View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Three Year Longitudinal Study of Graduate Employment Outcomes for Australian Apprentices and Trainees with and without Disabilities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Three Year Longitudinal Study of Graduate Employment Outcomes for Australian Apprentices and Trainees with and without Disabilities
Language: English
Authors: Thoresen, Stian H. (ORCID 0000-0001-8603-7426), Cocks, Errol, Parsons, Richard
Source: International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 2021 68(5):702-716.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Disabilities, Equal Opportunities (Jobs), Outcomes of Education, Barriers, Vocational Education, Job Training, Apprenticeships, Employment Level, Graduates, Wages, Gender Differences, Age Differences
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2019.1699648
ISSN: 1034-912X
Abstract: People with disabilities in Australia face significant employment barriers. Research and policy initiatives over the past fifteen years have consistently emphasised the benefits of vocational education and training generally, and apprenticeship and traineeships specifically, as leading to positive vocational pathways and employment outcomes for people with disabilities. However, there is a dearth of evidence of graduate outcomes for apprentices and trainees with disabilities. This paper presents the employment outcomes including hours of work and salaries for a cohort of apprenticeship and traineeship graduates with and without disabilities across a three-year longitudinal Australian study. Overall, there are positive employment outcomes for the research participants although graduates without a disability achieved better outcomes than graduates with disabilities and participants in receipt of the disability support pension had significantly lower wages than other participants with disabilities. There are indications that the gap in outcomes between graduates with and without disabilities has reduced over time, although generalisability of the findings may be limited by the observational study design. Nevertheless, the study has confirmed positive employment and related outcomes for apprenticeship and traineeship graduates with disabilities, which were sustained, or arguably improved, over the three-year period covered by the study.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1308600
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFrJkLpIERS4Dd09wCBIkbNAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDO9gmjzzBTinfAr8uAIBEICBmm1oC3yh_iWQF2CFE2aWn_YpqojRjxTBrV06PqQqkq6XqsxWQPTjROB_GihB_pARDnCkz270kWM6XKlGflDxyDPUVCzQiMniXwvTSKEiAWhrk4bYx2LmwaAX4nCDjoN_sWP5aITKfJZetk2UzBARoNlNbdxQhQQvfS-L159yktENa-2RjnUt5rqw9GSi2KgAUjJZfvGC5TTwIAI=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0151876724;54q01sep.21;2021Aug14.02:30;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0151876724-1">Three Year Longitudinal Study of Graduate Employment Outcomes for Australian Apprentices and Trainees with and without Disabilities </title> <p>People with disabilities in Australia face significant employment barriers. Research and policy initiatives over the past fifteen years have consistently emphasised the benefits of vocational education and training generally, and apprenticeship and traineeships specifically, as leading to positive vocational pathways and employment outcomes for people with disabilities. However, there is a dearth of evidence of graduate outcomes for apprentices and trainees with disabilities. This paper presents the employment outcomes including hours of work and salaries for a cohort of apprenticeship and traineeship graduates with and without disabilities across a three-year longitudinal Australian study. Overall, there are positive employment outcomes for the research participants although graduates without a disability achieved better outcomes than graduates with disabilities and participants in receipt of the disability support pension had significantly lower wages than other participants with disabilities. There are indications that the gap in outcomes between graduates with and without disabilities has reduced over time, although generalisability of the findings may be limited by the observational study design. Nevertheless, the study has confirmed positive employment and related outcomes for apprenticeship and traineeship graduates with disabilities, which were sustained, or arguably improved, over the three-year period covered by the study.</p> <p>Keywords: Apprenticeships; Australia; employment; graduate outcomes; longitudinal study; people with disabilities; traineeships; vocational education and training</p> <hd id="AN0151876724-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Concerted efforts through specifically designed and targeted programmes to support people with disabilities to obtain and maintain employment have been operating across the world for the past three decades (Lewis, Thoresen, & Cocks, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref1">19</reflink>]). Australians with disabilities however, are less likely to be in the labour force and more likely to be unemployed than their non-disabled peers (ABS, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]; Deloitte Access Economics, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref3">15</reflink>]), as occurs elsewhere across the world (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref4">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref5">29</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref6">30</reflink>]). Research indicates that the quality of employment for people with disabilities is questionable in some cases, including the use of wage subsidies, unskilled entry-level monotonous work, and casual positions with few opportunities for advancement (Gustafsson, Peralta, & Danermark, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref7">17</reflink>]; Lewis et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref8">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>This article describes graduate outcomes for apprentices and trainees with disabilities in Australia compared to those achieved by a comparison group of non-disabled peers over a three-year longitudinal study. While there are different operational definitions of disabilities depending on purpose (for example clinical or applied research, eligibility for support services, or population prevalence), this study used self-identification of persons with or without disabilities aligned to the disability classifications used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]). The focus on apprentices and trainees was founded on the premise that work-based learning has been found to be a particularly beneficial strategy towards employment for people with disabilities as it encompasses formal qualifications and work experience (Lewis, Thoresen, & Cocks, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref10">18</reflink>]; Lewis et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref11">19</reflink>]). While work-based training can be beneficial for all young people in their transition from school to work, it can be an important employment pathway for young persons with disabilities who may otherwise embark on non-vocation pathways in their transition to adulthood (Thoresen, Cocks, Peterson, & O'Callaghan, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref12">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>The purpose of this article is to investigate graduate employment outcomes among apprenticeship and traineeship graduates with disabilities and compare these to those of a matched cohort of graduates without disabilities. It is important to document outcomes and whether these are sustained over time. This will provide an evidence base for work-based learning service providers and may assist policy makers who support these programmes as there has been limited research investigating graduate employment outcomes for apprenticeship and traineeship graduates with disabilities. This article is guided by the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are the employment outcomes such as hours of work and wages for apprenticeship and traineeship graduates with disabilities?</item> <p></p> <item> How do these graduate employment outcomes compare to those of graduates without disabilities?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the sustainability of these graduate employment outcomes over time?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the factors associated with unemployment, hours of work, and wages?