Interagency collaboration: the importance of rehabilitation professionals' involvement in transition.

The "normalization" principle, presented by Nirje (1969), was the basis for application and research of transition needs and services for successful outcomes. At the core of the "normalization" principle is a philosophy of person-centered planning providing people with disabilities a foundation of community-based opportunities. Education in the least restrictive environment grew out of this movement and is the philosophy that continues to influence policy.

The process of moving from secondary education to post-school setting may seem straightforward. Then again, we know how difficult this shift can be from our own experiences, however for transitioning students with disabilities this process remains particularly unclear and in some cases nearly impossible. Madeleine Will (1984;1986), then United States (US) Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS), Assistant Secretary, established transition as a priority including the necessity for collaboration and formal transition planning to meet the needs of students with disabilities as they left high school for the adult world especially for employment. As a result, the "Bridges From School To Working Life Program" was created in an effort to clarify and resolve transition issues. Halpern (1985) developed a more detailed model for transition planning and services that expanded consideration beyond employment to include residential living, community involvement, and family involvement. These real-life adult situations, similar to those of individuals without disabilities, provided the impetus for students with disabilities' access to community participation.

The passage of key legislation mandated transition planning, services, and interagency coordination. The Carl Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (The Perkins Act), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA), and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 changed the focus of transition planning from something that might happen to something that must happen (DeFur & Taymans, 1995). Reauthorized in 2006, the Perkins Act held schools accountable for graduation, post-secondary education, and employment outcomes of students enrolled in career and technical education including coordination among federally funded programs and agencies as well as secondary and post-secondary education entities. With the reauthorization of IDEA (2004) transition planning for students, no later than age 16 was mandated requiring the identification of professionals to assist in the transition planning process, emphasizing interagency collaboration. The Rehabilitation Act (1973) and its amendments (1992; 1998) parallel the mandates found in IDEA with similar emphasis on outcome-focused planning and collaboration. Each of these laws promotes transition planning, interagency collaboration, and self determination to improve the adult outcomes for students with disabilities.

Governmental discretionary funding has provided the incentives to promote legislative pathways in support of transition planning activities. Since 1983, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education, has funded more than 500 transition education and services projects. Federal funding has supported transition system change in 46 states as well as transition-related professional development for beginning and continuing educators and rehabilitation professionals (Kohler, 2003). Yet, even with theoretical, legislative, and federal backing, the transition outcomes of students with disabilities have not improved significantly ("Keeping the Promises", 2003).

Transition Into Adult Life

In general, transitioning into adult life can prove difficult for all students. These transition difficulties are manifested in limited education opportunities, low earnings, and lack of independent riving. Recent data show that one in five people, aged 18-34, do not finish high school. Of those who have earned a high school degree, only 19% have gone on to earn a college degree or higher (Rumbaut, 2004). In fact, the earnings of all people aged 18-34 are currently lower than their peers' earnings in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Furthermore, since the 1970s, the number of people in their 20s living at home with parent(s) has increased by 50% (Schoeni & Ross, 2004).

Often students with disabilities experience even greater challenges when transitioning from school to the adult world. Data continue to reveal that high school drop out and unemployment rates remain higher for individuals with disabilities than those of people without disabilities (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Cameto & Levine, 2005). In fact, two years post-high school completion; only 49% of youth with disabilities were employed. This rate was significantly behind the 63% employment rate of their peers without disabilities. Those youth with disabilities who are employed were likely to work fewer than 30 hours/week (average = 20 hours/week), with no or few benefits, and are in entry level jobs (Cameto & Levine).

Employment gaps between individuals with and without disabilities widen further as aging occurs. While only 37% of the 11.3 million working age (i.e., 21 to 64 years old) adults with disabilities are employed this is in stark contrast to the 78% employment rate for the general population (Disability Status Reports United States, 2005; United States Department of Labor, 2001). Underscoring the impact of this employment separation, 84% of unemployed people with disabilities express the desire to work (Wehman & Targett, 2002). In addition, enrollment and completion rates for post-secondary education and independent living reflect the same disparities as employment (Bullis, Davis, Bull, & Johnson, 1997; Cameto & Levine, 2005; "Keeping the Promises", 2003).

