CRP

Your Source for 
Issues and Trends in 

BRIEF 


Community Rehabilitation 


September 2007

Vol. 5, No. 3 

MEETING THE NEEDS OF TRANSITION
AGE YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES: 


CORE COMPETENCIES FOR YOUTH SERVICE PROFESSIONALS 

Editor’s Note: In a prior CRP Brief (Vol. 2, No. 3), the potential for Community Rehabilitation Providers to become an important 
link for transitioning students with disabilities from school to work was detailed. This CRP Brief focuses on the competencies needed 
to provide youth with disabilities adequate services, a topic gaining much needed attention. Extensive research has been done and a 
set of “Core Competencies” has emerged that should be of considerable help in enhancing services to this population. We are pleased to 
bring you this current information from the National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth, Institute for Educational 
Leadership, written for this edition of the CRP Brief. Our thanks to Curtis Richards and Joan Wills. 

BACKGROUND 

Adolescence and young adulthood is a time of 
transition from the structured and protective environments of home and school to the unstructured, 
“fend for yourself” world of work and adult living. An 
awkward period in any young person’s life, transition is often about moving from total dependence to 
self-sufficiency. The challenges facing youth who are 
disconnected from education systems and employment are expansive. An estimated 5.4 million youth 
between the ages of 16-24 are out of school and out 
of work according to studies by the Center for Labor 
Market Studies at Northeastern University. 

Self-sufficiency is a goal expected of any 
young person growing into adulthood in this country. Unfortunately, these expectations typically have 
not been equally applied to youth with disabilities, 
especially those with significant disabilities. However, these young people can make significant progress 
toward this goal if they are given the opportunity to 
learn, develop, and practice the incumbent skills. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 
articulates a national framework of public policy 
on disability. A piece of civil rights legislation that 
prohibits discrimination based on disability, this 
act “requires” that institutions provide people with 
disabilities the necessary tools for making informed 
choices and decisions; for achieving equality of 
opportunity, full inclusion, and integration into 
all aspects of society, including employment and 

independent living, and for economic and social self 
sufficiency. 

Work is the cornerstone of self-sufficiency. 
However, by now it is well-known that becoming successful in the workforce remains illusive for many 
youth with disabilities. The facts make this all too 
clear: 

. Special education students are more than twice 
as likely as their peers in general education to 
drop out of high school. 
. Youth with disabilities are half as likely as their 
peers without disabilities to participate in postsecondary education. 
. Current special education students can expect to 
face much higher adult unemployment rates than 
their peers without disabilities. 
. The adjudication rate of youth with disabilities is 
four times higher than for youth without disabilities. 
. The pregnancy rate for youth with disabilities is 
much higher than the national average; among 
females with learning disabilities, for example, 
50 percent will be pregnant within three years of 
school exit. 
. Young adults with disabilities are three times 
more likely to live in poverty as adults than their 
peers without disabilities. 
This project is in part supported under a grant from the Department of Education. However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the 


Department of Education and endorsement by the Federal Government should not be assumed.



. The picture is even more grim for youth with significant disabilities: less than one out of ten will 
attain integrated employment; five out of ten will 
experience indefinitely long waits for post-school 
employment services; and most of these individuals will earn less than $2.40 per hour in sheltered 
workshop settings (www.ncwd-youth.info). 
Extending this disheartening picture is the 
unemployment rate of adults with disabilities, which 
continues to hover around 70 percent. Hope for 
reversing this stubborn statistic could be found in 
placing focused attention on the transition needs 
of youth with disabilities, including those with the 
most significant disabilities. 

In today’s labor market, without the higher 
level of skills demanded by employers, opportunities for employment at a living wage, and ultimately 
self-sufficiency are dismal. It is important for the 

U.S. workforce development system to strengthen its 
capacity to provide effective training and preparation for young people both with and without disabilities to enable them to enter and succeed in the 
labor market. In order to assist the youth, staff in the 
programs serving them must be armed with particular knowledge, skills, and abilities so the youth are 
equipped to make informed choices and decisions 
about career goals that can lead them to economic 
and social self sufficiency. 
THE WORKFORCE 
DEVELOPMENT “SYSTEM” 

A commonly agreed upon definition of what is 
meant by the term “workforce development system” 
is still evolving. This is not particularly surprising. 
The term was seldom used until the beginning of 
the 1990s, prior to the development of the Workforce 
Investment Act 1998 (WIA). In the broadest sense 
the system includes all the different institutions and 
services that provide emerging and current workers 
with the opportunities to acquire the appropriate 
knowledge and skills necessary to be a participant in 
the labor force – both private and publicly funded. 
This represents countless institutions. The publicly 
funded portion of this system alone is massive: it 
includes all national, state, and local level organizations that plan and allocate resources (both public 
and private), provide administrative oversight, and 
operate programs in order to assist individuals and 
employers in obtaining education, training, job 
placement, and job recruitment. 

