Report of Preliminary Activities – Subtask 3.1-3.3

Submitted by The Study Group Inc. to Rehabilitation Services Administration, U.S. Department of Education in partial fulfillment of requirements under ED-04-CO-0042, An Assessment of Transition Policies and Practices in State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies.

Introduction

This report summarizes the activities and findings of Subtasks 3.1–3.3 of An Assessment of Transition Policies and Practices in State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies (ED-04-CO-0042). These are preliminary activities designed to inform the study plan and research activities called for in Tasks 4, 7 and 8 (e.g., to identify policy and program issues and indicators of promising practices for further investigation). The activities included: a review of literature and commissioned reports on the transition of student with disabilities; interviews with selected Federal staff from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) and other offices in the U.S. Department of Education (ED); and a review of State and Federal documents and reports associated with transition-aged students with disabilities. The work was carried out by The Study Group Inc. (TSG) and our subcontractors.

Findings from the Literature on the Transition of Students with Disabilities

Our reviews of the research literature and commissioned reports on the transition of students with disabilities focused on sources that described and clarified transition policies and practices – including financial considerations and arrangements – among vocational rehabilitation (VR) and education agencies, particularly those that were found to facilitate or hinder the successful transition of students with disabilities. We reviewed more than 90 documents, including 70 articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 1990-2004 that are contained in the What Works in Transition: System Review Project database housed at Colorado State University (CSU). Among the commissioned studies and reports we reviewed are: National Disability Policy: A Progress Report; A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and their Families, the final report of The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education; The National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS); The Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act(SLIIDEA); A Longitudinal Study of the Vocational Service Program, Fourth Interim Report: Characteristics and Outcomes of Transition Youth in VR (2000); and eight special topic reports of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (see the Appendix to this report).

We found that the knowledge base about successful transition of students with disabilities from secondary school to postsecondary environments has grown considerably over the last two decades, and that it documents several policy, program and practice issues affecting transition outcomes. The research confirms the value of well-designed, well-coordinated transition activities involving VR, education, and other adult service agencies to transition success while also clearly documenting the constant need for further improvement in transition services and supports. Studies of students with disabilities as they move from secondary school to postsecondary environments continue to record unacceptable postsecondary outcomes. These failures are in the areas of high school completion, participation in postsecondary education and training, competitive employment and community participation and independent living (see, for example, the 2002 report of The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education).

SLIIDEA (2003) and other studies point to federal legislation in VR and special education and subsequent state action in transition as a major catalyst for improving transition outcomes for students with disabilities over the past two decades. RSA and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) within OSERS have a shared commitment to improving transition services. Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (the Rehabilitation Act) describes transition as “ a coordinated set of activities designed within an outcome-oriented process, which promotes movement from school to post school activities, including post secondary education, vocational training, integrated employment, continuing education, adult services, independent living, or community participation. OSERS has continually promoted efforts to enhance effective transition planning, supports, and outcomes for students with disabilities including a significant emphasis on the role of vocational rehabilitation (NCSET, 2004). However, findings to date mirror the statement in the request for proposals (RFP) for this study, namely that “while amendments to the Rehabilitation Act in 1992 and 1998 set the stage for active cooperation between the State VR agency and the State Education Agency in the delivery of transition services, the anticipated outcomes have fallen short of meeting the needs of service recipients.”

As we reviewed the research literature and commissioned studies and reports on the transition of students with disabilities, we identified several broad categories of findings that we believe must be addressed by our study plan and subsequent research activities (Tasks 4, 7 and 8). We describe each category of findings briefly below together with our understanding of the issues we propose to investigate more thoroughly in this study.

The Nature, Attributes and Impact of Interagency Agreements on Transition Outcomes

Research studies consistently conclude that when agencies involved with students of transition age form collaborative relationships, students benefit. (SLIIDEA, 2003; Hasazi et al. 1999). Hasazi et al found that written agreements were essential to effective interagency collaboration because they affect not only transition planning but service delivery as well. SLIIDEA noted that while over 90% of the States have interagency agreements between State VR and education agencies, far fewer agreements are in place at the service delivery (LEA) level where service collaboration is most critical to improving outcomes for students with disabilities. The work of Johnson, et al (2002) suggested that interagency agreements should be enforceable, not merely statements of cooperation and goodwill. This is echoed by the President’s Commission: “requirements mandating interagency agreements must be revised to clearly describe cooperative and collaborative networking mechanisms between schools, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, and other community organizations charged with providing services to individuals with disabilities.”