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0151876724-3">Background</hd> <p>It is commonly accepted that about one in five Australians has a disability and this has shown a slight drop over the past decade (ABS, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>]). There is no singular definition of disability in Australia and disability is commonly viewed within a broad framework (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref14">14</reflink>]), with administrative datasets and research reports often relying on self-identification of disability. Support programmes, including Disability Employment Services (DES) which are specialist organisations funded to support people with disabilities to obtain and maintain open employment in Australia, assess individuals against specific criteria. In common with disability specific social security or welfare programmes, DES eligibility criteria include a mix of specific impairment conditions and an assessment of support needs.</p> <hd id="AN0151876724-4">Disability and Employment in Australia</hd> <p>The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) carries out regular surveys of disability, ageing, and carers. The most recent was completed in 2015 and identified that 18.3% of the population, or 4.3 million Australians, have a disability, of whom 1.4 million or 5.8% have profound (3.1%) or severe (2.8%) core activity limitations (ABS, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>]). The preceding iteration of this survey in 2012 identified that the unemployment rate for people with disabilities was almost twice that of people without a disability, 10.0% compared to 5.3% respectively. The labour force participation rate (total of people employed and those actively looking for work) for people with disabilities was about two-thirds of the participation rate of people without a disability (53.4% compared to 83.2% respectively). Not surprisingly, the participation rate decreased according to increasing levels of core activity limitations although this appeared not to impact unemployment rates (ABS, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref16">2</reflink>]). This may suggest that while there are clearly inequities in the labour market for people with disabilities, the level of core activity limitations may be less influential than overall disability status.</p> <p>Employment contributes to improvements across a broad social and economic spectrum, including valued social roles, social inclusion, community participation, quality of life, improved personal financial position, and economic contribution to society (ACOSS, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]; Australian Government, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref18">5</reflink>]; Cocks, Thoresen, & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref19">13</reflink>]; National People with Disabilities and Carers Council & FaHCSIA, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]). However, there is ample ground for disability employment in Australia to improve. Australian disability employment rates rank 21<sups>st</sups> out of 29 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries (Productivity Commission, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref21">32</reflink>]) and the poverty risk is the highest among all OECD countries with the poverty rate the second highest after the USA (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref22">30</reflink>]). People with disabilities also face significant barriers in the labour market, including discrimination (Deloitte Access Economics, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref23">15</reflink>]; Lewis et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref24">19</reflink>]). The significant association between poverty and disability is bidirectional with the World Health Organisation and the World Bank ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref25">35</reflink>], p. 10) stating that 'disability may increase the risk of poverty, and poverty may increase the risk of disability'.</p> <hd id="AN0151876724-5">Disability and Vocational Education and Training in Australia</hd> <p>Apprenticeships and traineeships within VET are nationally certified and recognised qualifications (Naidu, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref26">20</reflink>]). Both apprenticeships and traineeships typically consist of an average of the equivalent of four days paid work and one day unpaid study (although the study component may be carried out in blocks). Certificates that do not include any work-based training are generally referred to as VET courses or degrees (Naidu, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref27">20</reflink>]). Traineeships are typically up to one year in duration while apprenticeships are typically of two or three years duration (although there are exceptions).</p> <p>While VET, apprenticeships, and traineeships are viewed as positive employment pathways for people with disabilities, concern has been raised over the lower participation and completion rates for people with disabilities (Australian National Training Authority, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref28">7</reflink>]; Bagshaw & Fowler, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref29">8</reflink>]; National VET Equity Advisory Council, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref30">22</reflink>]). People with disabilities constituted only 1.6%–1–9% of apprenticeship and traineeship commencements for any given year between 2013 and 2016 (NCVER, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref31">26</reflink>]), while between 4.9% and 6.4% of all VET students had disabilities in any given year between 2002 and 2012 (NCVER, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref32">25</reflink>]). On average 66% of students with disabilities passed their course requirements compared to 73% of students without a disability (Rothman et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref33">33</reflink>]). It is more challenging to estimate the completion rate for apprentices and trainees. A change in (host) employer may be coded as an incompletion. Individual course completion rates (which track whether individuals complete a degree in the field they commenced) are reported less frequently. According to Ball and John ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref34">9</reflink>]), 46% and 51% of apprentices and trainees with and without a disability respectively complete their courses.</p> <p>There is limited information to date on employment and related economic outcomes among apprenticeship and traineeship graduates with disability. Australian VET statistics, including the student outcome survey and students with a disability dataset (NCVER, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref35">24</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref36">25</reflink>]), report a limited number of outcomes for apprenticeship and traineeship graduates and the broader group of VET graduates (employment, median graduate income, and occupational destination). Outcomes for apprentices and trainees are not reported separately according to disability status, but there are some limited outcomes reported for VET graduates with and without disabilities. These and other datasets illustrate that apprenticeship and traineeship graduates, as well as VET graduates more broadly, have good graduate employment outcomes obtaining employment, income, and further study (NCVER, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref37">24</reflink>]). It is, however, unclear whether this is sustained over time.</p> <p>In this longitudinal study, the aim was to investigate graduate outcomes among apprenticeship and traineeship graduate with disabilities and compare these to those of a matched cohort of graduates without disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0151876724-6">Method</hd> <p>This paper presents findings from an Australian longitudinal study which included three annual postal surveys (referred to as waves) of apprenticeship and traineeship graduates with disabilities (n = 403 in the first wave) compared to a smaller cohort of graduates without a disability (n = 86 in the first wave). At each data collection point, all research participants received a $60 gift voucher as recompense for participation. It is likely that this contributed towards the higher than anticipated retention rate (83.2% and 71.8% of first wave participants completed the second and third wave surveys respectively). The surveys gathered mainly quantitative data although the study also gathered qualitative information from annual face-to-face interviews with a small subset of graduates with disabilities (n = 30 in the first year). This paper describes employment outcomes identified from the postal surveys. Barriers and facilitators for course completion (Cocks & Thoresen, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref38">10</reflink>]), social outcomes (Cocks & Thoresen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref39">11</reflink>]); graduate experiences (Thoresen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref40">34</reflink>]), baseline employment and economic outcomes (Cocks et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref41">12</reflink>]), and quality of life (Cocks et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref42">13</reflink>]), have been reported previously and will not be presented in this article.