National Longitudinal Transition Study

National Longitudinal Transition Study
Name	National Longitudinal Transition Study
Abbreviation	NLTS
Established	1980s
Country	United States
Focus	Youth with disabilities, transition to adulthood, employment, postsecondary education
Administered by	Office of Special Education Programs, SRI International, Westat

National Longitudinal Transition Study is a series of federally funded longitudinal investigations of adolescents with disabilities as they move from secondary school to adult life in the United States. The studies track outcomes in employment, postsecondary education, independent living, and community participation for young people with disabilities, engaging with a range of stakeholders including families, service providers, and federal agencies. Findings from the studies have informed legislation, program design, and advocacy efforts by linking individual trajectories to institutional practices and public policy.

Overview

The study series began with the original cohort funded by the U.S. Department of Education and conducted by contractors such as SRI International and Westat, later expanding into subsequent waves sometimes referred to as NLTS-2 and follow-up projects. Data collection encompassed school records, parent interviews, youth interviews, and administrative data linking to agencies such as the Social Security Administration and the Department of Labor. Results were disseminated through reports prepared for the Office of Special Education Programs and were cited in testimony to bodies like the United States Congress and analyses by organizations including the National Council on Disability.

Methodology

The studies employed stratified, multistage sampling designs drawing from federal databases of students eligible under statutes such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Instruments included standardized interview protocols developed in consultation with research centers like the Urban Institute and academic partners at universities such as Harvard University and University of Minnesota. Follow-up waves used techniques common to longitudinal designs developed by methodologists at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Columbia University, including weighting adjustments, imputation methods, and variance estimation to account for complex sampling and attrition. Data management and analysis were supported by contractors familiar with federal research requirements, including RTI International and Abt Associates.

Cohorts and Data Collection

Cohorts encompassed diverse disability categories recognized under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, capturing students enrolled in special education during specified base years. The NLTS-I cohort sampled adolescents during the early 1990s, while NLTS-2 sampled youth in the early 2000s, enabling cohort comparisons across periods that overlapped with policy changes under administrations such as the Clinton administration and George W. Bush administration. Data sources included school-record abstractions, parent and youth interviews, teacher surveys, and agency linkages to entities like the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation in various states and the National Center for Education Statistics. Geographic coverage included urban centers like New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago as well as rural counties in states such as Texas and Ohio.

Key Findings and Outcomes

Findings documented low employment rates and barriers to postsecondary enrollment for many youth with disabilities, while identifying subgroups with more favorable trajectories—such as youth with access to vocational training programs affiliated with institutions like Community College of Philadelphia or services coordinated by Job Corps. Reports highlighted transitions influenced by factors including family involvement, quality of individualized transition planning documented in school records, and access to supports provided by entities like Centers for Independent Living. Publications stemming from the data appeared in journals associated with American Educational Research Association and were cited in white papers by advocacy organizations such as the Easterseals and the American Association of People with Disabilities.

Impact and Policy Implications

The studies informed amendments and guidance related to transition planning under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and shaped practice recommendations adopted by state education agencies such as the California Department of Education and the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Policymakers in legislative bodies including the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives referenced NLTS findings in deliberations about funding for transition services and vocational rehabilitation. Nonprofit organizations like the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates and research centers at institutions such as Vanderbilt University used NLTS results to advocate for integrated employment initiatives and postsecondary supports.

Criticisms and Limitations

Critiques from academics at institutions such as Stanford University and University of Michigan focused on attrition bias, limitations in measurement sensitivity for certain disability categories, and challenges in capturing informal supports provided by families and community organizations like local chapters of the Arc of the United States. Methodological limitations included reliance on self-report for some outcomes and timing of follow-ups that made causal attribution difficult amid contemporaneous policy changes during administrations such as the Obama administration. Others raised concerns about underrepresentation of small subpopulations, including youth involved with juvenile justice systems overseen by agencies like the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Access to Data and Use in Research

Restricted-use NLTS datasets have been archived with procedures for access managed by federal contractors and research data centers associated with the National Center for Education Statistics and secure enclaves at institutions such as the Institute for Educational Sciences. Scholars at universities including University of California, Berkeley, University of Pennsylvania, and Rutgers University have used NLTS data for secondary analyses, producing dissertations, peer-reviewed articles, and policy briefs. Data-sharing agreements often require institutional review board approval and compliance with confidentiality safeguards overseen by entities like the Office for Human Research Protections.

Category:Longitudinal studies Category:Disability studies