Assessing Transition Services for Handicapped Youth: A Cooperative Interagency Approach

Abstract

The major purpose of this article is to present a cooperative interagency approach for assessing the effectiveness of programs and services provided to facilitate the transition of handicapped students from school to adult community living. Section one briefly reviews the concerns that have made transition a priority educational issue, discusses the need to address the issue of transition from a cooperative interagency approach, and outlines the barriers that impede interagency collaboration. Section two describes the experience of an interagency transition planning team and the team decisions that led to the development of a model for cooperative interagency assessment of transition services/programs. In section three the model's conceptual and operational framework, its advantages, and its generalizability are discussed.

Current Challenges Facing Secondary Education and Transition Services: What Research Tells Us

“…The effective use of interagency collaboration and cooperation to address transition needs of youths with disabilities has been difficult to achieve due to widely varying factors, including (a) lack of shared information on students across agencies, making it virtually impossible to develop integrated service plans that support individuals in achieving school and postschool results ; (b) lack of follow-up data on program recipients that could be used to improve service effectiveness (Johnson, McGrew, Bloomberg, Bruininks, & Lin, 1997;Stodden & Boone, 1987); (c) lack of adequate attention in IEPs to health insurance, transportation, and other aspects of adult living; (d) lack of systematic transition planning with those agencies that would assume responsibility for postschool service needs (Hasazi et al, 1999;; (e) ineffectual interagency agreements (Guy & Schriner, 1997); (f) difficulties in anticipating needed postschool services; and (g) inefficient and ineffective management practices for establishing interagency teams (Johnson et al, 1997). Despite these problems, interagency collaboration and coordination of services must continue as a major strategy in addressing the needs of youths with disabilities.…”

Quality care in residential placement for children and youth with developmental disabilities

“…This planning is particularly important during the teenage and young adult years prior to transition into adult residential and vocational services. Transition planning (planning for a change in residential placement) should begin well in advance of the anticipated change, in order to reduce the level of stress in the clients, their families, and the service providers (Knowlton, Turnbull, Backus, & Turnbull, 1988;McDonald, McKie & Webber, 1991;Moon, Diambra & Hill, 1990;Stodden & Boone, 1987). This planning process should involve the families and the individuals who will be moving from one residential placement to another well in advance of the move (Zetlin & Turner, 1985).…”

Are We in Danger of Making the Same Mistakes with ITPs as Were Made with IEPs?

“…Suggestions for the development of ITPs include conducting a person/environment analysis (Schalock, 1986;Wehman, Kregel, Barcus, & Schalock, 1986), inplementing the ITPs over a pilot period prior to the end of the student's secondary education program (Bates, Suter, & Poelvoorde, 1985;Stodden & Boone, 1987;Wehman, Kregel, Barcus, & Schalock, 1986) and determining the agency or person to be responsible for the ITPs (Hardman & McDonnell, 1987;Wehman, Kregel, & Barcus, 1985). As an example, a portion of an ITP is shown in Figure 1 (Wehman, Moon, & McCarthy, 1986).…”

“…The family is the only group with a &dquo;vested interest&dquo; in the disabled individual across both childhood and adulthood. Although most experts on transition stress the importance of involving family members in the ITP process (Brody-Hasazi et al, 1983;McDonnell & Hardman, 1985;Schalock, 1986;Stodden & Boone, 1987; Kregel, tion of secondary special educators is toward academic preparation of students rather than vocational, home or community living preparation (Brown, Halpern, Hasazi, & Wehman, 1987;Clark, 1984;Knowlton & Clark, 1987) and this orientation corresponds with their previous training. In a survey of early work experiences of high schoolers with disabilities, Stowitschek (1987) found indications that nearly two-thirds of the special education and resource teachers not now involved in community-based transition training would be unwilling to become involved if given the opportunity and approval by their supervisors.…”