) in-volved in more than three leisure activi-ties. The high success criteria resulted in8% (n=36) of the G2Y1 respondents be-ing viewed as having successfully ad-justed to adult life.

The composite delineating a lowlevel of success one year after highschool graduation was composed of thefollowing components: (a) employmentat a job within the community, includingeither a competitive job or a job in thecommunity where the individual was su-pervised by the staff from a shelteredworkshop; (b) living arrangements wherethe individual was either buying a home,living independently, living with a friend,living in a supervised apartment, or livingin a group home; (c) not necessarily pay-ing part of their living expenses; and (d)involved in at least one leisure activity.The low success criteria resulted in anadditional 20% (n=85) of the G2Y1 in-dividuals being viewed as having suc-cessfully adjusted to adult life.

Three years after graduation of theClass of 1985 (G2Y3), the composite de-

14

lineating a high level of success wascomposed of the following components:(a) employment at a job within the com-munity, including either a competitive jobor a job in the community where the in-dividual was supervised by the staff froma sheltered workshop, full-time (>37hours per week) and earning at leastminimum wage ($3.35 per hour); (b)living arrangements where the individualwas either buying a home, living inde-pendently, or living with a friend; (c)paying for more than half of their livingexpenses, and (d) involved in more thanthree leisure activities. Of the total group,11% (n=49) met the requirements to beconsidered as successful adults at the timeof the G2Y3 interview.

At G2Y3, the composite delineat-ing a low level of success was composedof the following components: (a) em-ployment at a job within the community,including either a competitive job or a jobin the community where the individualwas supervised by the staff from a shel-tered workshop, at least half-time (>20hours per week) and earning at leastminimum wage ($3.35 per hour); (b)living arrangements where the individualwas either buying a home, living inde-pendently, living with a friend, living in asupervised apartment, or living in a grouphome; (c) paying at least some of theirliving expenses; and (d) involved in atleast one leisure activity. Approximately27% of the total group, an additional 121individuals, were perceived as successfuladults at the time of the G2Y3 interviewusing this lower set of criteria.

Comparison of Groups 1 and 2

This section presents informationon the items where differences werefound to be al 5% between the twogroups at either the first interview (i.e.,between GI Y1 and G2Y1) or the third-year interview (i.e., between G 1 Y3 andG2Y3); or the change from the first yearinterview to the third year interview was

substantial for one group but not theother.

Differences between Groups for the SameYgat

Substantially more G 1Y1 thanG2Y1 persons reported they received nofinancial assistance from relative oragencies. Conversely, substantiallyfewer GlY1 than G2Y1 individuals saidthey received financial help from theirparents. Concerning sources of help infinding employment, substantially moreGIYI than G2Y1 persons said they re-ceived help from family or friends.

Differences between_groups in Changesfrom Years 1 to 3.

For Group 1, the following sub-stantial changes occurred between Years1 and 3: a decrease in the proportion ofpersons who were paying some of theirliving expenses, and had received helpfrom family or friends in finding theirpresent job.

For Group 2, the following sub-stantial changes occurred between Years1 and 3: a decrease in the proportion ofpersons who were paying none of theirliving expenses, were receiving financialassistance from parents, were employedas service workers, and were working atthe same job for less than six months; andan increase in the proportion of personswho were married, and were receiving nofinancial assistance.

Conclusions regarding

Fifteen variables and 59 cate-gories within variables were involved inthis investigation (e.g., Living Expenses,a variable, breaks down into 3 categories,All, Some, and None). For the totalgroup, differences in comparisons werefound for 14% of the categories.Differences in the proportions of success-ful G2Y3 vs. GlY3 individuals were 5%

in favor of GlY3 when the low criteriawere applied, and 5% in favor of G2Y3when the high criteria were applied.

By Gender

Results in this part of the mono-graph are presented by gender. Section 1contains data obtained from males; thesecond sections presents data for females.

Males

General Status

Marital Status/Living Arrange-ments. Eighty percent of the G2Y3 maleswere single, while 18% were married.Substantially more (95%) of the malerespondents reported they were single atthe G2Y1 interview (see Figure 10).Approximately one-half (45%) of themales said they were living independentlythree years after leaving high school, andabout the same proportion (44%) reportedthey lived with relatives. These weresubstantial changes from Year 1, when23% of the G2Y1 males said they livedindependently and 67% said they livedwith relatives (see Figure 11).

Financial Status. Slightly overone-half (54%) of the males indicatedthey were paying all of their living ex-penses, a substantial increase over theG2Y1 group, where 26% of the respon-dents were paying all of their living ex-penses. (see Figure 12) A correspondingsubstantial decrease, from 30% to 11%,was observed among G2Y3 individualswho said they were paying none of theirliving expenses. Approximately three-fourths (72%) of the male respondentsreported receiving no financial assistancefrom other sources. This was a substan-tial increase from Year 1, when 41% ofthe G2Y1 persons said they received nofinancial assistance (see Figure 13). Asubstantial drop was seen in the propor-tion of G2Y3 males who received fman-

15 4 9

SINGLE

MARRIED

DIVORCED

OTHER

Fig. 10 MARITAL STATUS - MALES

1:1!i:111 Ili !I 1 it trifit.:Ii. 8180

6

618

0

122

0

1

9495

IZI G 1 Y1 (n=339)1=1 G2Y1 (n=384)

GIY3 (n=208)G2Y3 (n=393)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

80

Fig. 11 LIVING ARRANGEMENTS - MALES

INDEPENDENT

RELATIVE

SUPERVISED

RESIDENTIAL

OTHER

445

11

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

74

® GIY1 (n=323)G2Y I (n=382)

1:1 GlY3 (n=208)111 G2Y3 (n=392)

100

16

80 100

Fig. 12 PROPORTION OF EXPENSES MALES PAY

ALL

SOME

NONE

2647

3436

35

2530

:x:':..11

54

55

{31 GIYI (n=336)G2Y I (n=379)

O GIY3 (n=205)G2Y3 (n=392)

0 20 40 60 80 100

PERCENT

Fig. 13 SOURCES OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCEFOR MALES

NO ASSISTANCE72

PARENTS 4930

22

04DHS 2

3GIYI (n=340)2G2Y1 (n=384)

GI Y3 (n=208)SSI

.1G2Y3 (n=393)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

17 31

80 100

cial assistance from parents (from 49% to22%).

Postsecondary Training. Almostone-half (47%) of the males said they hadnot participated in any postsecondary ed-ucation or training program since leavinghigh school. Among those who had par-ticipated in such programs, the most fre-quently named program was in a com-munity college (26%). Twelve percentwere in the military, and less than 10%had attended a four-year college or partic-ipated in a private training program.

Leisure Activities. The majority(62%) of respondents were involved infrom 1-3 leisure activities, and an addi-tional 27% participated in more than 3leisure activities. A smaller proportion,11%, reported being involved in no suchactivities.


Eighty-nine percent of the re-spondents were employed, all of whomworked in competitive employment. Twopercent were otherwise engaged (i.e.,homemakers, students, or in job trainingprograms). The remaining 9% were un-employed. When asked which agenciesthey had talked to about employment op-portunities, males most frequently namedJob Service of Iowa (50%), followed byJTPA agencies (17%). Only 10% hadcontacted a Vocational Rehabilitation of-fice concerning employment. Respon-dents also were asked about who helpedthem obtain their current job; about one-half (46%) indicated they found it on theirown. An additional 41% said family orfriends helped them. The remainingindividuals named the school, acommunity agency, or "other" as thesource of help in getting their current job.

About one-third (36%) of themales held jobs as laborers; another 12%were service workers. Approximatelyone-fourth of the respondents indicated

18

they were operatives (20%) or craftsmen(21%), and 2% were clerical workers.The remaining persons were employed inhigher status occupations.

Most males (87%) were employedfull time, and 9% worked between 21-37hours per week. The remaining individ-uals (2%) worked less than one-half time,or seasonally (2%). One-third (33%) ofthe respondents had been employed attheir present job for over two years, asubstantial increase over G2Y1, whenonly 9% of the males had been employedfor this length of time (see Figure 14).An additional 21% of the males had beenworking at the same job from one to 2years. The remaining 46% had beenworked at their present job for one yearor less.

The average wage per houramong employed G2Y3 males was$5.81, an increase of $1.16 per hour overG2Y1 males (see Figure 15).Approximately one-half (54%) reportedreceiving health insurance from their em-ployer, a substantial increase over Year 1,when 38% of the G2Y2 males said theyreceived health insurance as a job benefit(see Figure 16). In addition, about one-half (49%) indicated they received vaca-tion time from their employer. Twenty-nine percent said they were given sickleave by their employer.


During the interview, males wereasked about their perceptions of their highschool program. Most reported positiveperceptions: 86% said they perceivedtheir program as helpful or very helpful inteaching them to deal with their personalprograms, 90% said their program washelpful or very helpful in teaching thempractical reading skills, and 76% indi-cated they had learned practical mathskills at school. When asked about theirperceptions of the vocational aspects oftheir high school program, males wereless positive: 76% said their program

Fig. 14 LENGTH OFFOR

TIME IN CURRENT JOBMALES

41'o

<6 MONTHS 42: : t: ? 1. : :

30

266 TO 12 MONTHS 27

I : 1816

.