The types of organizations (and array of settings) involved in workforce development are quite 
varied, including One-Stop Centers and youth 

development programs, vocational rehabilitation programs, high schools, colleges, after-school 
programs, job training programs and community 
rehabilitation programs. 

There are multiple funding streams, separate 
governance structures, differing eligibility rules, diverse accountability methodologies, and distinctive 
traditions and cultures that support various parts of 
this system, all posing issues that policy makers and 
practitioners alike must address. 

It can be anticipated that recognition will 
continue to make a substantial distinction between 
services needed based on emerging entrants into 
the workforce – youth- and current workers-adults. 
Admittedly there is a moving target in terms of who 
is considered an adult as the transition period to 
independence is stretching into the twenties for 
many young people for multiple reasons that are not 
pertinent to this discussion. 

YOUTH SERVICE 
PROFESSIONALS


Who are youth service professionals? In the 
context of the workforce development system those 
engaged in the initial preparation of youth and 
young adults including intake workers, case managers, job developers, teachers, transition coordinators, counselors, youth development group leaders, 
and independent living specialists, are often the 
first contact or “face” of the workforce development 
system. They play an important role in connecting 
youth to workforce preparation opportunities and 
supports. 

How each of these workers connects to the 
young person is an overarching issue. Research has 
shown the importance of caring adults in youth’s 
lives and interactions with staff have been cited 
repeatedly as the reason that youth stay in or leave 
a program. Therefore, the ability of youth service 
professionals to engage and retain youth is a key 
piece of the workforce development system’s ability 
to prepare young people for the transition to adulthood and the world of work. 

CORE STAFF COMPETENCIES 

Serving youth effectively calls for both general and specialized knowledge. Certain knowledge, 
skills, and abilities (KSAs) are necessary. Youth 
service practitioners must keep pace with constant 
changes in the labor market as the nation’s economy 
shifts and new technologies evolve, as well as with 
the demands of more rigorous academic standards 
and the evolving needs and culture of today’s youth. 


Therefore, the range of necessary competencies 
must include knowledge drawn from the fields of 
education, workforce development, and youth development. 

Success in today’s workforce development 
system requires that all youth service professionals, including those at community rehabilitation 
programs, have some familiarity with the field of disability; have knowledge of adolescent development; 
follow appropriate youth employment and disabilities laws; communicate with, motivate, engage, accurately assess and place youth; connect to employers, communities, and families; and complete all 
the paperwork required in their jobs. Youth service 
professionals with the necessary KSAs can provide all youth with a wider variety of opportunities, 
resources, and services to best reach their potential 
and make a positive transition to adulthood and the 
world of work. Programs and organizations can be 
more effective when youth service professionals are 
equipped with the critical KSAs to do their jobs. 

As connecting youth to the workforce development system requires a mix of competencies from 
the youth development, education, and workforce 
development fields, no one system can (or should) 
do it all. Cross-system collaboration is the key to 
providing youth with all the opportunities, supports, 
and services they need to successfully transition 
from adolescence to adulthood and the world of 
work. In addition, as so many of the “neediest” youth 
are engaged in several systems at once, cross-system collaboration makes financial and administrative sense. 

As part of its Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities 
Initiative, the National Collaborative on Workforce 
and Disability for Youth (NCWD/Youth) has analyzed 
and built a framework of what professionals from 
across these three fields need to know to work effectively together on behalf of youth. The commonalities across the three fields were found to be substantial. The KSAs are organized into ten competency areas which were compiled from a review of over 
70 initiatives from the fields of youth development, 
workforce development, education, and disabilities. 
All the initiatives reviewed identify competencies, 
train professionals, and/or provide certification. The 
ten core competency areas are: 

1) Knowledge of the Field; 

2) Communication with Youth; 

3) Assessment and Individualized Planning; 

4) Relationships to Family and Community; 

5) Workforce Preparation; 

6) Career Exploration; 

7) Relationships with Employers and Between Employer and Employee; 

8) Connection to Resources; 

9) Program Design and Delivery; and, 

10)Administrative Skills. 