Federal legislation and policy, relevant transition literature, and transition practice all verify the importance of interagency agreements to cooperation and collaboration between State VR and education agencies. However, we need to learn more about specific characteristics of interagency agreements that increase the likelihood of impact on transition students with disabilities, particularly those characteristics that influence cooperation and collaboration at the service delivery level. It is also important to increase our knowledge of how State and local interagency agreements are administrated, monitored, and enforced.

The Role and Involvement of Vocational Rehabilitation in Transition Planning

VR is the most frequently contacted agency by schools on behalf of transition students. NLTS2 reports that VR is contacted 38% of the time for all students identified as having postsecondary school service needs and 56% of the time for students who are 17-18 years old (NLTS2, 2005). NLTS2 wrote in its 2005 data brief entitled, The Transition Planning Process, “Educational best practice suggests that ‘effective transition planning and service depends upon functional linkages among schools, rehabilitation services, and other human service and community agencies’.” This same brief reports that schools are the primary source of information about adult services and postsecondary opportunities for over 80% of transition-aged students and their families. Yet a significant number of parents identify “lack of information” about community and adult services as a barrier to making informed transition decisions. While transition planning occurs for 90% of all students with disabilities across all disability categories, VR counselors participate in only 14.3% of planning meetings where information about adult services and postsecondary opportunities could be shared. This participation rate increases only to 25% for students who are 17 and 18 years of age.

The value of VR’s participation in the transition planning process is well established. Participation may occur on several levels: consultation and technical assistance prior to a student being referred to VR; joint IEP/IPE planning and implementation after VR eligibility determination while the student is still in school; and IPE development for students before exiting school. We will continue to investigate strategies for optimum VR interaction with transition students including: the identification of the most effective and efficient mechanisms for providing consultation and technical assistance to transition students, school personnel and parents; criteria for when (at what age, grade or circumstance) VR should participate in the development of the IEP; the effective use of school student assessment data by VR in the eligibility determination process (including the presumptive eligibility of students receiving SSI/SSDI benefits); collaborative delivery of transition services by the school and VR; and timely development of the IPE for students prior to school exit.

The Availability of Personnel Trained in Transition Services and Support

SLIIDEA identified the importance of transition specialists and coordinators to enhance and facilitate transition planning and services. The study found that the availability of knowledgeable personnel (e.g. transition specialists, VR counselors), to school staff increases the opportunities for collaboration in transitioning planning and service delivery. School personnel in the study indicated that it is difficult to know about all the community agencies, services and resources that may be available for transition students with disabilities and their families. Essential Tools: Meeting the Transition Challenge Together (NCSET, 2005) described opportunities for VR participation in the transition planning process including consultation to transition students, families, and school personnel about the array of VR services available, technical assistance in making referrals to appropriate adult service agencies, and outreach efforts with schools and parents to identify potential referrals for VR services. The literature also supports the need for professional development and interagency cross-training opportunities to enhance collaboration between VR and education agencies. Hasazi, Furney, and DeStefano (1999) found that model transition sites provided education and training on secondary transition to teachers, administrators, and service providers.

We understand that the availability of transition specialists at both the State and local levels impact on the level of cooperation and coordination between VR and education. There are also indications that joint or cross training of VR and education personnel increase each agency’s understanding of the other and may result in increased levels of cooperation. Understandably, in instances where VR counselors are assigned to a high school (either by VR are as part of a jointly funded position with education) more opportunities exist for the counselor to provide consultation, technical assistance, outreach efforts to identify students, and cooperative planning for IEP and IPE development. We intend to investigate in more depth personnel configurations including jointly funded positions and professional development activities that impact on the delivery of VR transition services to transition students with disabilities.

Funding Arrangements Supporting Transition

Several studies support the concept of jointly funded positions in schools and adult service agencies (including VR agencies) as contributing to more effective and efficient transition services and supports. Cobb and Johnson (1997) demonstrated that mingling funding streams created the potential for synergy and interactions among collaborating agencies. Hasazi, et al (1999) concluded that transition coordinators jointly funded by education and VR agencies were key to sustained and systematic interagency collaboration. The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education states: “The funding for more focused transition services now exists. Unfortunately these funds are spread across multiple agencies and the programs do not target transition services or foster coordination with other federal programs.” While there is evidence to support increased collaboration between VR and special education, we need to explore in more detail funding arrangements that have been initiated by States to maximize resources available for transitioning youth. 