1 TO 2 YEARS 2222

21 121 GIY1 (n =262)G2Y1 (n = 292)

16 G1Y3 (n = 174)>2 YEARS G2Y3 (n = 347)36

33

0 20 40 60 80

PERCENT

Fig. 15 WAGES EARNED FROM CURRENT JOBBY MALES

GIY1

G2Y I

GI Y3

(Data for wages wereunavailable for G1Y1) 4 Minimum wage

$4.65

$5.55

G2Y3 $5.81

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00

WAGES PER HOUR

193 3

100

Fig. 16 JOB BENEFITS RECEIVED BY MALES

HEALTH INSURANCE

VACATION

SICK LEAVE

31

2325

0 20

was helpful or very helpful in teachingthem how to keep a job; 74% reportedtheir program was helpful or very helpfulin training them to fmd work; and, amongthose who were employed, 60% saidtheir school program had been helpful orvery helpful in preparing them for theirpresent job.

Successful Persons

The composites that were used tojudge the level of adult adjustment for thetotal group also were applied to males.When the high criteria were applied to theG2Y1 individuals, 7% (n=22) of the re-spondents were successful, and an addi-tional 21% (n=69) were successful at thelow level. At the time of the G2Y3 in-terview, 11% (n=38) of the respondentsmet the high criteria for success; an addi-tional 28% (n=93) met the low criteria.

3

3229

38

36

49

40

20

60

PERCENT

GlY1 (n=310)G2Y1 (n=292)

D GlY3 (n=173)G2Y3 (n=348)

80 100


This section presents informationon the items where differences werefound to be ?_15% between the twogroups at either the first interview (i.e.,between G1 Yl and G2Y1) or the third-year interview (i.e., between G1 Y3 andG2Y3); or the change from the first yearinterview to the third year interview wassubstantial for one group but not theother.

Differencesthe Same Year. There was a substantialdifference between Groups 1 and 2 in theproportion of Year 1 males who reportedpaying some of their living expenses.There also were substantial differencesbetween the two groups at Year 1 con-cerning the proportion who were receiv-ing no financial assistance and who werereceiving financial help from parents. Asubstantial difference existed in Year 1between Groups 1 and 2 relative to the

34

proportions who received help from fam-ily or friends in getting their present job.

Differences between Groups inChanges from Years 1 to 3. For Group1, the following substantial changes oc-curred between Years 1 and 3: a decreasein the proportion of persons who werepaying some of their living expenses, hadreceived help from family or friends infinding their present job, and had beenworking at their present job for less thansix months; and an increase in the pro-portion of persons who were workingfull time, and were receiving vacationtime as a fringe benefit.

For Group 2, the following sub-stantial changes occurred between Years1 and 3: a decrease in the proportion ofpersons who were single, were payingnone of their living expenses, and werereceiving financial assistance from par-ents; and an increase in the proportion ofpersons who were receiving no financialassistance.

Conclusions regarding Compari-son. Fifteen variables and 59 categorieswithin variables were involved in thisinvestigation (e.g., Living Expenses, avariable, breaks down into 3 categories,All, Some, and None). For the subgroupof males, differences in comparisonswere found for 15% of the categories,Differences in the proportions ofsuccessful G2Y3 vs. G 1Y3 individualswere 0% when the low criteria wereapplied, and 4% in favor of G2Y3 whenthe high criteria were applied.

Females

General Status

Marital Status/Living Arrange-ments. Fifty-six percent of the femalerespondents said they were single, asubstantial drop from Year 1, when 80%were single (see Figure 17). During theperiod from the Year 1 to the Year 3

interview the proportion of females whowere married increased substantially(from 19% to 41%). About two-thirds(65%) of the G2Y3 respondents wereliving independently, which was sub-stantially more than G2Y1 respondents(39%) (see Figure 18). And, substan-tially fewer G2Y3 than G2Y1 femaleswere living with relatives (down from55% to 28%).

Financial Status. A substantialincrease was observed in the proportionof G2Y3 females who said they werepaying all of their living expenses whencompared to G2Y1 females (50% vs.26%) (see Figure 19). Similarly, a sub-stantial increase also occurred in the per-centage of G2Y3 females who reportedreceiving no financial assistance com-pared to G2Y1 females (63% vs. 40%)(see Figure 20). From Years 1 to 3 therewas a corresponding decrease in the pro-portion of Group 2 females who weregetting financial aid from their parents(from 46% down to 19%).

Postsecondary Training. Slightlyless than one-half (43%) of the G2Y3females said they had not been involvedin any postsecondary education or train-ing since leaving high school. The pro-gram most commonly named by thoseindividuals who did participate in post-secondary training was offered by acommunity college (29%), followed by aprivate program (12%). Three percent orfewer had attended a four-year college orserved in the military.

Leisure Activities. About two-thirds of the females were involved infrom 1-3 leisure activities. An additional28% were participated in more than threerecreational activities. The remaining 9%said they did not have any leisure-timeactivities.

21,1 5

Cip

ae

cn

SINGLE

MARRED

DIVORCED

OTHER

Fig. 17 MARITAL STATUS - FEMALES

80845656

22

0

f2

4041

E

G1Y1 (n=97)

G2Y1 (n=131)

GI Y3 (n=63)

G2Y3 (n=120)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

80 100

Fig. 18 LIVING ARRANGEMENTS - FEMALES

INDEPENDENT

RELATIVE

SUPERVISED

RESIDENTIAL

z 41! ! !

I18

3°2

8

OTHER8

10

28

558

74

GlY1 (n=95)

G2Y1 (n=130)

GlY3 (n=61)

G2Y3 (n=120)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

22

rbJu

80 100

ALL

SOME

NONE

Fig. 19 PROPORTION OF EXPENSESFEMALES PAY

2426

I H1111111111:HHHHHHHHI:

1018

32

3431

42

3943

5150

O GIY1 (n=98)o G2Y1 (n=131)

o GlY3 (n=61)G2Y3 (n=120)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

80 100

Fig.

NO ASSISTANCE

PARENTS

DHS

SSI

20 SOURCES OF FINANCIALFOR FEMALES

ASSISTANCE

V 50

063

7fM

:11111:1:11,111

19

14Mill

I 2

16Ea GlY1 (n=98)o G2Y1 (n=131)

G 1Y3 (n=63)1111 G2Y3 (n=120)

0 20 40 60 80 100

PERCENT

233 7

1


Sixty-five percent of the G2Y3females were employed, 97% of whichwere in competitive jobs. Seventeen per-cent were otherwise engaged as home-makers, students, or in job training. Theremaining 18% were unemployed. Whenasked which agencies they had contactedabout employment opportunities, mostnamed Job Service of Iowa (61%), fol-lowed by a JTPA agency (18%). A verysmall percentage had talked to VocationalRehabilitation or a sheltered workshopabout a job. Individuals also were askedhow they found their present job. Theself-family-friends network was the mostcommon source of assistance; 63% hadobtained a job on their own (a substantialincrease over G2Y1 females), and 26%received help from family or friends (seeFigure 21). Five percent or fewer re-ceived assistance from a school or com-munity agency in obtaining their presentjob.

W

C

Forty-four percent of the femalesheld jobs as service workers; this was asubstantial decline from Year 1 when71% of the G2Y1 females were serviceworkers (see Figure 22). An additional19% of the females had clerical jobs and12% were operatives. Smaller propor-tions were laborers, craftsman, or inhigher status positions.

The proportion of Group 2 fe-males who were working full time in-creased substantially from Years 1 to 3(from 48% to 68%) (see Figure 23).Another one-fourth worked between 21-37 hours per week. The remaining fe-males worked less than 21 hours perweek or seasonally. About 15% of therespondents had been employed in thesame job for over two years, another26% for between 1-2 years. Thirty-onepercent had worked in the same locationfor 6-12 months. There was a substantialdrop between Years 1 and 3 in the pro-portion of females who had worked at thesame job for less than six months (down

Fig. 21 SOURCE OF HELP IN FINDING PRESENTJOB - FEMALES

MYSELF

FAMILY/FRIENDS

SCHOOL

COMMUNITY AGENCY

'/

21

6

45

7

12

2726

3345

6263

E2 GI Y1 (n=60)G2Y1 (n=83)

G1Y3 (n=45)G2Y3 (n=78)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

24 3 :3

80 100

LABORER

SERVICE WORKER

OPERATIVE

CLERICAL

CRAFTSMAN

OTHER

Fig. 22 CURRENT JOB CLASSIFICATIONFOR FEMALES

:::::::.10

12

0

19

19

20 40 60

PERCENT

71

GIY1 (n=63)

G2YI (n=82)

GlY3 (n=44)

G2Y3 (n=78)

80 100

Fig. 23 NUMBER OF HOURS FEMALES WORKEDPER WEEK

21- 37

<21

OTHER

z z

5345

102

19

29

26

3641

68

GIY1 (n=63)

G2Y1 (n=83)

G1Y3 (n=45)

G2Y3 (n=78)

0

1 1

20 40 60

PERCENT

25 33

80 100

from 55% to 28%) (see Figure 24).The average wage per hour

among G2Y3 females was $4.60, an in-crease of $1.02 over the average forG2Y1 females (see Figure 25). Forty-one percent of the employed G2Y3 fe-males received health insurance from theiremployer, and 33% were given sickleave. Substantially more G2Y3 females(53%) were getting vacation time than didG2Y1 females (3 1 %) (see Figure 26).


The majority of females held po-sition opinions about the academic por-tions of their high school program.Eighty-six percent reported the schoolprogram had been helpful or very helpfulin teaching them how to cope with theirpersonal problems. Eighty-nine percentsaid their high school program was help-ful or very helpful in teaching them prac-tical reading skills, and 72% said thesame thing about the helpfulness of their

school program in teaching them practicalmath skills.