</p> <hd id="AN0151876724-7">Participant Recruitment</hd> <p>Participants were recruited in stages. Recruitment of apprenticeship and traineeship graduates with disabilities (the disability group) was the first stage and took place from mid to late 2011. Based on the funding agreement, an initial sample size of 300 participants in the disability group was sought. Potential participants in this group had to meet two inclusion criteria:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Self-identifying as having a disability.</item> <p></p> <item> Completing an apprenticeship or traineeship in 2009, 2010, or 2011.</item> </ulist> <p>Recruitment of participants commenced by approaching specialist disability or apprenticeship and traineeship organisations such as DES, Registered Training Organisations and Group Training Organisations. Registered Training Organisations are responsible for the unpaid study component of apprenticeship and traineeships while Group Training Organisations arrange employment with member or host employers. However, this strategy did not identify sufficient numbers of participants with disabilities. To increase the number of participants, State Training Authorities in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia were approached and all agreed to assist in recruitment. The State Training Authorities are the accrediting government bodies (State Education Department equivalent).</p> <p>The second recruitment stage was of apprenticeship and traineeship graduates without a disability (initial target of 75) in the last quarter of 2011. This staged recruitment was designed to identify potential participants who matched those in the disability group according to some key socio-demographic characteristics: gender, apprenticeship or traineeship level, and broad age groups. A reasonable match based on these parameters was achieved, and this set of participants without a disability was called the 'Comparison group'. These participants were recruited through Group Training Organisations and had to self-identify as not having a disability, but otherwise meet the same inclusion criteria as the disability group.</p> <p>It is not possible to ascertain an exact response rate. Potential participants may have been approached through multiple agencies or service providers (and thus been counted more than once). Also, it was not possible to estimate the proportion of surveys that did not reach the potential participants due to change of address, particularly as the survey was mailed up to three years after course completion. Of 2,860 surveys distributed in the first wave, 502 surveys were completed and returned. This gave a return rate of 17.6%.</p> <hd id="AN0151876724-8">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Graduate outcomes achieved by apprentices and trainees with disabilities were compared to graduates without a disability. Outcome (dependent) variables included labour force status, hours of work, hourly wage, and weekly wage. Regression models were used to examine the influence of disability status on each of the outcome variables after adjustment for the following independent variables: age, gender, disability, and receipt of the disability support pension (DSP). To be eligible for the DSP, recipients had to: be working aged Australian residents, have disabilities which limit the ability to work (for example limited full-time work or productivity), and meet income and asset tests (Australian Government, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref43">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>These models were fitted to the data in a multivariate manner, so that the p-values obtained for each of the independent variables indicate their contribution to the outcome after adjustment for other factors in the model. The outcome variables measured on a continuous scale were analysed with a repeated measures ANOVA, implemented as a random effects regression model, while the binary employment outcome variable was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model (implemented as a Generalised Estimating Equation, and described below).</p> <p>The random effects regression model took into account the correlation between measurements taken on the same individual over time. A categorical variable for the time period was included as an independent variable in the model in order to assess whether any significant change over time occurred. The outputs from the model include p-values and estimates of the regression coefficients for each independent variable. In addition, pairwise interaction terms were introduced into the model, to check for any significant contribution. For example, it may be the case that disability and labour force status interact so that trainees with disability behave differently from trainees without a disability, but no comparable difference occurs for the apprentices. The analysis sought to reveal these forms of relationships in the dataset. For each outcome, the model was developed so that only variables which showed a significant association were included in the results. This was performed by using a 'backwards elimination' strategy, where all the independent variables were included in the model initially, then the least significant was dropped, one at a time, until all variables remaining in the model were statistically significant. The interaction terms were investigated during the model fitting procedure.</p> <p>The regression model for the binary outcome variables such as employment status (working/not working) was analogous to the model outlined above. For this analysis, the model may be called a 'repeated measures logistic regression' model, but is more familiarly known as the 'generalised estimating equation' (GEE). Correlations between observations on the same person were taken into account, and the model fitting procedure was similar to that outlined above (backwards elimination).</p> <p>Statistical analyses were conducted using the SAS version 9.2 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA 2008), and a p-value < 0.05 was taken to indicate a statistically significant association in all tests.</p> <hd id="AN0151876724-9">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0151876724-10">Participant Characteristics and Representativeness</hd> <p>Participants' gender and age are presented in Table 1 and compared to available administrative data collected by the State Training Authorities from each training institution across Australia. While there are more male than female participants, the gender distributions in the disability and comparison group overall mirror the administrative data of this population. Note that the gender distribution appears to differ between apprentices and trainees, with the apprentices being predominantly male. While the age distributions in the disability and comparison groups are fairly similar (slightly fewer young participants in the disability group), there are higher proportions of older participants than recorded in the administrative data of graduates. This was anticipated because participants were recruited up to three years following graduation. The geographical distribution of research participants differed substantially from administrative data, with an overrepresentation of participants from New South Wales and South Australia in particular and an underrepresentation of participants from Victoria (data not shown).</p> <p>Table 1. Gender and age</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Disability group (DG)</td><td>Comparison group (CG)</td><td>Administrative data<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Apprentices</td><td>Trainees</td><td>All DG</td><td>Apprentices</td><td>Trainees</td><td>All CG</td><td>Apprentices and trainees</td></tr><tr><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>%</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>%</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>%</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>%</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>%</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>%</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>%</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Gender</italic></td></tr><tr><td> Females</td><td>15</td><td>13.2</td><td>153</td><td>54.3</td><td>170</td><td>42.3</td><td>2</td><td>7.4</td><td>35</td><td>59.3</td><td>37</td><td>43.0</td><td>134 600</td><td>42.9</td></tr><tr><td> Males</td><td>99</td><td>86.8</td><td>129</td><td>45.7</td><td>232</td><td>57.7</td><td>25</td><td>92.6</td><td>24</td><td>40.7</td><td>49</td><td>57.0</td><td>179 400</td><td>57.1</td></tr><tr><td> All</td><td>114</td><td>100.0</td><td>282</td><td>100.0</td><td>402</td><td>100.0</td><td>27</td><td>100.0</td><td>59</td><td>100.0</td><td>86</td><td>100.0</td><td>314 000</td><td>100.0</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Age</italic></td></tr><tr><td> 19 or younger</td><td>2</td><td>1.8</td><td>14</td><td>5.0</td><td>16</td><td>4.1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>7</td><td>12.3</td><td>7</td><td>8.5</td><td>115 100</td><td>36.7</td></tr><tr><td> 20 − 24</td><td>52</td><td>47.3</td><td>97</td><td>34.9</td><td>152</td><td>38.6</td><td>8</td><td>32.0</td><td>21</td><td>36.8</td><td>29</td><td>35.4</td><td>54 100</td><td>17.2</td></tr><tr><td> 25 − 44</td><td>50</td><td>45.5</td><td>103</td><td>37.1</td><td>155</td><td>39.3</td><td>16</td><td>64.0</td><td>15</td><td>26.3</td><td>31</td><td>37.8</td><td>100 100</td><td>31.9</td></tr><tr><td> 45 or older</td><td>6</td><td>5.5</td><td>64</td><td>23.0</td><td>71</td><td>18.0</td><td>1</td><td>4.0</td><td>14</td><td>24.6</td><td>15</td><td>18.3</td><td>44 800</td><td>14.3</td></tr><tr><td> All</td><td>110</td><td>100.0</td><td>278</td><td>100.0</td><td>394</td><td>100.0</td><td>25</td><td>100.0</td><td>57</td><td>100.0</td><td>82</td><td>100.0</td><td>314 100</td><td>100.0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Percentages have been rounded. A dash (-) represents a true zero.