Factors Associated with Transition Success

We also looked at factors that were associated with greater individual success in postsecondary years. The National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) conducted from 1987 through 1993 found that students who completed high school, participated in vocational education, had work experiences while in high school, were placed in general education classrooms, had established transition goals, participated in school and community groups, and had high parent expectations were more likely to have positive postsecondary outcomes. Multiple studies we reviewed in the CSU What Worksdatabase confirmed that specific services leading to employment outcomes, such as employment skills instruction, career and vocational curricula, community-based learning and structured work experience are key to long-term successful transition for students with disabilities. ( Horn et al., 1998; Kohler & Chapman, 1999; Goldbaum, et al. 1994; Aune, 1991; Benz et al., 1997).

The Fourth Interim Report of A Longitudinal Study of the Vocational Rehabilitation Service Program (2000) and information from the RSA 911 data indicate that between 14% and 18% of the VR’s clients are individuals of transition-age. A significant number of those are students who have an IEP. (RSA 911 data for FY 2003 reports that of 118,437 VR clients between the ages of 16 and 21, 67,079 had an IEP.) The Interim report found that 63% of the youth VR consumers achieved an employment outcome as a result of VR services and those youth who had participated in special education while in high school achieved an employment rate of 64%, slightly higher than those who did not participate in special education. While this report did not include younger transition students (ages 14–19), it does provide an indication of the potential for improving student outcomes via the involvement of VR during the transition period. Specifically this study found that VR services including education or training, physical or mental restoration and diagnostic and evaluation services were strongly associated with achieving an employment outcome.

While there is substantial evidence of specific services and supports that facilitate the successful transition of students, there are gaps in services that are barriers to positive postsecondary outcomes. In many cases, schools lack the resources, expertise and commitment to meet all of the transition needs of students with disabilities. We intend to investigate collaborative arrangements between schools and VR that eliminate these gaps and increase transition success.

Availability of Appropriate Programs in Secondary Schools

Since the publication of the results of NLTS there has been an increasing emphasis on academic performance accompanied by fewer opportunities for transition students to participate in vocational education, job preparation, and school sponsored employment. As noted in the RFP for this study, “because of the shift in emphasis away from school-to-work activities and toward academic achievement and high stakes testing, students will be likely to receive very little, if any vocational preparation in school.”

Students with disabilities are often in “no-man’s land”, caught between increasing academic demands and requirements and a reduction in non-academic alternatives designed to promote employment skills and community participation and living. The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education notes this dilemma. “While the Commission wholeheartedly supports strong academic achievement for all students, it recognizes that academic achievement alone will not lead to successful results for students with disabilities. Students with disabilities need educational supports and services to promote the acquisition of skills throughout their school lives. However, these supports and services may need to intensify during the transition years. Such skills include self-determination, self-advocacy, social skills, organizational skills, community and peer connection, communication, conflict resolution, career skill building and career development and computer/technological competence.”

With an increased emphasis on academic achievement and high stakes testing, schools are finding it difficult to provide students with disabilities with programs and services that support employment and career development and other skills designed to enhance independence and community living and participation. We intend to identify and investigate innovative cooperative education and VR programs for transition students which balance vocational and adult living skills with academic preparation.

Views of Federal Officials on the Successful Transition of Students with Disabilities

We interviewed seven senior Federal officials from OSERS, RSA, OSEP, the Office of the Under Secretary, and the Social Security Administration. We observed a clear consensus among officials on several issues related to the successful transition of students with disabilities, notably that VR can play a significant role in transition planning for students with disabilities.  Particularly important is VR’s involvement early in the transition process. These Federal officials told us that there are structural, procedural, and administrative mechanisms such as interagency agreements that can be – and should be – put in place to facilitate increased coordination and collaboration at the service delivery level. The coordination of the IEP and IPE were cited as examples of this type of coordination. There was general agreement that, despite advances made by VR and education agencies in supporting the transition of students with disabilities, gaps and overlaps in services remain. We found the views of Federal officials to be consistent with our findings for our review of the literature on the transition of students with disabilities (see previous section of this report).