Females were somewhat lesspositive about the vocational aspects oftheir high school program. Seventy-seven percent said the school programwas helpful or very helpful in teachingthem how to keep a job, and 83% felttheir program was helpful or very helpfulin teaching them to find a job. A smallerproportion, 68%, perceived their highschool program as helpful or very helpfulin preparing them for their present job.

Successful Persons

The composites that were used tojudge the level of adult adjustment for thetotal group also were applied to females.When the high criteria were applied to theG2Y1 individuals, 14% (n=14) of the re-spondents were successful, and an addi-tional 16% (n=16) were successful at thelow level. At the time of the G2Y3 in-terview, 10% (n=11) of the respondents

Fig. 24 LENGTH OF TIME IN CURRENT JOBFOR FEMALES

<6 MONTHS

6 TO 12 MONTHS

1 TO 2 YEARS

>2 YEARS

28

2728

19

0

20

20

31

4255

26 GIY1 (n = 63)G2Y1 (n = 82)

G1Y3 (n = 45)G2Y3 (n = 78)

40

26

60

PERCENT

80 100

Fig. 25 WAGES EARNED FROM CURRENT JOBBY FEMALES

GlY1(Data for wages wereunavailable for GlY 1) 411 Minimum wage

$2.00 $3.00 $4.00

WAGES PER HOUR

$5.00 $6.00

Fig. 26 JOB BENEFITS RECEIVED BY FEMALES

HEALTH INSURANCE

z VACATION

SICK LEAVE

28

3136

A 1324

.. ; .. 3633

4041

53

GlY1 (n=86)o G2Y1 (n=83)

GIY3 (n=45)G2Y3 (n=78)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

27 41

80 100

met the high criteria for success; an addi-tional 24% (a=28) met the low criteria.


This section presents informationon the items where differences werefound to be .15% between the twogroups at either the first interview (i.e.,between G 1Y1 and G2Y1) or the third-year interview (i.e., between G1Y3 andG2Y3); or the change from the first yearinterview to the third year interview wassubstantial for one group but not theother.

Differences between Groups forthe Same Year. At the Year 3 interview,there was a substantial difference betweenGroups 1 and 2 (in favor of Group 1)concerning the proportion of females whowere service workers. A larger propor-tion of G2Y3 than GIY3 females hadbeen in the same job for 1-2 years.Similarly, a larger proportion of G2Y3than G1Y3 females were receiving vaca-tion time as a job benefit. Concerningperceptions of their high school program,a larger proportion of G2Y1 than G 1Y1females believed their program was help-ful or very helpful in preparing them fortheir present job.

Differences between Groups inChanges from Years 1 to 3. For Group1, the following substantial changes oc-curred between Years 1 and 3: a decreasein the proportion of persons who werepaying none of their living expenses, hadreceived help from family or friends infinding their present job, and perceivedtheir high school program as helpful orvery helpful in teaching them practicalmath skills; and an increase in the pro-portion of persons who were receivinghealth insurance and sick leave as jobbenefits.

For Group 2, the following sub-stantial changes occurred between Years1 and 3: a decrease in the proportion of

. 28

persons who were employed as serviceworkers, and had been employed in theirpresent job for less than six months; andan increase in the proportion of personswho were receiving no financial assis-tance, and were receiving vacation time asa job benefit.

Conclusions regarding Compari-son. Fifteen variables and 59 categorieswithin variables were involved in this in-vestigation (e.g., Living Expenses, avariable, breaks down into 3 categories,All, Some, and None). For the subgroupof females, differences in comparisonswere found for 19% of the categories.Differences in the proportions of success-ful G2Y3 vs. G1 Y3 individuals were19% in favor of G 1 Y3 when the low cri-teria were applied, and 8% in favor ofG2Y3 when the high criteria were ap-plied.

By Program Model

Results in this part of the mono-graph are presented by program model intwo sections. The first section isResource Teaching Programs, and thesecond is Special Classes with

Resource Teaching Programs

General Status

Marital Status/Living Arrange-ments. Approximately three-fourths ofthe G2Y3 respondents (73%) said theywere single, a substantial decrease overYear 1 where 90% the G2Y1 respondentsreported being single (see Figure 27).About one-fourth of the G2Y3 individu-als were married. The proportion of in-dividuals who were living independentlyincreased substantially from Years 1 and3 (from 29% to 53%) (see Figure 28). Acorresponding substantial decrease wasobserved in the proportion of individualsliving with relatives (from 62% to 37%).

42

SINGLE

MARRIED

DIVORCED

OTHER

INDEPENDENT

RELATIVE

SUPERVISED

RESIDENTIAL

OTHER

Fig. 27 MARITAL STATUS - RTP

11111111111111111011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111112M

23

0

224

7473

9290

121 GIYI (n=372)1:1 G2Y1 (n=412)

G I Y3 (n=240)G2Y3 (n=413)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

80

Fig. 28 LIVING ARRANGEMENTS - RTP

: ; ; : . : * : : . ; : ; : : : : : : :

53

: : : : : . . : : : :

MEI: : 7. :1,

10

71

GIY1 (n=355)G2Y1 (n=410)

G 1Y3 (n=238)G2Y3 (n=412)

100

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

29

43

80 100

Financial Status. A substantialincrease occurred in the percentage ofGroup 2 persons who were paying all oftheir living expenses (from 28% to 55%)(see Figure 29). One-third of the respon-dents were paying some of their livingexpenses, and only 12% said they paidnone of their living expenses. Seventypercent of the G2Y3 individuals receivedno financial assistance from othersources, up substantially over G2Y1 in-dividuals where 43% reported getting nosuch assistance (see Figure 30). A sub-stantial decline was observed betweenYears 1 and 3 in the percentage of indi-viduals received financial help from par-ents (from 45% to 21%).

P.S2i1=11CIMaiillilig. Almostone-half (46%) of the respondents hadnot participated in any type of postsec-ondary education or training program.Among those remaining persons who re-ported such training, the most commontook place in a community college setting

zO

(26%). Ten percent had been in the mili-tary; less than 10% had attended a four-year college or private training program.

Leisure Activities. Approximatelytwo-thirds of the G2Y3 individuals(64%) who had attended RTP programswhile in high school participated in 1-3leisure activities. Another 26% were in-volved in more than three such activities,and 10% said they did not have anyleisure pastimes.


Most (84%) of the respondentswere employed, and 99% of the em-ployed were working in competitive jobs.Six percent of those not employed wereeither homemakers, students, or in jobtraining programs. The remaining 10%were unemployed. All respondents wereasked which agencies they had contactedabout job opportunities. About one-half(53%) had talked to Job Service of Iowa

Fig. 29 PROPORTION OF EXPENSES PERSONS PAYRTP

ALL

SOME

NONE

2128

lgi11:111iili11111:011111111111:11 49

1112 1512

2726

3633

46

55

52

GZYZ (n=371)1:1 G2Y1 (n=409)

G1Y3 (n=237)G2Y3 (n=412)

£11

0 20 40 60

30

PERCENT

44

80 100

c.4

U

0

Fig. 30 SOURCES OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCERTP

NO ASSISTANCE

PARENTS

DHS

SS1

59

1111111111111{111111111111111111111/111111

1111111111111111111111111

21

545

6

4

2645

i.;

70

ra GlY1 (n=374)G2Y1 (n =412)

G1 Y3 (n=240)G2Y3 (n=413)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

about work, and 15% had contacted aJTPA agency. Less than 10% had talkedto Vocational Rehabilitation or a shelteredworkshop. Among those who were em-ployed, 51% said they found their presentjob on their own, and 38% got their jobwith the help of family or friends. A fewsmall percentage reported that they foundtheir current job with assistance from aschool or community agency.

Almost one-half of the workerswere employed as laborers (29%) or ser-vice workers (18%). An additional 19%held jobs as operatives, 18% werecraftsmen, and 6% worked in clericalpositions. Ten percent of the respondentsworked in higher status jobs. Many(85%) of the respondents worked fulltime, a substantial increase over Year 1when 68% of the G2Y1 persons workedfull time (see Figure 31). Another 12%worked from 21-37 hours per week. Theremaining individuals worked less thanhalf-time or seasonally. About one-third(31%) of the workers had been in their

80 100

current position for over two years; thiswas a substantial increase over Year 1when only 8% of the G2Y1 workers hadbeen in the same job for that period oftime (see Figure 32). A correspondingsubstantial decrease occurred from Years1 to 3 in the proportion of Group 2 per-sons who had been in their present jobfor less than six months (from 46% to27%).

The average wage per hour foremployed G2Y3 persons was $5.59, up$1.22 per hour over the average wage forG2Y1 persons (see Figure 33).Substantial increases were observed fortwo job benefits received by G2Y3 work-ers: 53% received health insurance (37%for G2Y1), and 53% also received vaca-tion time (36% for G2Y1) (see Figure34). About one-third (31%) of the work-ers received sick leave.


