State Policies Affecting School-Linked Integrated Services

Abstract

This article describes current federal, state, and local initiatives affecting school-linked integrated services and notes significant changes in federal policies and programs that will influence future developments. after delineating barriers to services integration efforts, outlining state policy trends, and addressing issues of finance, we describe some promising state approaches and consider implications of recent federal actions devolving much responsibility for federal programs to states and localities. the article is intended to be a useful guide for educators seeking to understand how state and local policies and programs related to school-linked services integration efforts affect the ability of school and communities to operate effective, inclusive education programs.

Community Involvement In Schools

“…Some state-led initiatives encourage the parallel formation of local interagency councils to extend service coordination from state to locality, whereas other initiatives encourage local service coordination with no parallel development among state agencies themselves (Crowson & Boyd, 1993). However, it is generally agreed that coordination and support at the state level is necessary if initiatives at the local level are to be sustained over time (Burch & Palanki, 1995;Epstein, 1991;Stone, 1995;Sullivan & Sugarman, 1996).…”

“…Beyond documenting benefits, the literature documents key challenges to the effective development and implementation of service integration initiatives (Crowson & Boyd, 1993;Dolan, 1992;Jehl & Kirst, 1992;Sullivan & Sugarman, 1996;Wynn, Costello, Halpern, & Richman, 1994;Wynn, Merry, & Berg, 1995). The challenges faced by such programs are similar to those previously discussed and largely center on developing structures and processes that engender and support collaboration among key stakeholders.…”

“…Rivalries generally develop among collaborators due to a lack of knowledge about the methods and procedures of other service agencies, a lack of understanding about the role of other service providers, and an undervaluing of other service providers' contributions. Differences in professional certification standards, accounting and auditing procedures, funding streams, confidentiality requirements, and eligibility restrictions all can create obstacles to interagency collaboration (Sullivan & Sugarman, 1996). Some suggest that training service providers for collaboration is one way to address the rivalries and misunderstandings that appear to be a ubiquitous feature of service coordination programs (Burch & Palanki, 1995;Stone, 1995).…”