</p> <p>2 <sups>a</sups>Commencements in 2010, not completions (NCVER, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref44">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>The study also collected some information concerning participants' cultural backgrounds, but there were substantial missing data. Of the 333 participants with valid data in the disability group (82.6%), 5.4% identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, 12.0% as having a cultural or linguistic diverse background, and 82.6% identified themselves as Australians. Of the 74 participants in the comparison group with valid data (86%), 12.2% identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, 16.2% as having a cultural or linguistic diverse background, and 71.6% identified themselves as Australians. No separate analysis was done with regards to ethnicity.</p> <p>Disability classifications have only been published for VET graduates and not separately for apprentices and trainees. Table 2 provides the main disability classifications among research participants and all VET graduates. While some differences may be expected between VET graduates and other apprenticeship and traineeship graduates, the high proportion of research participants with intellectual or learning disabilities compared to that recorded in administrative data, is noteworthy. The proportion of research participants with intellectual or learning disabilities is almost twice that for VET graduates with any other disability. Recruitment through specialist service providers such as DES and group training organisations may have contributed to this skewness. The lower proportion of blind or vision impaired research participants may have been due to the format of the postal survey (with electronic surveys only available on request). Most of the research participants with intellectual disabilities completed traineeships (data not shown).</p> <p>Table 2. Main disability</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Disability group</td><td>Administrative data</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Apprentices</td><td>Trainees</td><td>Total</td><td>VET graduates 2009<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Disability classification</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>(%)</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>(%)</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>(%)</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>(%)</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Blind or vision impairment</td><td>10</td><td>8.8</td><td>16</td><td>5.7</td><td>26</td><td>6.5</td><td>2 851</td><td>12.0</td></tr><tr><td>Deaf or hearing impairment</td><td>17</td><td>14.9</td><td>31</td><td>11.0</td><td>49</td><td>12.2</td><td>2 013</td><td>8.5</td></tr><tr><td>Head injury or acquired brain injury</td><td>3</td><td>2.6</td><td>11</td><td>3.9</td><td>14</td><td>3.5</td><td>371</td><td>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>Intellectual or learning</td><td>59</td><td>51.8</td><td>99</td><td>35.0</td><td>160</td><td>39.7</td><td>5 103</td><td>21.5</td></tr><tr><td>Medical condition</td><td>12</td><td>10.5</td><td>38</td><td>13.4</td><td>50</td><td>12.4</td><td>4 258</td><td>17.9</td></tr><tr><td>Mental illness</td><td>3</td><td>2.6</td><td>21</td><td>7.4</td><td>25</td><td>6.2</td><td>2 305</td><td>9.7</td></tr><tr><td>Physical</td><td>6</td><td>5.3</td><td>61</td><td>21.6</td><td>69</td><td>17.1</td><td>3 313</td><td>14.0</td></tr><tr><td>Other/unspecified</td><td>4</td><td>3.5</td><td>3</td><td>2.1</td><td>10</td><td>2.5</td><td>3 509</td><td>14.8</td></tr><tr><td>Respondents</td><td>114</td><td>100.0</td><td>283</td><td>100.0</td><td>403</td><td>100.0</td><td>23 723</td><td>100.0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 Percentages have been rounded.</item> <item>4 <sups>a</sups>2010 National VET Provider Collection, as shown in Cocks & Thoresen ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref45">10</reflink>]).</item> </ulist> <p>While there appeared a pattern of increased proportion of participants working in both the disability and comparison groups in waves two and three (and by extension a decrease in the proportion of research participants looking for work and not in the labour force), there was no statistical evidence of any trend over time (p = 0.42). For disability group participants, 81.4%, 87.3% and 90.8% were working in waves one, two, and three respectively. For comparison group participants, 88.4%, 92.8%, and 96.6% were working across the three waves. Table 3 shows the median hours of work and wages along with the standard deviation (SD) for each variable for all participants in paid employment, for each group. These univariate figures are not adjusted for any other variables in the dataset, and the p-values were obtained from pairwise t-tests. Participants worked similar numbers of hours per week across the waves, except for a drop in the third wave among comparison group participants. With regard to wages, comparison group participants appeared to earn more, although the income gap decreased across the waves. Differences between the disability and comparison groups according to the hours of work and wages changes from statistically significant in the first wave to no statistically significant difference in the third wave, but caution is warranted to not over-interpret the change in level of statistical significance across the three waves due to attrition (and hence statistical power).</p> <p>Table 3. Hours of work and wages</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Wave 1</td><td>Wave 2</td><td>Wave 3</td></tr><tr><td /><td>DG</td><td>CG</td><td>DG</td><td>CG</td><td>DG</td><td>CG</td></tr><tr><td /><td><italic>n = 329</italic></td><td><italic>n = 77</italic></td><td><italic>n = 246</italic></td><td><italic>n = 64</italic></td><td><italic>n = 214</italic></td><td><italic>n = 52</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Weekly hours of work</td><td>33.1*</td><td>36.2*</td><td>33.6</td><td>36.8</td><td>32.5</td><td>33.5</td></tr><tr><td>(SD)</td><td>(12.4)</td><td>(10.8)</td><td>(13.9)</td><td>(12.0)</td><td>(12.7)</td><td>(14.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Hourly wage ($)</td><td>20.35*</td><td>23.01*</td><td>22.08</td><td>23.75</td><td>22.87</td><td>24.56</td></tr><tr><td>(SD)</td><td>(8.29)</td><td>(7.27)</td><td>(9.16)</td><td>(7.03)</td><td>(9.83)</td><td>(7.37)</td></tr><tr><td>Weekly wage ($)</td><td>698**</td><td>862**</td><td>807</td><td>914</td><td>799</td><td>889</td></tr><tr><td>(SD)</td><td>(440)</td><td>(489)</td><td>(620)</td><td>(527)</td><td>(571)</td><td>(565)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 The asterisks denotes statistical significance (** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05) between participants in the disability and comparison groups as identified through t-tests.</p> <p>As shown in Table 4 (results of the GEE model), there was no statistically significant change in unemployment across the three waves (p = 0.27), but the unemployment rates across the waves are included for completeness. In addition to the variables shown, other variables initially included in this analysis included training level (apprenticeship or traineeship) and age group, but neither of these variables was found to be associated with employment, and both were dropped from the model. The model identified, as illustrated in Table 4, that the unemployment rate was significantly higher for females compared to males, and significantly lower for graduates without a disability compared to graduates with a disability.