Local Autism Policy Networks: Expertise and Intermediary Organizations

Abstract

The increasing prevalence of diagnoses for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), now one in 68 children according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), presents a number of policy implications. In particular, many of these children become eligible for special education services under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Given the specialized expertise and resources required of local education agencies (LEAs), how do they respond to this implementation challenge? In May 2015, an online survey was distributed to various governmental and nongovernmental actors in three Virginia localities to measure the extent of collaboration in local autism policy networks. The findings suggest that these networks are driven by autism-related information, and that nonprofit organizations act as intermediary organizations that bridge disparate stakeholders. The results contribute to our understanding of fragmentation across policy subsystems, with the focus here on education policy, and the implementation challenges related to a rapidly changing policy issue.

The Ecology of Games as a Theory of Polycentricity: Recent Advances and Future Challenges

“…Their results have been replicated elsewhere, including in studies of regional governance in China (Yi et al, ), policy networks dealing with autism in Virginia (Parsons, ), management of small‐scale fishers in Jamaica (Alexander, Bodin, & Barnes, ), joint‐venture partnerships for suburban residential planning in Australia (McAllister, Taylor, & Harman, ), and water supply for human consumption in New York City and Boston (Olivier, ), to name a few.…”

The Effects of Risk, Beliefs, and Trust in Education Policy Networks: The Case of Autism and Special Education

“…For further information on this composite index, visit the Virginia Department of Education's webpage. This case summary also appears in Table 1 in Parsons (2016).…”

“…Compliance with both Section 504 and IDEA guidelines requires that LEAs possess two critical resources: expertise and funding. For example, principals enhance compliance capacity by delegating implementation decisions to educators and administrators with relevant expertise (O'Laughlin & Lindle, ), while some LEAs reach out to nongovernmental organizations for expertise and educational strategies for students with disabilities (Parsons, ). The need for expertise is often compounded by the challenges LEAs experience in funding special education services (Cooper, ; Pitney, ; Steuernagel, ), which are further magnified in small, rural districts (Manna, ).…”

Digital Meritocracy: Intermediary Organizations and the Construction of Policy Knowledge

“…Many scholars see IOs as filling a void in existing services that financially strained districts are unable to provide (Honig, 2004; Lopez, Kreider, & Coffman, 2005; Marsh et al, 2005; Mitra, 2009; Parsons, 2016; Wohlstetter, Malloy, Chau, & Polhemus, 2003). 4 They argue that IOs enhance the capacity of schools by providing information, professional development, curriculum, instructional tools, data management systems, or tutoring (among other forms of support; Honig, 2004; Wohlstetter et al, 2003).…”