During each interview, respon-

31 4 5

Fig. 31 NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED PER WEEKRTP

>37

21- 37

<21

OTHER

1 A

pi2

11

2220

0 20

LG122 GI YI (n=282)0 G2Y1 (n=304)

Ri85

GI Y3 (n=200)111 G2Y3 (n=346)

40 60 80 100

PERCENT

Fig. 32 LENGTH OF TIME IN CURRENT JOBRTP

<6 MONTHS

6 TO 12 MONTHS

1 TO 2 YEARS

>2 YEARS

EMaR=4L1127

2727

0

16

3431

20 40 60

PERCENT

32

O GIY1 (n= 281)o G2Y1 (n = 303)

G1Y3 (n = 200)G2Y3 (n = 345)

n

80 100

Fig. 33 WAGES EARNED FROM CURRENT JOBRTP

(Data for wages wereunavailable for G1Y1) 4 Minimum wage

$4.37

HEALTH INSURANCE

VACATION

SICK LEAVE

WAGES PER HOUR

$5.32

$5.59

$6.00

Fig. 34 JOB BENEFITS RECEIVED - RTP

3037

ilaiiiii5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii1:111::::::::::::::::: 5253

IiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiialiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 5253

4206

il Pi II IL Pi 1.11:111:11100::

3135

Ea GlY1 (n=338)O G2Y1 (n=304)O G1Y3 (n=199)

G2Y3 (n=346)

i

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

33 47

80

dents were asked about their perceptionsof the helpfulness of their high schoolprogram. The majority held positiveviews of the academic aspects of theirprogram. Eighty-six percent said theirprogram had been helpful or very helpfulin teaching them to solve their personalproblems. Ninety-one percent reportedthat their program had been helpful orvery helpful in teaching them practicalreading skills; 74% felt the same wayabout being taught practical math skills.

Somewhat fewer had positiveviews of the vocational aspects of theirhigh school program. About three-fourths (74%) said their program hadbeen helpful or very helpful in teachingthem how to keep a job, and 76% ex-pressed this view relative to skills learnedabout finding jobs. However, a lowerpercentage (61%) felt their high schoolprogram was helpful or very helpful inpreparing them for the job they had at thetime of the interview.

Successful Persons

The composites that were used tojudge the level of adult adjustment for thetotal group also were applied to personswho had attended RTP programs. Whenthe high criteria were applied to the G2Y1individuals, 10% (n=33) of the respon-dents were successful, and an additional21% (n=72) were successful at the lowlevel. At the time of the G2Y3 inter-view, 11% (n=42) of the respondents metthe high criteria for success; an additional29% (n=106) met the low criteria.


This section presents informationon the items where differences werefound to be ..?_15% between the twogroups at either the first interview (i.e.,between GlY1 and G2YI) or the third-year interview (i.e., between G1 Y3 andG2Y3); or the change from the first yearinterview to the third year interview was

34

substantial for one group but not theother.

Differences between Groups forthe Same Year. Two substantial differ-ences were found relative to financial as-sistance. For Year 1, fewer Group 2 thanGroup 1 individuals said they received nofinancial assistance from other sources;more Group 2 than Group 1 individualssaid they received financial help fromparents. A substantially greater percent-age of Group 1 than Group 2 persons atthe Year 1 interview said they had helpfrom family or friends in finding theirpresent job.

Differences between Groups inChanges from Years 1 to 3. For Group1, the following substantial changes oc-curred between Years 1 and 3: a decreasein the proportion of persons who werepaying some of their living expenses, andhad received help from family or friendsin finding their present job.

For Group 2, the following sub-stantial changes occurred between Years1 and 3: a decrease in the proportion ofpersons who were receiving financial as-sistance from parents, and had been em-ployed at their present job for less thansix months; and an increase in the pro-portion of persons who were receiving nofinancial assistance.

Conclusions regarding Compari-son. Fifteen variables and 59 categorieswithin variables were involved in this in-vestigation (e.g., Living Expenses, avariable, breaks down into 3 categories,All, Some, and None). For the subgroupof individuals from RTP programs, dif-ferences in comparisons were found for8% of the categories. Differences in theproportions of successful G2Y3 vs.G 1 Y3 individuals were 5% in favor ofG2Y1 when the low criteria were applied,and 5% in favor of G2Y3 when the highcriteria were applied.

4

Special Classes with Integration

General Status

Marital Status/Living Arrange-ments. Seventy-eight percent of theG2Y3 individuals who had attendedSCIN programs were single, a substantialdrop from Year 1 when 96% of the G2Y1persons were single (see Figure 35). Acorresponding substantial increase wasseen between Years 1 and 3 in the pro-portion of Group 2 individuals who weremarried (from 3% to 20%). Two sub-stantial changes were seen in the livingarrangements of respondents. Thirty-four percent of the G2Y3 individualswere living independently (compared to19% for G2Y1), and 53% of the G2Y3individuals were living with relatives(compared to 72% for G2Y1) (see Figure36).

Financial Status. A substantialincrease occurred between Years 1 and 3

rr

SINGLE

MARRIED

DIVORCED

OTHER

Fig. 35

0000

Io

1°2

20

00

among Group 2 respondents relative tothe proportion of individuals who werepaying all of their living expenses (from18% to 47%) (see Figure 37). A corre-sponding substantial decrease was ob-served among the respondents who saidthey were paying none of their living ex-penses (from 42% to 16%).Approximately two-thirds (67%) of theG2Y3 individuals reported receiving nofinancial assistance from other sources, asubstantial increase over Year 1 when31% of the G2Y1 individuals said theywere receiving no financial assistance(see Figure 38). A substantial drop oc-curred between Years 1 and 3 in the pro-portion of Group 2 individuals who saidthey receiving financial support from par-ents (59% to 23%).

Postsecondary Training. Almostone-half (47%) of the G2Y3 respondentshad not been involved in any type ofpostsecondary education or training pro-gram. Among those who did participate

MARITAL STATUS - SCIN

8278

01 G1 Y1 (n=60)G2Y1 (n=95)

GlY3 (n=28)G2Y3 (n=87)

96

111120.0 40.0 60.0 80.0

l'ER CENT

459

100.0

RELATIVERELATIVE

SUPERVISED

RESIDENTIAL

OTHER

0

Fig. 36 LIVING ARRANGEMENTS - SCIN

34

57

53

3°2

101

12

72

GIYI (n=59)

o G2YI (n=94)

GlY3 (n=28)

G2Y3 (n=87)

20 40 60

PERCENT

80 100

Fig. 37 PROPORTION OF EXPENSES PERSONS PAYSCIN

ALL

SOME

NONE

24

18

4447

51

40DI:iii:RDYMIII:1:13q4:11110I:!....,:::: 37

37

A 25

I 42

II 19

16

GIYI (n=59)

o G2YI (n=93)

o GI Y3 (n=27)

G2Y3 (n=87)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

36 j()

80 100

O

Fig. 38 SOURCES OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCESCIN

NO ASSISTANCE

PARENTS

DHS

SSI

55

12

/A 3nI 59

2923

213

67

121 G1Y1 (n=60)G2YI (n=95)

G1Y3 (n=28)G2Y3 (n=87)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

in such programs, community collegeswere most frequently mentioned (25%),followed by private training programs(12%). Less than 10% had served in themilitary or attended a four-year college.

Leisure Activities. Fifty-four per-cent of the G2Y3 individuals were in-volved in from 1-3 leisure activities.Thirty-two percent said they participatedin more than three recreational activities,while 14% reported they did not partici-pate in any leisure activities.


Slightly over three-fourths (78%)of the G2Y3 respondents were employed,all in competitive jobs. Another 5% wereotherwise engaged (i.e., homemakers,students, or in job training). The remain-ing 17% were unemployed. Over one-half (56%) had talked to Job Service ofIowa about employment opportunities,and 30% had contacted a JTPA agency

51

80 100

about work. Fourteen percent said theyhad talked with Vocational Rehabilitationabout getting a job. When respondentswere asked how they got their presentjob, 44% said they found it on their own,and 41% received help from family orfriends. Less than 10% said they werehelped by a school or community agencyin finding their current job.

The largest single category of jobclassification for G2Y3 individuals waslaborer (44%), followed by craftsman(18%), operative (15%), and serviceworker (13%, a substantial decrease overYear 1 when 29% were service workers)(see Figure 39). Two percent were em-ployed in clerical positions, and 8% wereworking in jobs classified as "other."Most (77%) employed persons wereworking full time; another 15% worked21-37 hours per week. The remainingindividuals were employed less than one-half time or seasonally. Forty-four per-cent of the G2Y3 individuals had beenemployed in their current job for less than

LABORER

SERVICE WORKER

OPERATIVE

CLERICAL

CRAFTSMAN

OTHER

Fig. 39 CURRENT JOB CLASSIFICATIONSCIN

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

six months, while 18% had worked at thesame job for over two years. Theremaining individuals persons had beenin their present job from 6-12 months(27%) or 1-2 years (12%).

The average wage per hour forG2Y3 individuals was $5.46, an increaseof $0.80 over the average wage per hourfor G2Y1 persons (see Figure 40).About one-half (46%) of the employedpersons received health insurance fromtheir employer, about one-third (34%) re-ceived vacation time, and only one-fourthreceived sick leave.

Perceptions of High Rim]

Respondents were asked abouttheir perceptions of their high school pro-gram during the interview. Ninety per-cent said their program was helpful orvery helpful in teaching them to deal ef-fectively with personal problems; a simi-lar percentage (89%) felt their programwas helpful or very helpful in teaching

38

G1Y1 (n=40)G2Y 1 (n=62)

G1Y3 (n=17)G2Y3 (n=68)

80 100

them practical reading skills. Somewhatfewer persons (82%) thought their pro-gram was helpful or very helpful inteaching them practical math skills.

Concerning the vocational aspectsof their training, 81% perceived their highschool program as helpful or very helpfulin teaching them how to keep a job.Eighty percent felt their program washelpful or very helpful in teaching themhow to find a job. However, only 63%said their program had been helpful orvery helpful in preparing them for theirpresent job.