</p> <p>Table 4. Factors associated with unemployment</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Not working n/N (%)</td><td>Odds Ratio</td><td>95% Confidence Interval</td><td>p-value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Gender</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td>112/705 (15.6)</td><td>1 (reference)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td>124/542 (22.9)</td><td>1.60</td><td>1.10 to 2.33</td><td>0.0130</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Group</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Disability</td><td>209/1025 (20.4)</td><td>1 (reference)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Comparison</td><td>27/222 (12.2)</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.28 to 0.90</td><td>0.0200</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Wave</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td><italic>0.2700<sup>a</sup></italic></td></tr><tr><td> One</td><td>85/489 (17.4)</td><td>1 (reference)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Two</td><td>83/407 (20.4)</td><td>1.24</td><td>0.96 to 1.61</td><td>0.1059</td></tr><tr><td> Three</td><td>68/351 (19.4)</td><td>1.15</td><td>0.85 to 1.54</td><td>0.3639</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 <sups>a</sups>This is the p-value for the multi-level variable as a whole.</p> <p>As shown in Table 5 (results of a random effects regression model), no difference in the weekly hours worked was found over the course of the study. Males worked significantly more hours than females, and apprenticeship graduates also worked more hours than traineeship graduates. The difference in weekly hours worked by respondents in the disability group was significantly less than those in the comparison group (p = 0.04), but the average difference of 2.7 hours was not very large. The wave number was included in the model and this showed that there was no statistically significant difference between waves of the study (overall p = 0.25).</p> <p>Table 5. Factors associated with weekly hours of work</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Mean hours of work</td><td>Coefficient</td><td>95% Confidence Interval</td><td>p-value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Gender</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td>38.1</td><td>7.4</td><td>5.2 to 9.6</td><td><0.0001</td></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td>30.7</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Group</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Disability group</td><td>33.0</td><td>−2.7</td><td>−5.3 to −0.1</td><td>0.0400</td></tr><tr><td> Comparison group</td><td>35.7</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Training level</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Apprentice</td><td>37.3</td><td>5.8</td><td>3.4 to 8.2</td><td><0.0001</td></tr><tr><td> Trainee</td><td>31.5</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Wave</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td><italic>0.2486<sup>a</sup></italic></td></tr><tr><td> One<sup>b</sup></td><td>34.5</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Two</td><td>34.7</td><td>0.2</td><td>−0.7 to 1.1</td><td>0.6664</td></tr><tr><td> Three</td><td>33.9</td><td>−0.6</td><td>−1.6 to 0.4</td><td>0.2167</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>7 <sups>a</sups>This is the p-value for the multi-level variable as a whole.</item> <item>8 <sups>b</sups>This is the reference point for comparison of significance (e.g. subsequent p-values are for significance between the first and second, and first and third waves).</item> </ulist> <p>Gender is not featured in Table 6 (random effects regression model), which reflects that there were no significant difference between males and females in this analysis of hourly wage (p = 0.44). However, other associations are in directions that would be expected. This includes higher hourly wages among apprentices than trainees (p < 0.0001), and older participants having higher hourly wages than younger participants (p < 0.0001). The significant change over time (across the different waves) may be influenced by inflation.</p> <p>Table 6. Factors associated with hourly wage</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Mean hourly wage</td><td>Coefficient</td><td>95% Confidence Interval</td><td>p-value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Group</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Disability group</td><td>22.33</td><td>−2.28</td><td>−4.14 to −0.42</td><td>0.0165</td></tr><tr><td> Comparison group</td><td>24.60</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Training level</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Apprentice</td><td>26.21</td><td>5.48</td><td>3.91 to 7.05</td><td><0.0001</td></tr><tr><td> Trainee</td><td>20.73</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Age group</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> 15 to 24</td><td>21.77</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> 25 or older</td><td>25.17</td><td>3.40</td><td>1.93 to 4.87</td><td><0.0001</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Wave</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td><italic><0.0001<sup>a</sup></italic></td></tr><tr><td> One<sup>b</sup></td><td>22.22</td><td>0.0</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Two</td><td>23.76</td><td>1.54</td><td>0.87 to 2.21</td><td><0.0001</td></tr><tr><td> Three</td><td>24.42</td><td>2.19</td><td>1.48 to 2.90</td><td><0.0001</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>9 <sups>a</sups>This is the p-value for the multi-level variable as a whole.</item> <item>10 <sups>b</sups>Reference point for comparison of significance.</item> </ulist> <p>When the disability group is split according to receipt of the DSP, as shown in Table 7, the interaction between training level (apprentice or trainee) and wave is replaced by the interaction between training level and gender. The reason for this is that male apprentices appear to get a significantly higher weekly wage than male trainees, while there was no comparable difference for females. Those in the disability group who received the DSP had a significantly lower weekly wage than those who did not receive it. There was no significant difference in weekly wage between non-DSP recipients and the comparison group of participants.</p> <p>Table 7. Factors associated with weekly wage</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Mean weekly wage</td><td>Coefficient</td><td>95% Confidence Interval</td><td>p-value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Gender</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td>824.10</td><td>109.58</td><td>18.22 to 200.95</td><td>0.0188</td></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td>518.03</td><td>0.0</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Group</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td><0.0001<sup>(a)</sup></td></tr><tr><td> DSP non-recipient (DG) <sup>(b)</sup></td><td>803.68</td><td>0.0</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> DSP recipient (DG)</td><td>380.75</td><td>−422.93</td><td>−523.09 to −322.77</td><td><0.0001</td></tr><tr><td> Comparison group</td><td>828.77</td><td>25.09</td><td>−74.20 to 124.38</td><td>0.6199</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Age group</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> 15 to 24</td><td>588.55</td><td>0.0</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> 25 or older</td><td>753.58</td><td>165.03</td><td>88.11 to 241.94</td><td><0.0001</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Wave</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.0003<sup>(a)</sup></td></tr><tr><td> One<sup>(b)</sup></td><td>617.79</td><td>0.0</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Two</td><td>699.75</td><td>81.96</td><td>37.97 to 125.95</td><td>0.0003</td></tr><tr><td> Three</td><td>695.66</td><td>77.88</td><td>31.24 to 124.51</td><td>0.0011</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Gender/Training level</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td><0.0001<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td> Female/Trainee<sup>b</sup></td><td>544.53</td><td>0.0</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Female/Apprentice</td><td>491.52</td><td>−53.01</td><td>−261.37 to 155.34</td><td>0.6174</td></tr><tr><td> Male/Trainee</td><td>654.12</td><td>0.0</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Male/Apprentice</td><td>994.09</td><td>339.97</td><td>239.65 to 440.30</td><td><0.0001</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>11 <sups>a</sups>This is the p-value for the multi-level variable as a whole.</item> <item>12 <sups>b</sups>Reference point for comparison of significance.