Under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004), schools must provide a coordinated set of transition activities that are results oriented and that ". .. facilitate the child's movement from school to post-school activities, including postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation" (IDEIA, 2004, Section 300.43(a)). Beyond the school system however, the vocational rehabilitation (VR) system is also charged to assist youth with disabilities to transition from school to work. The Rehabilitation Act has several mandates that focus on promoting successful transition planning to ensure students who are eligible for VR do not experience "an interruption in services after they leave secondary school settings" (National Council on Disability, 2008, p. 18). For example, Section 101(a)(11)(D) of the Rehabilitation Act requires the state VR agency to coordinate with educational officials and to enter into a formal interagency agreement with the state education agency with regard to transition planning and service delivery. More recently, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) has increased VR's role in transition. The Act requires that 15% of VR funds must be used for transition services, including work-based learning experiences, counseling related to post-secondary opportunities, and self-advocacy training. Although legislation has clarified the responsibilities of schools and adult service agencies to prepare youth for adulthood, existing data on post-school outcomes suggest legislation has had limited impact, particularly in the area of employment. Adults with disabilities have higher rates of unemployment and underemployment, receive lower rates of pay, and face higher levels of poverty than adults without disabilities (The ARC, 2011; Butterworth et al., 2013; National Disability Rights Network [NDRN], 2011). Particularly disturbing are the outcomes for individuals with an intellectual disability. Butterworth and colleagues (2013) found that in 2011, the employment participation rate for individuals aged 16 to 64 who did not report having a disability was 66.7%, yet only 32.4% of individuals with disabilities and 22.2% of those with an intellectual disability participated in employment. Not surprisingly, the percentage of working-age individuals with an intellectual disability (34%) living below the poverty line was more than twice the rate for individuals without a disability (15%;