Data Note: State Intellectual and Developmental Disability Agencies’ Service Trends

In FY2011, an estimated 570,406 individuals received day or employment supports from state IDD program agencies. This number grew from 458,650 in FY1999. The estimated number of individuals in integrated employment services increased from 108,296 in FY1999 to 110,295 in FY2011. State investment continues to emphasize facility-based and non-work services, rather than integrated employment services. Figure 1 shows the trends in the percentage of people served in integrated employment and facilitybased and non-work settings between FY2004 and FY2011

Data Note: State Intellectual and Developmental Disability Agencies\u27 Service Trends

In FY2012, an estimated 605,680 individuals received day or employment supports from state IDD program agencies. This number grew from 457,405 in FY1999. The estimated number of individuals in integrated employment services increased from 108,680 in FY1999 to 111,670 in FY2012. State investment continues to emphasize facility-based and non-work services, rather than integrated employment services

Data Note: Patterns of State, County, and Local ID/DD Funding Allocation

State, County, and Local ID/DD dollars are one of the largest sources of funds for day and employment services; additionally as a funding source that is directly controlled within each state it is one of the most flexible sources of dollars for day and employment services. The allocation of these funds varied based upon year and service category: integrated employment, community based non-work, facility based work, and facility based non-work

Data Note: State Intellectual and Developmental Disability Agencies’ Service Trends

In FY2010, an estimated 566,188 individuals received day or employment supports from state intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) agencies. This number grew from 458,650 in FY1999, a 23.4 percent increase. The estimated number of individuals supported in integrated employment services increased from 108,296 in FY1999 to 113,937 in FY2010, a 5.2% increase. State investment in supports continues to emphasize facility-based and non-work services rather than integrated employment services

Data Note: Are Young Adults With Intellectual Disabilities Getting Work Experiences from Participating in the Vocational Rehabilitation Program?

To learn about whether young adults with intellectual disabilities in the vocational rehabilitation (VR) program are getting work experience, we examined the age at application of people with intellectual disabilities who exited the VR program in 2012

Data Note: Vocational Rehabilitation Closure Trends for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities: A Snapshot of Five U.S. Territories

Beginning in FY2013, the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities requested that each Project of National Significance include the five primary territories of the United States in data collection and analysis efforts. The five territories included in this analysis are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States

Partnerships in Employment: Benchmarking Toolkit

Policy shifts over the past 20 years have created an agenda that calls for a sustained commitment to integrated employment for individuals with disabilities. But despite these clear intentions, unemployment of individuals with disabilities continues to be a major public policy issue. For people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), the disparity in labor market participation grows. Data suggest only 14.7% of individuals who receive supports from state IDD agencies work in either individual or group integrated employment, and 19% of individuals who receive day services from a state IDD agency participate in a service designed to support integrated employment (Butterworth, Hall, Smith, Migliore, Winsor, Domin, & Sulewski, 2013; Human Services Research Institute, 2012). At the same time, participation in sheltered or facility-based employment and non-work services has grown steadily, suggesting that employment services continue to be viewed as an add-on service rather than a systemic change (Butterworth et al., 2013; Mank, Cioffi, & Yovanoff, 2003). Data on the state of employment for individuals with disabilities (as briefly synthesized above) is available through a myriad of data collection systems. A growing emphasis on government accountability at the state and federal levels has increased interest in the collection and use of data on employment outcomes. However, many disability data systems are only loosely coordinated across various agencies, and many state service systems have fragmented and incomplete data systems in place. Stapleton & Thornton (2009, p.4) note that “(a)lthough the challenges to improving the data are substantial, they pale in comparison to the likely consequences of failing to do so, both for people with disabilities and for taxpayers.” This toolkit is designed to provide guidance on how to use currently available national and state-level aggregate data sets to weave together a picture of the employment outcomes of transition-age youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Data sets are grouped by the type of data they report: agencylevel data, and general employment trend data

Insights Into Changes in Employment and Day Services Data From IDD Agencies During COVID-19

The COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) had a major impact on people with disabilities and the services they receive. This brief explores the impact of PHE on employment and day services of people with IDD. The focus of this product is the National Survey of State Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Agencies’ Employment and Day Services (IDD survey) and its data collection in FY2020 and FY2021. We explore the feedback from state IDD agencies on the data shifts resulting from PHE and we summarize the themes observed

State Intellectual and Developmental Disability Agencies’ Funding for Employment Services, FY 2019

In FY2019, states continued to vary in their ability to report on the services they provided to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and the amount of funding allocated to employment and non-work services. This Data Note examines the percentage of funds allocated to integrated employment

Data Note: Growth in Community-based Non-work

Understanding the role of community-based non-work (CBNW) services is complex. While different data sources suggest different levels of investment, there is consistent evidence that the service is being used more frequently. The number of states reporting that they provide CBNW services on the IDD Agency Survey grew from 18 in FY1996 to 30 in FY2010. Nationally, the reported participation in CBNW services has grown steadily for states that report it as a service, from 18.7% in FY1999 to 47% in FY2010. CBNW services also accounted for 57.7% of state IDD (Intellectual and Developmental Disability) agency expenditures for FY2010, for states that reported expenditures for this service (n=27). Data collected directly from community rehabilitation providers (CRPs) on the 2010-2011 National Survey of Community Rehabilitation Providers suggest a lower level of participation in CBNW, only 16.4% in 2010. However, over time CRPs have also reported growth in CBNW, from 10% for the 2001-2002 CRP Survey to 16.4% in 2010 (Domin and Butterworth, 2012). CRP and IDD agency responses are not directly comparable, and may reflect differing approaches to reporting duplication of service. The disparity raises concerns about how state agencies are defining and categorizing services. There is currently a limited amount of data on the structure, activities, and outcomes of this service, and states have not established clear service expectations or quality-assurance strategies (Sulewski, Butterworth, & Gilmore, 2008; Sulewski, 2010). While some states report service requirements for how much time CBNW participants spend in the community, it is possible that in some cases states have reclassified services from facility-based to community-based as the emphasis on community participation grows, even though substantial time is still spent in facility-based settings. Examining a subset of 11 states that were able to provide complete service data over the past four data-collection periods found that CBNW services have continued to grow, possibly at the expense of integrated employment (Table 1). The percentage of individuals receiving CBNW services increased from 41% in FY2007 to 45% in FY2010; however, there was not an increase in integrated employment participation in these states. As the prevalence of CBNW services grows, additional research is needed on whether these services enhance or impede integrated employment outcomes and how CBNW services contribute to meaningful daytime activities for individuals with IDD