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0151876724-11">Discussion</hd> <p>Apprentices and trainees are a diverse group, independent of disability status, and caution in generalising the findings presented in this article is warranted. However findings from this study provided insight into graduate employment and related outcomes which are important to consider within the disability employment policy context in which addressing poor participation by people with disability in the labour force in Australia is of critical importance. The evidence base provided by the findings presented in this article may be supportive of expanding policies and practices supporting work-based learning opportunities for persons with disabilities. Although three waves conducted over three years is a relatively short-term longitudinal study, it adds valuable insight into how outcomes change or are sustained over time. It is interesting to note that outcomes for graduates with disability change from statistically significant (poorer) to not statistically significantly different (comparable) from the first to third wave (Table 3).</p> <hd id="AN0151876724-12">Labour Force Status</hd> <p>As the results only reflect participants currently working, and does not include participants currently looking for work, it is not possible to provide an accurate reflection of labour force participation rates (participants currently employed and looking for work). However, the proportion of participants currently working is substantially higher than the labour force participation rates more broadly. This improvement is especially noticeable for participants with disabilities. The 2012 Survey of Disability, Ageing, and Carers identified 53.4% of persons with disabilities and 83.2% of persons without disabilities were in the labour force (ABS, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>]), while the lowest proportion of participants employed was 81.4% of graduates with disabilities and 88.4% of graduates without disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0151876724-13">Hours of Work</hd> <p>Participants in the comparisons group worked more hours at each wave than participants in the disability group, although this was only statistically significant at the first wave. While there was a slight increase in weekly hours for graduates with disabilities for each consecutive wave, this fluctuated for participants without disabilities. The absence of statistical significance at the second and third wave may have been due to a drop in number of respondents (power), but the gap in average weekly hours of work between the disability and comparison groups were not very large (3.1 hours at wave one, 3.2 hours at wave two, and one hour at wave three).</p> <hd id="AN0151876724-14">Wages</hd> <p>The student outcome survey (NCVER, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref47">24</reflink>]) specified VET graduate annual wages for full-time workers. According to this administrative dataset, wages varied according to gender, age, remoteness, level of education, and between people who obtained their first job post-completion, and, to a lesser extent, Indigenous status. It is interesting to note that VET graduates with disability working full-time obtain an annual wage of $51 900 while graduates without a disability earn $56 900. These wages are substantially higher than among research participants suggesting that research participants may have characteristics different from overall VET graduates (for both graduates with and without disability). If we only review research participants working 35 hours or more per week, which align to the ABS definition of full-time work (ABS, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>]), the median annual wage for participants in the disability group is $43 373 (n = 199) and $47 424 (n = 57) for research participants in the comparison group at wave one. These increased to $47 736 (n = 155) and $51 376 (n = 49) in the second wave and $48 256 (n = 125) and $53 983 (n = 36) in the third wave for full-time workers in the disability and comparison group respectively. These increases include inflation (annual wage increases), but participants with disabilities had a greater wage increase between the first and second wave compared to participants without disabilities.</p> <p>The reason for this is unclear, but it may be that graduates with disabilities were more likely to be initially employed at a junior rate, which may have been adjusted by the second wave, when they had proven themselves capable. It is also possible that attrition bias contributed to this skewness (participants with poorer outcomes may have been more reluctant to complete follow-up surveys). Furthermore, it is unclear why the annual wages of the research participants who worked full-time are lower than those reported among all VET graduates working full-time. It may be that all VET graduates working full-time included older and more experienced people with higher wages. Apprenticeships and traineeships usually lead to entry level jobs and additional VET Certificates may be required for promotions or wage increases. These findings warrant reiteration of caution in generalising these findings based on the limitations in the representativeness of research participants.</p> <hd id="AN0151876724-15">Outcomes and Changes over Time</hd> <p>There are a few caveats in this summation which need to be explored further. Firstly, there are fluctuations in the number of weekly hours which appear to be larger in the comparison group. The equalising effect (from statistically significantly different to not significant) appears to be due to a fall in weekly hours of work among comparison group participants rather than a catch-up among disability group participants. With regard to hourly wage however, disability group participants appear to have a more rapid increase than comparison group participants, particularly from the first to second wave. While the weekly wage is derived from multiplying these two variables, it is interesting to note that disability group participants have a greater increase in their weekly wages relative to comparison group participants from the first to second wave. There is a slight reduction in the weekly wages from the second to third waves, more so among comparison group participants.</p> <hd id="AN0151876724-16">Disability Support Pension Recipients</hd> <p>Research participants indeed were a diverse group, and caution in generalising the findings of this study is warranted. It is clear that DSP recipients had the poorest outcomes among research participants, and when excluding this subgroup, graduate outcomes for non-DSP recipients in the disability group have similar outcomes to graduates in the comparison group. However, there are also grounds for concern about the economic and related outcomes for DSP-recipients. As stated previously, social security benefits for people with disability are low in Australia (ACOSS, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref49">4</reflink>]; OECD, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref50">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref51">29</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref52">31</reflink>]) and a very low proportion of Australians with disability have additional sources of income of any substance (Department of Social Services, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref53">16</reflink>]). As illustrated in the results section, completing an apprenticeship or traineeship may not lead to substantial income gains for some DSP recipients.</p> <p>The eligibility criteria of the DSP suggest that these recipients have a higher support need than other people with disability. However, as these research participants have all completed an apprenticeship or traineeship, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of these graduates should be gainfully employed. Further investigation into this issue is warranted. It may be that some DSP recipient limited the hours they worked to remain eligible for the DSP and associated benefits (such as health cards). As the DSP eligibility criteria suggest, this group of participants, although highly capable, may only be able to work a limited number of hours in a week.</p> <hd id="AN0151876724-17">Limitations</hd> <p>The study did not attempt to draw a representative sample of apprentices and trainees (in either the disability or comparison groups) and caution in generalising the findings reported in this article is warranted. Similarly, the lower number of participants in the comparison group (due to budget limitations), also warrants caution with regards to interpretation and generalisation of the study findings. As a prospective cohort design replying on purposive and convenience sampling, this longitudinal study provides insight into outcomes among research participants which may not be representative of the broader population. The challenge with this design, common for all longitudinal studies, is attrition bias (Nguyen, Cully, Anlezark, & Dockery, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref54">27</reflink>]). Different socio-demographic or outcome characteristics between respondents and non-respondents can limit the generalisability of findings. It was apparent, for example, that unemployed participants in the current study were less likely to respond to subsequent waves than employed participants. However, this aspect of the attrition bias is mitigated by similar patterns in both the disability and comparison groups. The overrepresentation of graduates with intellectual and learning disabilities should also be noted, but makes the outcomes described in the findings section more impressive.