The core competencies were validated by a 
national group of youth professionals, program 
managers, and stakeholders from the field through 
focus groups, conference calls, meetings, and an 
on-line feedback relating to relevancy, proficiency, 
and available training. This validation process confirmed the KSAs relevancy to the daily activities of 
youth workforce development programs. 

BUILDING CONNECTIONS 
ACROSS BOUNDARIES 

It is well known that professional development matters. When it occurs, there is a link to increased job satisfaction and retention, more youth 
involvement, better practice, and improved youth 
outcomes. These improved youth outcomes such 
as more community involvement, less risky behaviors, improved academic scores, and better job retention, not only are good for youth and programs, 
they are good for the entire community. 

Professional development of staff is not 
only important for youth development; it is also a 
smart financial investment for organizations and 
funders. Advertising for, selecting, and training a 
new employee can cost an organization three to six 
months of productivity and 29 – 40% of a position’s 
salary. This does not even take into account the 
burden on other staff in covering the missing staff 
person’s responsibilities when a program is short-
staffed. Finally, funding spent on computers, curriculum, and program space is wasted if an effective 
youth worker is not there to connect youth to these 
resources. Just as a house is not a home - a building and supplies alone do not constitute a program. Skilled professionals are necessary to make 
the most of any program dollars invested. Research 
has shown that the professional development of 
staff leads to better practice with youth, improves 
program quality, and increases the positive outcomes of youth. Yet, how to support an expansion 
of professional development of transition focused 


services in a cost effective, collaborative fashion is a 
complex jigsaw puzzle. Where to start? 

As noted earlier, the workforce development 
system is composed of many separate but connected sub-systems, many quite large such as secondary 
and postsecondary education. Some parts of the 
system have long established pre-service education programs that are required for entry into a 
specialty professional world (e.g. teaching) while 
others lack such a luxury. One of the most substantial pre-service workforce development programs 
has supported the vocational rehabilitation system, 
buttressed by a strong In-Service Training program 
and the Comprehensive Professional Development 
system requirements in the vocational rehabilitation 
program. Within this commitment to professional 
development there has been a growing recognition 
in the Vocational Rehabilitation system and the 
rehabilitation counseling programs to address the 
new entrant population through the development 
of an increasing number of offerings for “transition 
services” specialties. 

For most workforce and youth development 
programs the primary means of acquiring KSA is on 
the job. The on-the-job approach to acquire KSAs is 
increasingly being supported by a growing number 
of specialty credentialing organizations. For example, the National Association of Workforce Development Professionals (NAWDP), have recognized the 
need for specific knowledge, skills, and abilities to 
work with youth and have begun to develop lists of 
competencies, provide training and/or grant certifications to meet these needs. NAWDP recently 
adopted a “Youth Service Professional Endorsement,” the first known national certification for 
workforce development youth service professionals 
and they used the framework discussed above as 
the base to build this specialty certification. This is 
an approach that can be emulated. There is value 
in generating connected links between and among 
the professional development organizations within 
the workforce development pillar given its “sprawling base” to push forward professional development 
and when needed/wanted certification programs. 
The purpose would be to build and maintain an effective workforce development system. To do so, we 
believe it is essential to establish an effective and 
connected professional development system for the 
youth service professionals. . 

Much of the foundation for professional development and use of the KSAs has already been laid. 
There are local, state, and national training organizations that are already offering training in some of 

the KSAs. State and local government agencies, as 
well as funders, could identify or develop trainings 
to fill the gaps. The KSAs can be used as a framework to organize these offerings into a cohesive 
professional development system for youth service 
practitioners, allowing them to more effectively 
connect all youth to the best opportunities and resources. NCWD/Youth offers a KSA Study Guide (see 
http://www.ncwd-youth.info/ksa/index.html) and will 
soon release a package of training modules. 