Successful Persons

The composites that were used tojudge the level of adult adjustment for thetotal group also were applied to personswho had attended SCIN programs.When the high criteria were applied to theG2Y1 individuals, 4% (n=3) of the re-spondents were successful, and an addi-tional 15% (n=12) were successful at the

Fig. 40 WAGES EARNED FROM CURRENT JOBSCIN

GlY1

G2Y1

GlY3

G2Y3

(Data for wages wereunavailable for GlY1) .4 Minimum wage

$4.66

$5.01

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00

WAGES PER HOUR

low level. At the time of the G2Y3 in-terview, 7% (n=5) of the respondents metthe high criteria for success; an additional20% (n=14) met the low criteria.


This section presents informationon the items where differences werefound to be ?..15% between the twogroups at either the first interview (i.e.,between GlY1 and G2Y1) or the third-year interview (i.e., between G1 Y3 andG2Y3); or the change from the first yearinterview to the third year interview wassubstantial for one group but not theother.

Differences between Groups forthe Same Year. At Year 1, a substantiallylarger proportion of Group 1 than Group2 individuals were living independently,were receiving no financial assistance,had not received any postsecondary edu-cation or training, had talked to Job

$5.00

$5.46

$6.00

Service of Iowa about a job, had helpfrom family or friends in finding theircurrent job, and were employed for lessthan six months.

Also at Year 1, a substai :allylarger proportion of Group 2 than Group1 individuals were paying none of theirliving expenses, receiving financial assis-tance from parents, and perceived theirhigh school program and helpful or veryhelpful in preparing them for their currentjob.

At Year 3, a substantially largerproportion of Group 1 than Group 2 in-dividuals were living independently, wereunemployed, and were working as ser-vice workers.

Also at Year 3, a substantiallylarger proportion of Group 2 than Group1 individuals were living with relatives,were employed, were working as labor-ers, were working full time, and per-ceived their high school program andhelpful or very helpful in preparing themfor their current job.

Differences between Groups inchafigtainnituusiu. For Group1, the following substantial changes oc-curred between Years 1 and 3: a decreasein the proportion of persons who had notreceived any postsecondary education ortraining, had help from family or friendsin finding their present job, and wereworking 21-37 hours per week; and anincrease in the proportion of persons whowere employed as operatives, workedless than 21 hours per week, and receivedhealth insurance benefits from their em-ployer.

For Group 2, the following sub-stantial changes occurred between Years1 and 3: a decrease in the proportion ofpersons who were single, paid none oftheir living expenses, received financialassistance from parents, and were em-ployed as service workers; and an in-crease in the proportion of persons whowere married, and receiving no financialassistance.

Csnclusions regarding Compari-son. Fifteen variables and 59 categorieswithin variables were involved in this in-vestigation (e.g., Living Expenses, avariable, breaks down into 3 categories,All, Some, and None). For the subgroupof individuals from SCIN programs, dif-ferences in comparisons were found for36% of the categories. Differences in theproportions of successful G2Y3 vs.G1 Y3 individuals were 1% in favor ofG1Y3 when the low criteria were applied,and 3% in favor of G2Y3 when the highcriteria were applied.

By Graduation Status

Results in this part of the mono-graph are presented in two sections, oneinvolving graduates, and the otherdropouts.

40

Graduates

General Status

Marital Status/Living Arrange-ments. Three-fourths of the G2Y3 grad-uates were single, substantially fewerthan were single at the time of the Year 1interview when 92% were single (seeFigure 41). Almost one-fourth (23%)were married. A substantial increase wasobserved in the proportion of G2Y3graduates who were living independently(from 27% to 49%) (see Figure 42). Thepercentage who reported at the Year 3 in-terview (41%) that they were living withrelatives was substantially smaller than atthe Year 1 interview (64%).

Financial Status. Over one-half(54%) of the respondents said they werepaying all of their living expenses. Thiswas substantial more than the 26% whoreported at the Year 1 interview that theywere paying all of their living expenses(see Figure 43). A corresponding sub-stantial decrease was seen between Years1 and 3 in the proportion of Group 2 in-dividuals who were paying none of theirliving expenses (from 29% to 13%). Theremaining one-third of the respondentswere paying some of their living ex-penses. The majority (72%) of G2Y3individuals were not receiving any finan-cial assistance from other sources. Thisis a substantially larger percentage than atthe Year 1 interview when 41% reportedthey did not receive any financial assis-tance (see Figure 44). This shift is re-lated to the corresponding drop in theproportion of Group 2 individuals whowere getting financial support from par-ents (49% to 21%).

Postsecondary_ Training. Forty-six percent of the graduates had not par-ticipated in any postsecondary educationor training since leaving high school.Among those who did participate, themost commonly named program was in a

SINGLE

MARRIED

DIVORCED

OTHER

Fig. 41 MARITAL STATUS - GRADUATES

0

2

0

0

23

7775

9292

G1Y1 (n=365)G2Y1 (n=451)

G1Y3 (n=244)G2Y3 (n=460)

20 40 60

PERCENT

80 100

Fig. 42 LIVING ARRANGEMENTS - GRADUATES

INDEPENDENT

RELATIVE

SUPERVISED

RESIDENTIAL

OTHER

0

1

10

20 40 60

PERCENT

41 55

71

GIY1 (n=350)G2Y1 (n=449)

GI Y3 (n=242)G2Y3 (n=459)

80 100

Fig. 43 PROPORTION OF EXPENSES PERSONS PAYGRADUATES

ALL

SOME

NONE

2649

allaile3 382729

Iii1;!11illhl 13

13

45

54

52

GI Y I (n=364)

O G2Y1 (n=447)

El G I Y3 (n=239)G2Y3 (n=460)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

80 100

Fig. 44 SOURCES OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCEGRADUATES

NO ASSISTANCE

PARENTS

DHS

SS1

V A

534

3

2128

49

72

o GIY1 (n=367)o G2Y1 (n=451)

GlY3 (n=244)G2Y3 (n=460)

Bi

0 20 40

42

6(1

PERCENT

80 100

community college (27%), followed bythe military (10%) and private programs(9%). Only 5% of the graduates had at-tended a four-year college.

Leisure Activities. Approximatelytwo-thirds (64%) of the graduates saidthey participated in from 1-3 leisure ac-tivities. Twenty-six percent reported be-ing involved in more than three recre-ational activities. The remaining 10%said they did not participate in any leisureactivities.


The majority of graduates (85%)were employed; of these, 99% were incompetitive jobs. Another 5% were oth-erwise engaged as homemakers, stu-dents, or in job training programs. Arelatively small percentage (10%) wereunemployed. At each interview, thegraduates were asked how they wentabout seeking employment. Most (53%)said they contacted Job Service of Iowa,and 16% had talked to a JTPA agencyabout work. Ten percent of the graduateshad visited a Vocational Rehabilitationoffice and only 1% had contacted a shel-tered workshop about employmentopportunities. When asked how theyfound their present job, most reportedusing the self/family-friends network.That is, 49% found their current job ontheir own, and 37% had help from afamily member or friend in getting theirpresent job.

Twenty-nine percent of the grad-uates had jobs classified as laborers.Seventeen percent were employed asservice workers, a substantial decreaseover Year 1 when 32% of the G2Y1graduates were working in service occu-pations (see Figure 45). Another 19%worked as operatives, and a like numberwere craftsmen. Smaller percentageswere employed in clerical jobs (6%) andin other job classifications (10%). Mostemployed graduates (85%) were working

43

full time, which was a substantial in-crease over Year 1 when 67% of theG2Y1 were employed full time (seeFigure 46). An additional 11% workedbetween 21-37 hours per week, and theremaining persons worked less than half-time or seasonally. Two substantialshifts occurred relative to length of timegraduates employed in their present job.Twenty-nine percent of the G2Y3 gradu-ates had held their present job for lessthan six months, down from the 46%who had been in the same job for lessthan six months at the time of the Year 1interview (see Figure 47). A similar pro-portion (30%) of the G2Y3 graduates hadbeen in the same job for more than twoyears, which was an increase over the 8%of G2Y1 graduates who had been in theircurrent job over two years.

The average wage per hour forG2Y3 graduates was $5.59, an increaseof $1.18 over the average hourly wagefor G2Y1 graduates (see Figure 48).Two substantial increases were observedconcerning fringe benefits received byemployed graduates, both of which werevery similar in magnitude. At the Year 3interview, about one-half of the G2Y3graduates reported receiving health insur-ance and vacation time (53% and 52%,respectively); at the Year 1 interview, thecorresponding percentages were 35% and34%, respectively (see Figure 49).