Our priority in recording the views of Federal officials in this brief report is to capture specific topics, issues, or concerns that should influence the study plan. In addition to those issues about which there was a consensus among the officials, there are other issues that one or more officials identified that we concur should be considered in our study plan.

Identification of All Transition Students Eligible for VR Services

Two Federal officials expressed the concern that Section 504 students and other students with disabilities who do not have an IEP are not being identified as potential VR clients. The practice of States to establish an Order of Selection may contribute to this concern. One official stated that “even if there was no ‘formal’ order of selection process, there was always an order of selection since VR cannot serve all transition students with disabilities.”

Impact of Interagency Agreements on Collaboration at the Service Delivery Level

There was general confirmation about the importance of interagency agreements at the State level to establish policy and provide a framework for interagency collaboration. Several officials suggested, however, that we need to know more about collaboration at the service delivery level and the extent to which agreements are in place between schools and VR. Officials view the question of interagency agreements as both quality (i.e., the impact of the agreement on services and subsequently transitioning students), and quantity (i.e., the number of states and local communities that have agreements in place). Several Federal officials want to know more about collaborative relationships at the service delivery level that have expanded the services available to transition students with disabilities by maximizing existing resources and removing duplicative efforts.

Influence of Trained VR Personnel at State and Service Delivery Levels

The importance of having sufficient VR personnel assigned to transition activities was identified by several officials. Such personnel include a transition coordinator at the state level and to the extent possible a dedicated VR counselor in each school. The Federal officials with whom we spoke are interested in learning more about the influence of specifically assigned VR personnel on the quality of transition programs. As a subset of this topic, we discerned an interest in investigating co-funding VR counselor positions in the schools as means of increasing involvement in the transition process.

The Dilemma of Academic vs. Vocational Community Participation in Transition Programs

Federal officials were concerned that many transition students did not have access to vocational and community-based programs because of increased emphasis on academic performance. They are interested in identifying programs involving VR and schools that are addressing this dilemma. One official asked, “What do we know about students who are directed toward postsecondary education versus those who are directed toward work?”

VR Costs for Transition Programs and Services

Officials with whom we spoke are interested in information that identifies VR’s current costs for youth in transition (i.e., “What VR is currently spending.”) and what these dollars are supporting (e.g.,, job training, postsecondary education, accommodations, etc.).

Findings from a Review of State and Federal Documents and Data Sources

The third portion of our preliminary activities was a review and analysis of State VR agency documents and the RSA 911 FY 2003 data. We reviewed 177 state-specific document – 68 State Section 107 Monitoring and Technical Assistance Reports for FY 2003 and summary data from FY 2002; 72 VR State Plan Attachments 4.9 (c)(2), Coordination with Education Officials; and 37 State VR interagency agreements with the State Education Agency (SEA).

Section 107 Monitoring and Technical Assistance Reports

We found that data available from FY 2002 Section 107 Monitoring Reports, Focus Area III, School to Work, were particularly helpful in increasing our understanding of the characteristics of VR staffing to serve transitioning students, criteria used to refer youth to VR, IPE development for transition students, and methods of coordinating with schools. These data indicate that:

• Over 80% of State VR agencies have transition coordinators; 62% have specialized counselors to serve transition students. Twenty-two percent (22%) have VR counselors located in schools and 90% serve schools on an itinerant basis.
• The student’s age and grade are the two most common criteria used to refer students to VR. The vast majority of State VR agencies have procedures in place to identify and serve Section 504 students and out-of-school youth with disabilities.
• Over 90% of VR agencies have procedures in place to ensure the timely development of an IPE for transition students eligible for VR services.
• Ninety percent (90%) of State VR agencies have a formal interagency agreement with the SEA and 37% have agreements with LEAs. These agreements address consultation and technical assistance by VR to students, school personnel and families; define the roles and responsibilities of each agency; and address joint training and other personnel development activities between the VR agency and the SEA.

We targeted our review of the state monitoring reports on the focus area Transition from School to Work and Service Record Review in the FY 2003 Section 107 Monitoring Reports. This focus area addresses eligibility determination, timeliness of services, substantiality of services, employment outcomes, and transition services. We noted any finding of recommendation for improvement or a required action on the part of the agency. Following is a summary of findings that led to recommendations for improvement or required actions within this focus area:

• Eligibility. Findings were related to inconsistent application of presumed eligibility regulations for SSI/SSDI recipients and lack of documentation in the IPE of the disability as a substantial impediment to employment.
  