</p> <hd id="AN0151876724-18">Conclusion</hd> <p>The economic benefits of increased employment of people with disability are substantial. Modelling by Deloitte Access Economics ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref55">15</reflink>]) suggested that reducing the participation and unemployment gap between people with and without disabilities by one-third would have increased the 2011 Australian GDP by $12 billion, and by $43 billion over the following decade. Separate modelling by the National VET Equity Advisory Council ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref56">22</reflink>]) and the Australian National Training Authority ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref57">7</reflink>]) suggested that increasing participation in, and completion of, VET can lead to economic benefits ranging from $12-$18.8 billion. This study has illustrated that employment and related economic outcomes for apprenticeship and traineeship graduates are generally very good. In broad terms, the income gap between apprentices and trainees with disability compared to graduates without a disability narrowed over the three waves. For apprenticeship graduates, there were no statistically significant differences in weekly hours of work, hourly wage, or weekly wage between participants in the disability and comparison groups. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences in these outcomes between non-DSP recipients in the disability group and comparison group graduates. These findings suggest that work-based learning models such as apprenticeships and traineeships can be very positive employment pathways, for persons with and without disabilities.</p> <p>While apprenticeships and traineeships led to positive outcomes for a large proportion of research participants, outcomes were poorer for DSP recipients. DSP recipients had fewer hours of work, lower hourly wages and, by extension, lower weekly wages than non-DSP recipients and comparison group participants through the three waves. This is not surprising given the eligibility criteria of this social security benefit, which include core activity limitations that reduce recipients' work capacity or productivity. However, given that all research participants were apprenticeship and traineeship graduates, it would be reasonable to assume that these research participants have the same work capacity and productivity (at least) as when they undertook their training if appropriate support was available. As such, further research into the work barriers, facilitators, pathways, and policy dynamics faced by DSP recipients with formal qualifications such as apprenticeships and traineeships is warranted.</p> <hd id="AN0151876724-19">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0151876724-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> ABS. (2016). 4430.0- Disability, ageing and carers, Australia: Summary of findings, 2015. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/7C627E6F478CB6B4CA25849C00174C19?">www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/7C627E6F478CB6B4CA25849C00174C19?</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref16" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> ABS. (2013a). Disability, ageing and carers, Australia: Summary of findings 2012. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4430.0Main+Features12012?OpenDocument">http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4430.0Main+Features12012?OpenDocument</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref48" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> ABS. (2013b). Labour force, Australia, February 2013 (cat. no. 6202.0). Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6202.0Main+Features1Mar%202013?OpenDocument">http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6202.0Main+Features1Mar%202013?OpenDocument</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref17" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> ACOSS. (2013). Poverty in Australia 2012 (3rd ed.). Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.acoss.org.au/images/uploads/Poverty%5fReport%5f2013%5fFINAL.pdf">www.acoss.org.au/images/uploads/Poverty%5fReport%5f2013%5fFINAL.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref18" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Government. (2011). Foundations for a stronger, fairer Australia. Canberra : Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref43" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Government. (2018). Disability support pension. Department of Human Services. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/disability-support-pension">www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/disability-support-pension</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref28" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Australian National Training Authority. (2000). Bridging pathways: National strategy from 2000 until 2005: The national strategy for increasing opportunities for peoaple with a disability in vocational education and training. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/126113">http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/126113</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref29" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bagshaw, M., & Fowler, C. (2008). National VET disability advisory taskforce: Final report and recommendations. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://innov8group.com.au/linked/nvdat%5ffinal%5freport%5fto%5fnsoc.pdf">http://innov8group.com.au/linked/nvdat%5ffinal%5freport%5fto%5fnsoc.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref34" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, K., & John, D. (2005). Apprentice and trainee completion rates. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/148906">http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/148906</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cocks, E., & Thoresen, S. H. (2013a). Barriers and facilitators affecting course completions by apprentices and trainees with disabilities. Adelaide : NCVER.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cocks, E., & Thoresen, S. H. (2013b). Social and economic outcomes from VET in schools for people with disabilities: Initial findings from an Australian national longitudinal study. AVETRA 16th Annual Conference 3–5 April, 2013, Esplanade Hotel, Fremantle, WA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cocks, E., Thoresen, S. H., & Lee, E. A. L. (2013). Employment and related economic outcomes for Australian apprenticeship and traineeship graduates with disabilities: Baseline findings from a national three-year longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 39 (3), 205 – 217.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cocks, E., Thoresen, S. H., & Lee, E. A. L. (2015). Pathways to employment and quality of life for apprenticeship and traineeship graduates with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 62 (4), 422 – 437.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2012). Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Initial reports submitted by States parties under article 35 of the Convention: Australia: 3 December 2010. United Nations. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www2.ohchr.org/SPdocs/CRPD/futuresession/CRPD.C.AUS.1-ENG.doc">http://www2.ohchr.org/SPdocs/CRPD/futuresession/CRPD.C.AUS.1-ENG.doc</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deloitte Access Economics. (2011). The economic benefits of increasing employment for people with disability. Sydney : Access Economics Pty Ltd. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.and.org.au/data/Conference/DAE%5fReport%5f8May.pdf">www.and.org.au/data/Conference/DAE%5fReport%5f8May.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department of Social Services. (2014). Characteristics of Disability Support Pension recipients: June 2013 Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/disability-and-carers/publications-articles/policy-research/characteristics-of-disability-support-pension-recipients/characteristics-of-disability-support-pension-customers-june-2013">http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/disability-and-carers/publications-articles/policy-research/characteristics-of-disability-support-pension-recipients/characteristics-of-disability-support-pension-customers-june-2013</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gustafsson, J., Peralta, J. P., & Danermark, B. (2014). The employer's perspective: Employment of people with disabilities in wage subsidized employments. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 16 (3), 249 – 266.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, G., Thoresen, S. H., & Cocks, E. (2011a). Post-course outcomes of apprenticeships and traineeships for people with disability in Western Australia. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35, 107 – 116.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, G., Thoresen, S. H., & Cocks, E. (2011b). Successful approaches to placing and supporting apprentices and trainees with disability in Australia. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 34, 181 – 189.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naidu, R. (2011). VET glossary. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/73926">http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/73926</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National People with Disabilities and Carers Council, & FaHCSIA. (2009). Shut out: The experiences of people with disabilities and their families in Australia: National disability strategy consultation report. Greenway. Retrived from https://<ulink href="http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/disability-and-carers/publications-articles/policy-research/shut-out-the-experience-of-people-with-disabilities-and-their-families-in-australia">www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/disability-and-carers/publications-articles/policy-research/shut-out-the-experience-of-people-with-disabilities-and-their-families-in-australia</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National VET Equity Advisory Council. (2011). Equity blueprint 2011–2016: Creating futures: Achieving potential through VET. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/167334">http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/167334</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NCVER. (2011). Australian vocational education and training statistics: Apprentices and trainees 2010: Annual. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/169211">http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/169211</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NCVER. (2013a). Australian vocational education and training statistics: Student outcomes 2013. Adelaide : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NCVER. (2013b). Australian vocational education and training statistics: Students with a disability 2012 (revised December 2013). Adelaide : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NCVER. (2017). Apprentices and trainees 2017 March quarter: Data slicer. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ncver.edu.au/data/data/all-data/data-slicer-apprentices-and-trainees-march-2017#">www.ncver.edu.au/data/data/all-data/data-slicer-apprentices-and-trainees-march-2017#</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nguyen, N., Cully, M., Anlezark, A., & Dockery, A. M. (2010). A stocktake of the longitudinal surveys of Australian youth. Adelaide : NCVER.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2003). Transforming disability into ability: Policies to promote work and income security for disabled people. Paris : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2007). Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers. vol. 2: Australia, Luxembourg, Spain and the United Kingdom. Paris : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2010). Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers. A synthesis of findings across OECD countries. Paris: Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2014). Society at a glance 2014: OECD social indicators. Author. doi: 10.1787/soc_glance-2014-en.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Productivity Commission. (2011). Disability care and support. Canberra : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rothman, S., Shah, C., Underwood, C., McMillan, J., Brown, J., & McKenzie, P. (2013). National report on social equity in VET 2013. NVEAC. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/256288">http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/256288</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thoresen, S., Cocks, E., Peterson, S., & O'Callaghan, A. (2015). Graduate experiences among apprentices and trainees with disabilities: Supplementary report. Adelaide : Nactional Centre for Vocational Education Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Health Organization, & The World Bank. (2011). World report on disability. Malta : World Health Organization.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Stian H. Thoresen; Errol Cocks and Richard Parsons</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref54"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1308600
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Three Year Longitudinal Study of Graduate Employment Outcomes for Australian Apprentices and Trainees with and without Disabilities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thoresen%2C+Stian+H%2E%22">Thoresen, Stian H.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8603-7426">0000-0001-8603-7426</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cocks%2C+Errol%22">Cocks, Errol</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Parsons%2C+Richard%22">Parsons, Richard</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Disability%2C+Development+and+Education%22"><i>International Journal of Disability, Development and Education</i></searchLink>. 2021 68(5):702-716.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disabilities%22">Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Opportunities+%28Jobs%29%22">Equal Opportunities (Jobs)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcomes+of+Education%22">Outcomes of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocational+Education%22">Vocational Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Job+Training%22">Job Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Apprenticeships%22">Apprenticeships</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employment+Level%22">Employment Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduates%22">Graduates</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Wages%22">Wages</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1034912X.2019.1699648
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1034-912X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: People with disabilities in Australia face significant employment barriers. Research and policy initiatives over the past fifteen years have consistently emphasised the benefits of vocational education and training generally, and apprenticeship and traineeships specifically, as leading to positive vocational pathways and employment outcomes for people with disabilities. However, there is a dearth of evidence of graduate outcomes for apprentices and trainees with disabilities. This paper presents the employment outcomes including hours of work and salaries for a cohort of apprenticeship and traineeship graduates with and without disabilities across a three-year longitudinal Australian study. Overall, there are positive employment outcomes for the research participants although graduates without a disability achieved better outcomes than graduates with disabilities and participants in receipt of the disability support pension had significantly lower wages than other participants with disabilities. There are indications that the gap in outcomes between graduates with and without disabilities has reduced over time, although generalisability of the findings may be limited by the observational study design. Nevertheless, the study has confirmed positive employment and related outcomes for apprenticeship and traineeship graduates with disabilities, which were sustained, or arguably improved, over the three-year period covered by the study.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1308600
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1308600
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1034912X.2019.1699648
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 702
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Opportunities (Jobs)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Outcomes of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocational Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Job Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Apprenticeships
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employment Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduates
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Wages
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Three Year Longitudinal Study of Graduate Employment Outcomes for Australian Apprentices and Trainees with and without Disabilities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thoresen, Stian H.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cocks, Errol
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Parsons, Richard
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1034-912X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 68
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Disability, Development and Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1