As a result of the lack of viable adult outcomes, the outcome of involvement in criminal justice system is becoming increasingly more common ("Keeping the Promises", 2003). This involvement is demonstrated by the 21% increase in negative consequences experienced by transitioning students with disabilities for behavior (i.e., disciplinary actions at school, being fired from a job, or being arrested) from 1987 to 2003 (Cameto & Levine, 2005). The lack of integrated systems, seamless services and transition efforts leads to less than desirable outcomes (Will, 1984). So the question after more than 20 years is: Transition to what?

Current and future workforce shortages increase the need to invest in and recruit non-traditional workers. Students with disabilities, a largely ignored source of employees and contributors in our society, have the potential to meet these workforce needs if they are afforded the necessary opportunities (Green & Brooke, 2001). Logically, to be competitive, individuals must have access to a combination of training, education, and work experience to develop the minimum qualifications for employment. Formal post-secondary transition planning can lead to outcomes that benefit individuals as well as our communities by providing the necessary linkages to employment and education.

The transition planning process consists of several components. Morningstar, Kleinhammer-Tramill, and Lattin (1999) traced the history of transition programs to identify the most effective transition practices that were supported with empirical data. The components consistently found focused on community-based outcomes, utilization of interagency collaboration, individualized planning, and family involvement. Johnson (2000) argues that improving collaboration at all levels, successful acquisition of community outcomes, individualized planning, and family involvement are the top four challenges facing the future of transition services. Thus, it is fitting that youth, their families, special education teachers and rehabilitation professionals are potential members of the transition planning team. The focus of the remainder of this paper is on interagency collaboration and the role of rehabilitation professional (i.e., rehabilitation counselors and community rehabilitation providers (CRPs)) who are non-school personnel that assist individuals with disabilities and their families with employment, training, independent living, and community involvement. Interagency collaboration includes those interactions and activities between special educators and rehabilitation professionals such as working as a team, sharing information, attending transition planning meetings, combining resources, and establishing and utilizing effective lines of communication to benefit students with disabilities as they transition from high school to the adult world.

Twenty Six Years of Literature and Research

A review of transition literature was conducted to establish the importance not only of interagency collaboration in transition planning, but also the necessary components and significance of rehabilitation professionals' involvement for successful outcomes. Syntheses of typical and needed transition practices are presented throughout this paper as well as summarized in Table I. Sources of literature included a search of databases (i.e., Education FullText, ERIC, and PsycINFO), the World Wide Web, and bibliographies of the referenced articles published between 1980 and January 2006. The results of these searches provided the components of transition, the importance of interagency collaboration, the significance rehabilitation professionals' participation in the transition process, and the need for leadership. Benefits of interagency collaborations are demonstrated through program outcomes, but special educators and rehabilitation professionals differ in the utilization of interagency collaboration during transition. Exploring the barriers to interagency collaboration assists in identifying ways to bridge the gaps and provide direction for future research.

Both IDEA (2004) and The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 include similar definitions of transition services; a coordinated, outcome-focused process in which students with disabilities move from high school to adult situations. Accordingly, choices and decisions are to be based on the individual's preferences and interests. Furthermore, transition is the process of career development which relates to all life roles (Szymanski, 1994). Consequently, career planning is an integral part of transition planning, addressing career issues and decisions early (Bullis et al., 1997). Finally, post-school outcome data can be an evaluation measurement for transition accountability (Horn, Trach, & Haworth, 1998).

Given all of the possible needs in the transition process Morningstar et al. (1999) emphasize that better collaboration among educators, rehabilitation professionals, individuals, and their families is required to support a fluid and effective transition. For transition results to be of value, transition services must concentrate on student preparation and training resulting in (a) independence and success, (b) career assessment related to the students' interests and skills, and (c) interagency collaboration to meet planning and service needs (Lehmann, Cobb, & Tochterman, 2001). In other words, meeting transition needs must be a shared responsibility to be effective (Will, 1986).

Morningstar et al. (1999) reviewed 13 studies that were completed between 1988 and 1999 identifying best practices in transition planning finding that interagency collaboration between special educators and rehabilitation professionals was a key part of transition. Thus, when rehabilitation professionals are involved early on through collaboration, they can develop relationships, providing services and other community links while the student is still in school (Agran, Cain, & Cavin, 2002). Researchers continue to suggest that the key predictors of successful student transition are early intervention, coordinated planning, and interagency collaboration prior to the completion of training. These key transition practices coupled with career development based on the student's interest and skills, appropriate preparation, and supportive relationships have repeatedly led to positive adult outcomes (Agran et al., 2002; Lehmann et al., 2001; Morningstar et al.).

