METHODS: This study used data from wave 4 of the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (NLTS2), a nationally representative longitudinal survey of adolescents in special education. Details of the NLTS2 study design are presented in the symposium abstract. Parents and youth were surveyed and asked about involvement in post high school work and educational experiences including vocational-technical school, community college, 4-year college, other schools, volunteer work, supported employment, sheltered employment, and competitive employment. We examined many correlates including measures of impairment severity and household socioeconomic indicators.
RESULTS: Overall, 21% of youth with ASDs were not employed or enrolled in postsecondary education. Youth from poor households were more likely to have no involvement in work or education. However, impairment severity and income were correlated. Youth from poorer households tended to be more severely impaired, suggesting the association between low income and worse outcomes might be confounded by impairment severity. However, multivariate logistic regression revealed that the income disparity remained even after controlling for impairment measures. For example, the correlation between income and involvement in education or work was significant within each quartile of a summary scale of functional mental skills. Youth in the lowest quartile of mental skills from households earning less than $25,000 annually had a 60% probability of being totally uninvolved in work or school, whereas those in the same mental skills quartile from more affluent families earning over $70,000 had a 12% probability of no involvement. Likewise, in the highest mental skills quartile, poor youth were 13 times more likely to be un-involved compared to more affluent youth.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There are significant and pervasive socioeconomic disparities in employment and post secondary educational outcomes after youth with ASDs exit high school. Though correlated, impairment severity and poverty both contribute independently to risk of poor outcomes. Policies and services need to be designed to address both dimensions of risk.