  
• Timeliness. Delays in eligibility determination, failure to develop an IPE before a student left school, and delays in developing an IPE for students who did not come through the school transition program were all identified as timeliness issues. Twenty-one reports noted instances of not having the IPE competed prior to exit from school.
  
  
• Substantiality of Services. We noted two unacceptable findings. The first was insufficient documentation in the IPE that services were necessary and would lead to an employment outcome. The second was associated with the lack of coordination between schools and VR that led to delays in eligibility determination and subsequent planning, development, and implementation of timely and appropriate services.
  
  
• Employment Outcomes. Instances of employment outcomes inconsistent with IEPs or IPEs and/or lacked documentation when employment goals changed were sited in several states. Examples of the employment goal being inconsistent with the student’s employment choice were also noted.
  
  
• Transition Services. Several reports noted a lack of career guidance provided students prior to their leaving school. This was generally attributed to the lack of a transition coordinator and/or confusion over the responsibilities of the school and the VR counselor.

We concluded that many of the deficiencies sited could be attributed to procedural errors, lack of sufficient personnel, lack of training, or a combination.

Interagency Agreements

We reviewed 37 interagency agreements from State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies (Twenty-seven from general or combined agencies and 10 from agencies for the blind). As part of our review, we developed a list of functions that were addressed in the agreements. The numbers of interagency agreements that we found to address each of these functions are presented in Table 1. The agreements varied considerably in length and detail.

While we have increased our basic understanding of the content of interagency agreements, we know that there is still much to be learned about their substance, utility, and impact at the local level. As suggested in the summary of the literature review, we need to learn more about specific characteristics and attributes of interagency agreements that influence collaboration and cooperation at the policy, administrative and service delivery levels. We also need to identify approaches to monitoring and enforcing interagency agreements.

Table 1. The Number of Interagency Agreements between State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies and SEAs That Address Particular Functions

State Plan Attachments

We reviewed State Plan Attachments 4.9 (c) (2), Coordination with Education Officials, from 72 VR agencies. The dates on the attachments ranged from 1999 through 2004, causing us to assume that some information was out-of-date. The attachments varied considerably in scope and specificity. We drew no conclusions from our review.

RSA FY 2003 Database

We converted the RSA FY 2003 database from an Excel format to a SPSS data-file. We retained all of the variables in the database and assigned variable names and value labels as appropriate. We maintain these names and labels in a codebook. We have begun to use the database to confirm some of our initial findings. We were interested, for example, in the number of percentage of individuals in the system that had an IEP. We found that 20% (127,025) of the individuals reported in the database had an IEP.

We also queried the database about the number of individuals in the system between the ages of 16 and 21 who had an IEP (67,079) and the percentage of those referred to VR by the school (75%).We performed similar queries with individual states to compare the 911 data with data from other sources. We anticipate using the RSA data throughout the study as an analysis tool.

Summary of State Document Review

The following represent our initial observations and limited conclusions from the State VR agency document and data review.

• Number of Transition-Aged Students Who Are Served. There is significant variance in the number of transition-aged youth State VR agencies report serving as a proportion of the total number of VR clients. This percentage varies for a low of 14% to a high of 50%. The majority of these are students with IEPs that have been referred by schools.
  
  
• Identification Procedures. In addition to receiving referrals from schools for students with an IEP, State VR agencies have in place procedures to identify and serve students with disabilities not served by special education programs (e.g., students with a 504 plan) and out-of-school youth with disabilities. Despite these procedures, however, there is evidence to suggest that a number of non-IEP students are not appropriately identified.
  
  
• Interagency Agreements. The vast majority of State VR agencies have formal interagency agreements with the SEA. While the agreements vary in specificity, the majority of them address a core set of coordination/cooperation issues.
  
  
• Timely IPE Development. Virtually all State VR agencies have policies and procedures in place to ensure the appropriate and timely development of an IPE for transition-aged students determined eligible for VR services. These policies and procedures include the development and approval of the IPE by the time each VR eligible student exits high school.
  