During each interview, graduateswere asked about their perceptions of thehelpfulness of their high school programin teaching them critical skills. Most per-sons held positive views of their highschool programs. Eighty-seven percentsaid their program was helpful or veryhelpful in teaching them to deal effec-tively with their personal problems.Ninety-two percent reported that theirprogram had been helpful or very helpfulin teaching them practical reading skills;77% held the same view of their training

LABORER

SERVICE WORKER

OPERATIVE

CLERICAL

CRAFTSMAN

OTHER

Fig. 45 CURRENT JOB CLASSIFICATIONGRADUATES

2

11

r AMIMI I:

0

19

15

El GI Y1 (n=286)o G2YI (n=335)

GI Y3 (n=202)G2Y3 (n=390)

20 40 60

PERCENT80 100

Cl)

0

Fig. 46

>37

21- 37

<21

OTHER

NUMBER OF HOURS WORKEDGRADUATES

PER WEEKV.85

2320

1411

7 A 10111111 8

52 Ea GI Y1 (n=286)

o G2YI (n=341)

o GI Y3 (n=204)G2Y3 (n=390)

7 A 6.111 5

22

0 20 40

44

60

PERCENT

5 Li

80 100

Fig. 47 LENGTH OF TIME IN CURRENT JOBGRADUATES

<6 MONTHS

6 TO 12 MONTHS

I TO 2 YEARS

>2 YEARS

2019

720

16

29

26

23

27

imam 3330

46

GIY1 (n=285)G2Y1 (n=341)G1Y3 = 204)G2Y3 (n = 389)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

80

Fig. 48 WAGES EARNED FROM CURRENT JOBGRADUATES

GIY1

G2Y1

GI Y3

G2Y3

(Data for wages wereunavailable for GIY1) 4 Minimum wage

$4.41

$5.32

$5.59

100

$0.00 $1.001

$2.00 $3.00 $4.00

WAGES PER HOUR

45 5;2

$5.00 $6.00

zDa

Fig. 49 JOB BENEFITS RECEIVED - GRADUATES

HEALTH INSURANCE

VACATION

SICK LEAVE

ij MIMINI1011111111E11 I ifitifilifill

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111EMIEM

/11111111E1I11 IIIIIIM

224

1.11

3135

5153

5152

13 GI YI (n=338)G2Y1 (n=342)

G1 Y3 (n=203)G2Y3 (n=390)

0 20

in practical math skills.Graduates also were asked about

the vocational training they received inhigh school. Seventy-nine percent saidtheir program was helpful or very helpfulin training them on how to keep a job; asimilar percentage (78%) held the sameview of their training on finding employ-ment. When asked about preparation fortheir present job, 63% believed their highschool program had been helpful or veryhelpful.

Successful Persons

The composites that were used tojudge the level of adult adjustment for thetotal group also were applied to graduatesof special education programs. When thehigh criteria were applied to the G2Y1individuals, 9% (n=33) of the respon-dents were successful, and an additional21% (n=78) were successful at the lowlevel. At the time of the G2Y3 inter-view, 10% (n=42) of the respondents met

40 60

PERCENT

46

80 100

the high criteria for success; an additional28% (n=112) met the low criteria.


This section presents informationon the items where differences werefound to be ?.15% between the twogroups at either the first interview (i.e.,between G1Y1 and G2Y1) or the third-year interview (i.e., between GlY3 andG2Y3); or the change from the first yearinterview to the third year interview wassubstantial for one group but not theother.

Differences between Groups forthe Same Year. At the Year 1 interview,substantially more Group 1 than Group 2graduates reported they were receiving nofinancial assistance from other sources.Conversely, at the same interview, sub-stantially more Group 2 than Group 1graduates said they were receiving mone-tary support from their parents. Also at

co

the Year 1 interview, a larger proportionof Group 1 than Group 2 graduates indi-cated that they had received help fromfamily or friends in finding their currentjob.

Differences between Groups inChanges from Years 1 to 3. For Group1, the following substantial changes oc-curred between Years 1 and 3: a decreasein the proportion of persons who foundtheir present job with the assistance offamily or friends; and an increase in theproportion of persons who found theircurrent job on their own.

For Group 2, the following sub-stantial changes occurred between Years1 and 3: a decrease in the proportion ofpersons who were paying none of theirliving expenses, were receiving financialassistance from parents, held jobs asservice workers, and had been employedin their current job for less than sixmonths; and an increase in the proportionof persons who were married, and werereceiving no financial assistance fromothers.

Conclusions regarding Compari-son. Fifteen variables and 59 categorieswithin variables were involved in this in-vestigation (e.g., Living Expenses, avariable, breaks down into 3 categories,All, Some, and None). For the subgroupof graduates, differences in comparisonswere found for 8% of the categories.Differences in the proportions of success-ful G2Y3 vs. GI Y3 individuals were 5%in favor of G 1 Y3 when the low criteriawere applied, and 4% in favor of G2Y3when the high criteria were applied.

Dropouts

General Status

Marital Status/Living Arrange-ments. About two-thirds (68%) of thedropouts were single at the time of theYear 3 interview. Substantially more

dropouts (85%) were single at the Year 1interview (see Figure 50). One-fourth ofthe G2Y3 dropouts were married. Themajority (55%) of the G2Y3 dropoutswere living independently, a substantialincrease over G2Y1 dropouts (26%) (seeFigure 51). A corresponding drop wasobserved between Years I and 3 in theproportion of dropouts who were livingwith relatives (from 65% to 34%).

Financial Status. Substantiallymore G2Y3 than G2Y1 dropouts werepaying all of their living expenses (44%vs. 22%) (see Figure 52). Conversely,substantially fewer G2Y3 than G2Y1dropouts were paying none of their livingexpenses (12% vs. 40%).Approximately one-half (51%) of the re-spondents said they received no financialassistance from others. There was asubstantial drop from Years 1 to 3 in thepercentage of dropouts who reported re-ceiving monetary assistance from parents(from 42% to 26%) (see Figure 53).

Postsecondary Training. Aboutone-half of the respondents (49%) saidthey had not participated in any type ofeducation or training program sincedropping out of high school. Amongpersons who had been involved in suchtraining, community college programswere most frequently mentioned (19%),followed by private training programs(8%). Four percent had served in themilitary.

Leisure Activities. Forty-sevenpercent of the G2Y3 dropouts indicatedthey were involved in from 1-3 leisureactivities, which was a substantial declineover G2Y1 dropouts of whom 70% hadparticipated in from 1-3 recreational pas-times (see Figure 54). Thirty-four per-cent of the respondents were participantsin over four leisure activities. Nineteenpercent said they had no leisure time en-deavors.

47 6 1

SINGLE

MARRIED

DIVORCED

OTHER

Fig. 50 MARITAL STATUS - DROPOUTS

0

4

4

0

33

20 40 60

PERCENT

68

8589

121 GI Y1 (n=55)G2Y1 (n=66)

o GI Y3 (n=27)G2Y3 (n=53)

80 100

Fig. 51 LIVING ARRANGEMENTS - DROPOUTS

INDEPENDENT

RELATIVE

SUPERVISED

RESIDENTIAL

33

11

OTHER11

34

67

:3

65

M G1 YI (n=52)0 G2Y1 (n=65)

GI Y3 (n=27)III G2Y3 (n=53)

I

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

48

80 100

Fig. 52 PROPORTION OF EXPENSES PERSONS PAYDROPOUTS

ALL

SOME

NONE

20

22

i III:1111:11111 41

44

26

30

38

3312

40

44

50

GI YI (n=54)

o G2YI (n65)

O G1Y3 (n=27)

G2Y3 (n=52)

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

80 100

Fig. 53 SOURCES OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCEDROPOUTS

er/ 53

NO ASSISTANCE5251

PARENTS 42

26

18

DHS30

0

SSI 000

0

D GI YI (n=55)

o G2YI (n)6)

O GI Y3 (n=27)

G2Y3 (n=53)

20 40 60

PERCENT

49

63

80 100

Fig. 54 NUMBER OF LEISURE ACTIVITIES IN WHICHDROPOUTS ARE INVOLVED

>6 ACTIVITIES 5

n

19

4-6 ACTIVITIES 1515

ao

1-3 ACTIVITIES

NONE 1419

0 20

E3 GIY1 (N/A)G2Y1 (n:6)G1Y3 (n=27)G2Y3 (n=53)

47

7070


About two-thirds of the dropouts(68%) were employed at the time of theYear 3 interview, all of whom had com-petitive jobs. An additional 11% wereotherwise engaged (i.e., homemakers,students, or in job training programs).Almost one-fourth (21%) were unem-ployed. Respondents were asked duringthe interview about whom they had talkedto concerning employment opportunities.The most common response was JobService of Iowa (55%), followed by aJTPA agency (23%). Four percent hadtalked to Vocational Rehabilitation, andnone had contacted a sheltered workshopabout work. When asked how theyfound their present job, about one-half(51%) said they found it on their own,and 46% had help from family or friends.None reported receiving help from aschool or community agency.

Most dropouts (53%) were em-ployed as laborers at the time of the Year

40 60

PERCENT

50

80 100

3 interview. This was a substantial in-crease over the proportion (29%) whowere laborers at the time of the Year 1interview (see Figure 55). Seventeenpercent of the G2Y3 respondents wereservice workers, down substantially from40% of the G2Y1 respondents who heldsimilar jobs. An additional 14% wereoperatives, followed by 8% who werecraftsmen and 8% who had job; classi-fied as "other." Approximately two-thirds (69%) of the employed dropoutsworked full tune; another 22% workedfrom 21-37 hours per week. The remain-ing employed dropouts worked less thanhalf-time or seasonally. One-fourth ofthe G2Y3 respondents said they had beenin the same job for over two years, asubstantir a increase over the percentagefound for G2Y1 dropouts (6%) (seeFigure 56). Another 17% of the dropoutshad worked at the same job from 1-2years. Substantially fewer dropouts hadbeen in the same job for 6-12 months atthe time of the Year 3 vs. Year 1 inter-

6 4

LABORER

SERVICE WORKER

OPERATIVE

CLERICAL

CRAFTSMAN

OTHER

Fig. 55 CURRENT JOB CLASSIFICATIONDROPOUTS

0

17

40

56

53

20 40 60

PERCENT

O G1Y1 (n=32)o G2Y1 (n=35)

G1Y3 (n=15)G2Y3 (n=36)

w

80

Fig. 56 LENGTH OF TIME IN CURRENT JOBDROPOUTS

<6 MONTHS

6 TO 12 MONTHS

1 TO 2 YEARS

>2 YEARS

45

5339

3720

19

20

17 GIY1(n= 31)1:1 G2Y1 (n = 35)

I11 GlY3(n= 15)G2Y3 (n = 36)

13EN .

