Income assistance use among young adults who were in British Columbia special education: A longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Persons with disability (PWD) experience disproportionately high poverty rates in Canada. This trend is apparent especially among youth compared to those who develop disabilities later in life. PWD in poverty have additional needs that increase barriers to full participation in society and translate to higher basic costs for daily living. Despite the existence of income assistance programs in Canada to mitigate income inequalities faced by PWDs, access to these programs can be limited. OBJECTIVE: To describe use of income assistance for young adults with disability in British Columbia for the development of potential approaches to improve realized access to these programs. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using British Columbia linked administrative data. We described differences in income assistance use among PWD by the level of special education funding received during primary school education (from most to least; Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Unfunded, and no special education) and family composition. We also provided longitudinal patterns of income assistance use. RESULTS: Of 218,324 young adults, 88% received no special education, 0.1% used Level One, 1.6% used Level Two, 2.9% used Level Three, and 7.1% used Unfunded special education coding. Young adults with Level One special education funding had the highest rates of hospitalizations and continuing care, with no hospitalization due to homelessness. Those with Level Three special education coding had higher rates of hospitalization and hospitalization due to homelessness than Level Two young adults. When transitioning to adulthood initially, Level One and Two funded individuals used relatively more disability income assistance than individuals from the other funding levels. Nearly all BCEA users with higher funded special education codes used this disability-specific program, while lesser funded special education codes used the Temporary Assistance more frequently, for a longer duration and were more likely to be persistent Temporary Assistance users. CONCLUSIONS: Sustainable and reliable access to income assistance programs remains an issue across the heterogeneity of needs faced by young adults with disability.

The transition to adult income supports for youth that received special education in British Columbia, Canada: A cohort study.

Youth in special education have complex needs that are supported across multiple systems. Our research investigates the use of adult income assistance, as one structure that supports youth as they transition to adulthood. We created a cohort of youth (5-22 years old) using linked administrative data from British Columbia government ministries from 1996 to 2018. Youth were grouped by their special education funding (most to least; Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Unfunded, and no special education). We investigated (1) youth characteristics and service use patterns, (2) which youth used income supports after the child-to-adult transition (19-22 years old), and what youth characteristics and service use patterns were associated with use, and (3) how much income support they used (CAD$). Of 174,527 youth, 254 (0.1%) were Level 1, 6020 (3.4%) were Level 2, 4409 (2.5%) were Level 3, 21,232 (12.2%) were Unfunded, and 142,612 (81.7%) were not in special education. Youth assigned higher funding levels, compared to lower levels, generally had increased service use, and in the transition to adult services were more likely to use income supports, and received more income support. An important exception was youth with serious behavioural/mental health special education funding (Level 3), who had increased service use for their level of funding, but received less income support due to a reliance on Temporary versus Disability Assistance. Youth that received an accredited diploma were less likely to use income supports. Factors related to the use of income supports are further described. This study highlights differences in access to income support when youth transition to adult services and considerations around equitable access to support.