  
• Staffing Patterns. State VR agencies staffing patterns reflect the priority to serve transition-aged students with disabilities. Over 80% of State VR agencies have a state-level transition coordinator and a majority have specialized transition counselors. While most schools are served by VR on an itinerant basis, a growing number of VR agencies have counselors co-located in high schools.

Summary Comments

Through the review of the literature, interviews with Federal officials, and reviews of VR agency data, we have increased our understanding of current transition policies and practices. We have identified areas of potential promising practice that should be further investigated as well as barriers to collaboration and effective service delivery. As we move forward, we believe that many of the areas requiring further investigation that have been identified through these preliminary activities (e.g., interagency agreements, personnel deployment and training, VR involvement in transition planning, alternative funding strategies, etc.) will require a qualitative as well as quantitative approach. We know, for example, that essentially all VR agencies have an interagency agreement with the SEA. We need to focus on what makes an agreement effective and the extent to which these factors can be replicated in other sites. We also need to increase our understanding of the effects of VR consultation, technical assistance and other supports to schools, students and families prior to a student’s entry into the VR system. Similarly, we need further clarification of the types of cooperative services provided by schools and the VR agency after a student has entered the system. We will continue to use the data available to us (e.g., RSA 911, OSEP child count data) as we expand our understanding of the relationship of current state policies on practice and potential promising practice through subsequent study activities.

Appendix

References

Aune, E. (1991). A transition model for post-secondary bound students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities research and Practice, 6, 177-187.

Benz, M.R.,Johnson, D.K., Mickkelsen, K.S. & Lindstrom, L.E. (1995). Improving collaboration between schools and vocational rehabilitation: Stakeholder identified barriers and strategies. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 18(2), 133-144.

Blackorby, J.& Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal post school outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study.

Cameto, R. (2005). The Transition Planning Process. (NCSET NLTS2 Data Brief Vol. Issue 1): University of Minnesota, National Center on Secondary Transition.

Cameto, R., Levine, P., & Wagner, M. (2004). Transition planning for students with disabilities.  A special topic report from the National Longitudinal Study – 2 (NLTS2).  Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Cameto, C., Marder, C., Wagner, M. & Cardoso (2003). Youth Employment (NCSET NLTS2 Data Brief Vol. 2 Issue 2): University of Minnesota, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.

Cobb, B.& Johnson, D.R. (1997). The Statewide Systems Change Initiative as a federal policy mechanism for promoting educational reform. Career development for Exceptional Children. 20(2) 179-190.

Grigal, et al. (1997) An evaluation of transition programs. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals. 20 357-372.

Goldbaum, R.I., Rebore, R., Siegal, G.L., & Kindred, J.G., (1994). Familiarity with the services system and perception of needs at transition. Issues in Special Education and Rehabilitation, 9(1), 27-37.

Halpern, A.S. (1999, June).  Transition:  Is it time for another rebottling?  Paper presented at the 1999 Annual OSEP Project Directors' Meeting, Washington, D.C.

Hasazi, S.B., (2000) Factors that promote or inhibit implementation of transition policy at the state and local level. Retrieved February 20, 2005, from http://www.ideapolicy.org.

Hasazi, S.B, Furney, K.S.,& DeStefano, L. (1999).  Implementing the IDEA transition mandates.  Exceptional Children, 65(4), 555-566.

Hayward, B. & Schmidt-Davis, H. (2000). A longitudinal study of the Vocational Service Program, Fourth interim report: Characteristics and outcomes of transitional youth in VR. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.

Horn, J.R., Trach, J.S., & Haworth, S.L. (1998).  Employment outcomes from a collaborative work study program.  Journal of Rehabilitation, July/August/September, 30-35.

Johnson, D.R.,& Sharpe, M. N. (2000). Results of a national survey on the implementation of transition service requirements of IDEA. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 13, 15-26.

Kohler, P.D. (1993) Best practices in transition: Substantiated or Implied? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 16 107 – 121.

Kohler, P.D.,DeStefano, L., Wermuth, T., Grayson, T., & McGinty, S. (1994). An analysis of exemplary transition programs: How and why they are selected. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 17, 187-202. NC

Kohler, P.D. & Chapman, S. (1999).  Literature review on school-to-work transition.  Champaign, IL:  Transition Research Institute. University of Illinois.