25

100

0 20 40 60

PERCENT

'51 0.)

80 100

view (19% compared to 37%). Aboutone-third (39%) had been employed intheir present job for less than six months.

The average hourly wage forG2Y3 dropouts was $5.23, an increaseof $0.78 over the hourly wage of G2Y1dropouts (see Figure 57). Substantialdeclines were observed between Years 1and 3 in the proportion of employeddropouts who were receiving health in-surance (from 46% to 31%), vacationtime (from 49% to 25%) and sick leave(from 34% to 17%) (see Figure 58).


Dropouts were asked about theirperceptions of their high school pro-grams. Seventy-seven percent said theirprogram had been helpful or very helpfulin teaching them to handle their personalproblems. The same percentage reportedthat their program had been helpful orvery helpful in teaching them practicalreading skills. A smaller percentage(62%) indicated that their program hadbeen helpful or very helpful in teachingthem practical math skills.

The vocational aspects of highschool programs received lower ratingsfrom dropouts. Fifty-seven percent saidtheir program had been helpful or veryhelpful in teaching them how to keep ajob. Sixty-three percent perceived theirprogram as being helpful or very helpfulin teaching them how to find a job. Only44% said they felt their high school pro-gram was helpful or very helpful inpreparing them for their present job.

Successful Persons

The composites that were used tojudge the level of adult adjustment for thetotal group also were applied to highschool dropouts. When the high criteriawere applied to the G2Y1 individuals,6% (n=3) of the respondents were suc-cessful, and an additional 13% (n=7)were successful at the low level. At the

52

time of the G2Y3 interview, 15% (n=7)of the respondents met the high criteriafor success; an additional 19% (n=9) metthe low criteria.


This section presents informationon the items where differences werefound to be 15% between the twogroups at either the first interview (i.e.,between GlY1 and G2Y1) or the third-year interview (i.e., between G1 Y3 andG2Y3); or the change from the first yearinterview to the third year interview wassubstantial for one group but not theother.

Differences between Groups forthe Same Year. At Year 1, a substantiallylarger proportion of Group 1 than Group2 individuals had received help fromfamily or friends in getting their presentjob, and were employed as laborers.

Also at Year 1, a substantiallylarger proportion of Group 2 than Group1 individuals were receiving financial as-sistance from parents, employed as ser-vice workers, working full time, receiv-ing health insurance as a fringe benefit,receiving vacation time as a fringe bene-fit, receiving sick leave as a fringe bene-fit, and perceived their high school pro-gram as being helpful or very helpful inpreparing them for their present job.

At Year 3, a substantially largerproportion of Group 1 than Group 2 in-dividuals were paying none of their livingexpenses, receiving financial assistancefrom the Department of Human Services,participating in from 1-3 leisure activities,had talked to Job Service of Iowa aboutemployment, receiving health insuranceas a fringe benefit, and receiving vacationtime as a fringe benefit.

Also at Year 3, a substantiallylarger proportion of Group 2 than Group1 individuals were paying some of theirliving expenses, participating in morethan six leisure activities, and perceived

a

Fig. 57 WAGES EARNED FROM CURRENT JOBDROPOUTS

GIYI

G2YI

GI Y3

G2Y3

(Data for wages wereunavailable for GIYI) Minimum wage

$4.45

$4.62

$5.23

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00

WAGES PER HOUR

Fig. 58 JOB BENEFITS RECEIVED - DROPOUTS

HEALTH INSURANCE

VACATION

SICK LEAVE

2446

17

31

17

25

34

17

4947

53

Ea GIY1 (n=42)G2Y1 (n=35)

GIY3 (n=15)G2Y3 (n=36)

20 40 60

PERCENT

53 67

80 100

their high school program as being help-ful or very helpful in preparing them fortheir present job.

Differences between Groups inChanges from Years 1 to 3. For Group1, the following substantial changes oc-curred between Years 1 and 3: a decreasein the proportion of persons who werepaying some of their living expenses, andworking less than 21 hours per week, ;and an increase in the proportion of per-sons who were married, working fulltime, and receiving health insurance andvacation time.

For Group 2, the following sub-stantial changes occurred between Years1 and 3: a decrease in the proportion ofpersons who were paying none of theirliving expenses; receiving financial helpfrom parents; participating in from 1-3leisure activities; employed as serviceworkers; had been employed at their cur-rent job from 6-12 months; and receivinghealth insurance, vacation time, or sickleave; and an increase in the proportion ofpersons employed as laborers, and hadbeen employed in their current job furover two years.

Conclusions regarding Compari-son. Fifteen variables and 59 categorieswithin variables were involved in this in-vestigation (e.g., Living Expenses, avariable, breaks down into 3 categories,All, Some, and None). For the subgroupof dropouts, differences in comparisonswere found for 27% of the categories.Differences in the proportions of success-ful G2Y3 vs. GlY3 individuals 1:'ere 1%in favor of G1Y3 when the low criteriawere applied, and 7% in favor of G2Y3when the high criteria were applied.

DISCUSSION

This section is organized to re-spond to four major questions.

1. What major changes occurred in

54

the adult adjustment of individualswith learning disabilities in theperiod from one to three years af-ter their high school class had leftschool?

2. What was the level of adult ad-justment of individuals withlearning disabilities three yearsafter their high school class hadbeen graduated?

3. Do the data on the two separategroups of individuals (Groups 1and 2) indicate a true replicationof the results?

4. What implications do the results ofthis study have for programmingin our schools and for the transi-tion planning process?

Within each section we also dis-cuss major differences between individu-als by gender, by program model (RTPvs. SCIN), and by graduation status(graduates vs. dropouts). It should benoted that dropouts were kept with theiroriginal high school class for the purposeof this study, although they may havedropped out anytime during their highschool years. Thus, dropouts were outof school a minimum of three years andpossibly as many as six or seven years atthe time of the second interview.

Major Chances in Adult Adjustment 1 vs.3 Years after Graduation

The first major focus of this studywas changes which occurred in the adultadjustment of individuals with learningdisabilities between one and three yearsafter graduation, in most cases with littleor no transition planning assistance.Table 5 presents a summary of significantimprovements on the key variables forGroup 2, between one and three years outof school. As mentioned before, we havedefined a "significant improvement" as achange of greater than or equal to 15% inthe desired direction. It should be re-membered, however, that although a

TA

BL

E 5

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

IM

PRO

VE

ME

NT

S O

N K

EY

VA

RIA

BL

ES

BE

TW

EE

N G

2Y1

AN

I) G

2Y3

Tot

al G

roup

Sub

grou

ps

Gra

duat

esD

ropo

uts

Mal

esF

emal

es12

T1)

SC

1N1

Var

iabl

eY

32.

..15%

Y3

>15

%Y

3>

15%

0Y

3_1

5(70

Y3

>15

%Y

315

c,",

i,Y

3.1

5%

C ie

ncra

l Sta

tus

Live

s in

depe

nden

tly49

+45

+65

+53

+34

+49

+55

+l'a

ys a

ll liv

ing

expe

nses

53+

54+

50+

55+

47+

54+

44+

No

finan

cial

ass

ista

nce

70+

72+

63+

70+

67+

72+

51

Em

ploy

men

t Sta

tus

Ful

l-tim

e w

ork

83+

8768

+85

+77

85+

69W

ages

(-I

- .5

0/hr

)5.

56+

5.81

+4.

60+

5.59

+5.

46+

5.59

+5.

23+

Hea

lth in

sura

nce

51+

54+

4153

+46

53+

31

Vac

atio

n50

+49

53+

53+

3452

+25

Sic

k le

ave

3029

3331

2531

17

Not

e. T

he Y

3 co

lum

n in

dica

tes

the

perc

enta

ge (

exce

pt fo

r W

ages

) of

res

pond

ents

who

rep

orte

d th

e le

vel s

tate

d at

the

Yea

r 3

inte

rvie

w.

A +

in th

e15

(70

colu

mn

indi

cate

s th

iit a

n in

crea

se .1

5% (

exce

pt fo

r W

ages

whe

re a

+ in

dica

tes

an in

crea

se o

f $.5

0/10

was

foun

dfr

om W

Y I

to G

21/3

.

significant improvement may have oc-curred in a specific category, the end re-sult may still not be an acceptable level ofadjustment.

As indicated in Table 5, therewere a number of positive shifts in thegeneral status variables in the period fromone to three years out of school. In fact,there were significant shifts in all threegeneral status variables for the total groupas well as for all subgroups with only asingle exception concerning dropouts,where the shift relative to financial assis-tance was not substantial. Among theemployment status variables listed inTable 5, wages provides the most consis-tent positive finding, where the totalgroup and all subgroups realized at least a$0.50 per hour increase in wages be-tween Years 1 and 3. The employmentstatus variable which produced the mostconsistent lack of change concerned sickleave, where neither the total group norany of the subgroups reported a substan-tial increase. When both general statusand employment status variables are con-sidered together, the total group, RTPindividuals, and graduates showed thebroadest gains in adult adjustment (in 7out of 8 variables). Dropouts experi-enced the least number of gains in adultadjustment (in only 3 out of 8 variables).