SUMMARY 

The diverse and complex needs of today’s 
youth cannot be met by one family, school district, 
government program, or private organization acting alone. The successful transition of all youth to 
adulthood and a productive, independent, self-sufficient life demands coordination and collaboration 
across systems and across agency coordination, 
along with an integrated services approach to serving youth at the federal, state, and local levels. It 
also requires knowledgeable, well-trained youth 
service professionals 

It is through this approach to transition the 
self-sufficiency goals of the ADA can come closer 
to being realized, the employment rate of people 
with disabilities can be substantially improved, and 
today’s youth with disabilities look forward to leading positive, productive lives in their communities. 

* * * * * * * * 

Curtis Richards is a Senior Policy Fellow at and Joan Wills is 

the Director of the Center for Workforce Development with the 

Washington D.C.-based Institute for Educational Leadership. 

IEL is home to the National Collaborative on Workforce & 

Disability for Youth (NCWD/Youth), a national technical 

assistance center supported by the U.S. Department of Labor’s 

Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP). 

* * * * * * * 

References 

Bouffard, S. & Little, P. (2004). Promoting Quality 

Through Professional Development: A Frame

work for Evaluation. Boston, MA; Harvard Family 

Research Project, Harvard Graduate School of 

Education. (http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/proj

ects/afterschool/resources/issuebrief8.html ) 

Center for School and Community Services, Acad

emy for Educational Development. (2002). BEST 

strengthens youth worker practice: An evaluation 

of building exemplary systems for training youth 

workers. New York: Author. (www.aed.org/Tool

sandPublications/upload/best.pdf or http://nti. 


aed.org/assets/doc/BEST-final_report.doc ). 

Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. 
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Fitz-Enz, J (2000). The ROI of Human Capital. New 
York, NY. AMACOM 

Goodwill Industries International, Inc. (2002). Strategies for developing a 21st century youth services 
initiative. Bethesda, MD: Goodwill Industries 
International, Inc. 

Hall, A. H., & Cassidy, D. J. (2002). An assessment 
of the North Carolina School-Age Child Care 
Accreditation Initiative. Journal of Research in 
Childhood Education, 17, 84–96. 

Institute for Educational Leadership Center for 
Workforce Development. (1993). An Overview of 
Skill Standards Systems in Education & Industry, 
Systems in the U.S. and Abroad Volume I. Washington, DC. Joan Wills. 

McLaughlin, M. W. (2000). Community counts: How 
youth organizations matter for youth development. Washington, DC: Public Education Network. 

National Clearinghouse for Youth Development 
Practitioner Apprenticeship Programs. (n. d.). 
Lessons learned. Baltimore, MD: Sar Levitan Center, Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved March 4, 
2004 from http://www.levitan.org/ydpa/Lessons-
Learned.htm. 

National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability 
for Youth. (2004). Knowledge, Skills and Abilities 
of Youth Service Practitioners: The Centerpiece 
of a Successful Workforce Development System. 
(http://www.ncwd-youth.info/ksa/index.html) 

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2001). 
Nonmaternal care and family factors in early 
development: An overview of the NICHD Study of 
Early Child Care. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 457–492. 

Norris, D. J. (2001). Quality of care offered by providers with differential patterns of workshop participation. Child & Youth Care Forum, 30, 111–121. 

Rosenthal, R., & Vandell, D. L. (1996). Quality of care 
at school-aged child-care programs: Regulatable 
features, observed experiences, child perspectives, and parent perspectives. Child Development, 67, 2434–2445. 

Tolman, J., Pittman, K., Yohalem, N., Thomases, J., 
& Trammel, M. (2002). Moving an out-of-school 
agenda: Lessons across cities. Takoma Park, MD: 
Forum for Youth Investment. 

Westat & Policy Studies Associates. (2001). The 
longitudinal evaluation of school change and 
performance (LESCP) in Title 1 schools. Final 
report, volume 2: Technical report. Rockville, MD 
and Washington, DC: Author. [Available at www. 
policystudies.com/studies/school/lescp.html.] 

Visit Our Website



The CRP Brief is published 3 times a year by the Region 
VI CRP-RCEP and is also available on our website: 
www.crp.unt.edu 

For more information contact: 

Linda Holloway and Martha Garber, Co-editors, 
University of North Texas - Region VI CRP-RCEP 
PO Box 311456, Denton, TX 76203-1456 
940/565-4000 

Meeting the continuing education needs of community 
rehabilitation providers



Discover the Power of Ideas