Levine, P., Marder, C., & Wagner, M. (2004). Services and supports for secondary school students with disabilities. A special topic report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. (2004). Current challenges facing the future of secondary education and transition services for youth with disabilities in the United States. Retrieved March 16, 2005, from http://www.ncset.org/publications/discussionpaper/

National Council on Disability. (2001). National disability policy: A progress report.  Washington, DC: Author.

President’ Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). Final Report. Washington, DC: Author.

The National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS). (1993). The National Longitudinal Study: A summary of findings.  Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.

Schiller, et al. (2003). The study of state and local implementation and impact of the individuals with disabilities education act: Final interim report. Washington, DC: Abt Associates, Inc.

Wagner, M.,Blackorby, J., Cameto, R., & Newman, L. (1993).  What makes a difference?  Influences on postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., Cameto R., Hebbeler, K., & Newman, L. (1993). The transition experiences of young people with disabilities: A summary of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of special education students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R.,  Hebbeler, K., & Newman, L. (1993).  What makes a difference? Influences on postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: The third comprehensive report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of special education students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M., Cadwallader, T., & Marder, C. (with Cameto, R., Cardoso, D., Garza, N., Levine, P., & Newman, L.).  (2003). Life outside the classroom for youth with disabilities.  A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2).  Menlo Park, CA:  SRI International.

Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Guzman A. (1993). Who are secondary students in special education today? (NCSET NLTS2 Data Brief Vol. 2 Issue 1): University of Minnesota, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.

Wagner, M., Marder, C., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R., Newman, L., Levine, P., & Davies-Mercier, E. ) with Chorost, M., Garza, N., Guzman, A., & Sumi, C.). (2003). The achievements of youth with disabilities during secondary school.  A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2).  Menlo Park, CA:  SRI International.

Wagner, M., Marder, C., Levine, P., Cameto, R., Cadwallader, T., & Blackorby, J. (with Cardoso, D. & Newman, L.).  (2003). The individual and household characteristics of youth with disabilities.  A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2  (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA:  SRI International.

Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Newman, L., (2003). Youth with disabilities:  A changing population.  A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and National Longitudinal Transition Study – 2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA:  SRI International.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., and Cameto, R. (2004).  Changes over time in the secondary school experiences of students with disabilities.  A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2).  Menlo Park, CA:  SRI International.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., & Marder, C. (2003). Going to school:  Instructional contexts, programs, and participation of secondary school students with disabilities.  A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA:  SRI International.

Williams, J., O’Leary, E., Storms, J., Sword, C. (2005).  Essential Tools, meeting the transition challenge together: A guide for educators and vocational rehabilitation counselors. University of Minnesota, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.

The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) provided specific studies and documents to TSG for review along with the RSA 911 data disk for FY 2003. The RSA Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) identified the Federal staff to be interviewed as part of Subtask 3.2. TSG solicited interagency agreement from all states and received copies of agreements from 37 State Rehabilitation Agencies.

ED-04-CO-0042 is a collaborative effort among TSG as the prime contractor and Colorado State University (Colorado Center for School and Work for Special Populations) and the University of Minnesota (Institute on Community Integration) as subcontractors.

We found that this proportion might vary considerably by state. In our review of state monitoring reports the proportion of transition students to the overall VR population ranged from 14% to near 50%.

Eight senior officials were identified by the COR, but we were unable to schedule one of the interviews despite several attempts. Our interview protocol included 16 questions. Each interview was conducted by telephone. Interviews ranged in length from 40 minutes to one hour.

The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education expressed a similar concern.

Activities   |   Interim Reports   |   Survey   |   Draft Final Report   |   Home

For additional information, please contact:

Michael Norman, Ed.D., Principal Researcher
The Study Group Inc.
209 Sir Walter Raleigh Drive
Kill Devil Hills, NC 27948
Phone: 252-441-2788
Fax: 252-441-9663
E-mail: Studygroup@aol.com

The VR Transition Study is managed by The Study Group Inc. in North Carolina, and its subcontractors (the Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota, and the Colorado Center for School and Work for Special Populations, Colorado State University). The study is funded by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) within the Office of Special Education and  Rehabilitation Services (OSERS), U.S.  Department of Education (ED). However, the contents of this site do not necessarily represent the policy of ED. You should not assume endorsement by the Federal government.

This Web site is housed at the Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota, and was last updated on October 11, 2007. The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

© 2006-2007 Regents of the University of Minnesota | Online Privacy Policy