Adult Adjustment Three Years afterLeaving School

Even though a number of positiveshifts were observed for the total groupand the subgroups from Years 1 to 3, thequestion remains concerning how suc-cessful these individuals were relative totheir overall adjustment as young adults.Using the criteria of "success" which wehave proposed, 11% of the total Group 2met the high standard of success and anadditional 27% met the low criteria threeyears out of school. Only minor differ-ences were observed between males andfemales relative to "success;" 11% vs.10%, respectively, met the high criteria,

and 28% vs. 24%, respectively, met thelow criteria. Among RTP vs. SCIN in-dividuals, the differences were smallbetween those who met the high criteria(11% vs. 7%); somewhat larger differ-ences were observed between those whomet the low criteria (29% vs. 20%). Theproportion of dropouts who met the highcriteria for success exceeded that forgraduates (15% vs. 10%, respectively);the reverse was true among those whomet the low criteria for success (28% forgraduates, 19% for dropouts).

About one-half of the individualswere living independently, and a similarproportion reported paying all of theirliving expenses. In addition, 70% saidthey received no financial assistance fromparents or other sources. Eighty-threepercent of the total group was employed,and the rate of full-time employmentamong those with jobs was 83%. Theaverage wage per hour among employedpersons was $5.56, with one-half receiv-ing health insurance and vacation time asa job benefit. Slightly less than one-halfreported they had not received any post-secondary education.

The results for males vs. femaleswere mixed relative to the major adultadjustment variables. Substantially morefemales than males were living indepen-dently. Conversely, substantially moremales than females were employed, in-cluding the proportion working full time.In addition, males earned a higher aver-age wage than females. Comparisons ofindividuals by program model attendedyielded only two substantial differences.More RTP than SCIN individuals wereliving independently. In addition, sub-stantially more RTP than SCIN individu-als received a paid vacation as a job ben-efit. Several substantial differences wereevident between graduates and dropouts,all suggesting a more favorable outcomefor graduates. More graduates reportedreceiving no financial assistance fromparents or other sources. A comparisonof graduates and dropouts relative to em-

56

ployment substantially favored graduates,this finding also held for full-time em-ployment. Further, more graduates thandropouts were receiving health insuranceand paid vacations as part of their em-ployment.

Comparisons of Groups 1 and 2

One of the goals of the IowaStatewide Follow-up Study was to collectdata on different graduating classes todetermine if the results were consistentacross classes. In this monograph wehave addressed the comparability ofGroups 1 and 2 for the same number ofyears out of school and in changes fromYears 1 and 3. The groups were similarin terms of general functioning levelwhile in high school as measured by thelast formal tests administered beforegraduation, and by their last programplacement. Fifteen variables and 59 cate-gories within variables were involved inthis investigation. Fourteen percent ofthe categories showed a major differencebetween Groups 1 and 2 for the totalgroup. A review of the figures in theResults section shows some of the simi-larities and some differences betweenGroups 1 and 2.

For the subgroup of males, dif-ferences were found for 15% of the cate-gories; for females, differences werefound for 19% of the categories.Comparisons by program model attendedrevealed that for individuals from RTPprograms, differences were found for 8%of the categories; for individuals fromSCIN programs, differences were foundfor 36% of the categories. For the sub-group of graduates, differences werefound for 8% of the categories; fordropouts, differences were found for27% of the categories. The two sub-groups with the most differences (SCINand dropouts) also involved the smallestnumbers of individuals.

What we have found in this studyappears to indicate that the conclusions

drawn for the total group, for males andfemales, for RTP individuals, and forgraduates have general applicability toadjacent graduating classes, but that morecaution needs to be exercised in generaliz-ing the results for SCIN individuals anddropouts across graduating classes.

Implications for Programming and Tran-sition Planning

The implications which these re-sults have for programming in ourschools and for the entire transition plan-ning process are complicated by threefactors. First, the longer individuals areout of school, the less confidence we canhave in attributing success or lack of suc-cess solely to the school program.Second, when differences in the adultadjustment of individuals from differentprogram models occur, they may be a re-sult of the differing functioning levels ofthe individuals, the differing curricula andother experiences offered in each pro-gram, or an interaction between the two.Third, the interview process itself and theresulting contact between the individualand interviewer in the one year interviewmay have constituted an intervention thatwould not otherwise have existed. Anumber of interviewers indicated that theyanswered specific questions or providedassistance to individuals concerningwhere to go for help.

With these factors in mind, we dofeel that the results of this study suggest anumber of implications for families, theindividual, school personnel, and youthand adult service providers as they worktogether in the transition planning pro-cess. Without formal transition planningor assistance in the transition process,many individuals with learning disabili-ties made less than acceptable progresstoward adult adjustment in .ie periodfrom one to three years out of school. Toincrease the overall adult adjustment ofthese individuals we recommend changesin both the in-school and post-school

phases of their lives.In the in-school phase more em-

phasis needs to be placed on laying thefoundation for successful transition toadult life. Future adult living, working,and educational environments need to beidentified with the individual and his/herfamily and planning toward these envi-ronments needs to begin no later than ju-nior high school. This transition plan-ning needs to be fully implemented intothe Individualized Educational Program(rEP) process and drive the developmentof goals and objectives within the IEP.

In the post-school phase of theindividual's preparation a system of sup-port needs to be provided to assist theindividual in crossing the bridge to adultlife and to adjust in the early phases ofadulthood. The Iowa Transition Modelincludes an Adult Living componentwhich includes the following action steps:

1. Continue time-limited support ofthe individual as needed in his/hermovement from school into adultlife.

2. Convene a meeting of the multi-disciplinary team comprised of theindividual, his/her family, educa-tors and adult service providers,at least yearly if the need for ser-vices continues.

3. Ensure that the individual is awareof whom to call and when, ifneeded.

4. Ensure that service providers andothers communicate on an ongo-ing basis to serve as a network forindividuals to use, as needed.

5. Expand efforts to implement afollow-up process whereby ongo-ing support and re-entry into thetransition planning process canoccur as needed and desired byindividuals.

makethree

The individuals in this study didprogress in the period from one toyears out of school, but this

58

progress was limited for many, and theresulting level of adult adjustment wasless than acceptable. Effective transitionplanning that involves the individual, thefamily, educators, and adult serviceproviders holds the key to assisting indi-viduals with learning disabilities to reachtheir potential as contributing members ofour society.

References

deBettencourt, L., Zigmond, N., & Thornton, H. (1989). Followup of postsecondary-age rural learning disabled graduates and dropouts. Exceptional Children, 56, 40-49.

Clark, D., Hayden, D., & Lezzer, L. (1987). The effectiveness of special educationprograms: Rethinking the initiative. Unpublished manuscript, Division of SpecialEducation, Maryland Department of Education, Baltimore.

Edgar, E. (1987). Secondary programs in special education: Are many of themjustifiable? Exceptional Children, 53, 555-561.

Halpern, A. (1990). A methodological review of follow-up and follow-along studiestracking school leavers from special education. Career Development for ExceptionalIndividuals, 13-27.

Halpern, A., & Benz, M. (1987). A statewide examination of secondary special educationfor students with mild disabilities: Implications for the high school curriculum.Exceptional Children, 54, 122-129.

Hasazi, S., Gordon, L., & Roe, C. (1985). Factors associated with the employmentstatus of handicapped youth exiting high school from 1979 to 1983. ExceptionalChildren, 51, 455-469.

Hasazi, S., Johnson, R., Hasazi, J., Gordon, L., & Hull, M. (1989). Employment ofyouth with and without handicaps following high school: Outcomes and correlates.Journal of Special Education, 23, 243-255.

Humes, C., & Brammer, G. (1985). LD career success after high school. AcademicTherapy, 21, 171-176.

Kranstover, L., Thurlow, M., & Bruininks, R. (1989). Special education graduatesversus non-graduates: A longitudinal study of outcomes. Career Development forExceptional Individuals, 12, 153-166.

Mithaug, D., Horiuchi, C., & Fanning, P. (1985). A report on the Colorado statewidefollow-up survey of special education students. Exceptional Children, 51, 397404.

Okolo, C., & Sitlington, P. (1988). The role of special education in LD adolescents'transition from school to work. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 292-306.

Roessler, R., Brolin, D., & Johnson, J. (1990). Factors affecting employment successand quality of life: A one year follow-up of students in special education. CareerDevelopment for Exceptional Individuals, 13, 95-107.

Schalock, R., Wolzen, B., Ross, I., Elliott, B., Werbel, G., & Peterson, K. (1986).Post-secondary community placement of handicapped students: A five-year follow-up.Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 295-303.

7459

Sitlington, P., & Frank, A. (1990). Are adolescents with learning disabilities successfullycrossing the bridge into adult life? Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 97-111.

Sitlington, P., Frank, A., & Carson, R. (1993). Adult adjustment among graduates withmild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 221-233.

SPSS-X User's Guide (2nd ed.) [Computer program manual]. (1986). Chicago: SPSS,Inc.

Valdes, K., Williamson, C., & Wagner, M. (1990). The National Longitudinal TransitionStudy of Special Education Students. Statistical almanac, volume 2: Youth categorizedas learning disabled. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M., D'Amico, R., Marder, C., Newman, L., & Blackorby, J. (1992). Whathappens next? Trends in postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. The secondcomprehensive report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of SpecialEducation Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

White, W., Schumaker, J., Warner, M., Alley, G., & Deshler, D. (1980). The currentstatus of young adults identified as learning disabled during their school career(Research Report No. 21). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Institute forResearch in Learning Disabilities.

Zigmond, N., & Thornton, H. (1985). Follow-up of postsecondary age learning disabledgraduates and dropouts. Learning Disabilities Research, 1, 50-55.

60

document resume ed 368 132 ec 302 888 author sitlington, … · 2014-05-07 · document resume ed...

Documents