Developments in transition practice led to the creation of positions for personnel specializing in meeting transition needs, however they exist as an exception rather than the rule. DeFur & Taymans (1995) suggest that many of the top ten competencies for a specialist who is involved in transition planning process were important for interagency collaboration. Findings such as DeFur & Taymans' imply that the transition specialist's primary role is to coordinate those people and services involved in the planning process in order to enhance interagency collaboration.

Rehabilitation Professionals' Participation

To provide students with disabilities with the appropriate support as they transition from high school into the adult world, rehabilitation professionals' participation in interagency collaboration is critical. Secondary education is a time-limited entitlement ending at school completion. Youth leaving high school need assistance with career assessment, career guidance, and with accessing viable employment, education, and residential living (Lehmann et al., 2001). Rehabilitation professionals can provide this assistance, by linking individuals to valuable community and workplace resources (Wehman & Targett, 2002). Respectful partnerships must be consistently developed among individuals, their families, special educators, and rehabilitation professionals to work toward the acquisition of full community participation. Partnerships promoting interagency collaboration that include rehabilitation professionals are a powerful means for supporting people with disabilities as valued community members with lifelong goals (Szymanski, 1994). Understandably, transition leads youth to adult situations in which rehabilitation professionals' community knowledge and skills can assist in developing career paths and more.

The findings of the Longitudinal Study of the Vocational Rehabilitation Service Program (Hayward & Schmidt-Davis, 2000) support the importance of the role of the rehabilitation professional for transitioning youth. The data indicate that youth represent 13.5% of all individuals served by vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies. Almost two-thirds of these persons participated in special education in high school. Typically, youth applied for VR services to help them enter the labor force, with 63% of these youth achieving an employment outcome. This employment rate was much higher than the 49% of youth with disabilities and equivalent to the 63% of peers without disabilities who were employed in the Cameto & Levine (2005) study. Hayward & Schmidt-Davis found that receiving specific VR services was strongly associated with employment outcomes. These employment outcomes led to youth being less likely to utilize financial assistance (e.g., SSI), demonstrating higher levels of self-esteem, and having more internally-based locus of control.

Interagency Collaboration--Demonstrated Benefits

Better Outcomes

Gowdy, Carlson, & Rapp (2003) studied community rehabilitation programs to identify the strategies that led to higher rates of competitive employment, by comparing high performing agencies (31.9% average for the group over 2 years) to low performing agencies (19% average for the group over 2 years). The differential factor that assisted high performing agencies in securing employment opportunities was involvement in strong collaborative relationships which led to faster approval for services, routine sharing of information, and naturally occurring mutual respect and support.

Programs featuring collaboration between special educators and rehabilitation professionals such as the Secondary Transitional Experience Program (STEP) result in planned partnerships between the state departments of special education and departments of rehabilitation to impact the transition experiences of exiting high school students and lead to better adult outcomes in the areas of employment, independent living, and community participation. Horn et al. (1998) found that the participants of STEP had a 77.8% community employment rate. The STEP participants' employment rate was significantly higher than the rates found for youth with or without disabilities who did not have the benefit of participating in a formally, collaborated transition program as verified by Blackorby & Wagner's (1996) data, employment rates were 57.6% for students with disabilities and 69% for individuals without disabilities. Cameto & Levine (2005) found that employment rates had dropped to 49% (i.e., students with disabilities) and 63% (i.e., peers without disabilities) suggesting the possibility of a downward trend. The data provided by Horn et al., Blackorby & Wagner, and Cameto & Levine, strongly support the significant impact that formally, collaborated transition programs have on improving transition outcomes (i.e., community employment rates).

Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff (2000) investigated outcomes of the Youth Transition Program (YTP) and found that participants who completed four or more of their transition goals were twice as likely to graduate with a diploma, and four times as likely to be employed. Differences mentioned by participants were individualized services, consistent support from staff, and staff persistence. Staff were described as trusted adults who cared and listened. The success of YTP was predicated on formal, planned interagency collaboration which established the foundation of the program. Outcomes were better than expected. Collaboration provides the team approach necessary to support self-determination which leads to early intervention, initiating career planning, developing supportive relationships, and identification of community resources prior to graduating (Benz et al., 2000). Hence, without interagency collaboration, transitioning students are more likely to confront barriers to receiving the support they require for success (Morningstar et al., 1999).

Barriers to Collaboration

Lack of Relationship Development

Agran et al. (2002) indicate that a lack of relationship between special educators and rehabilitation counselors leads to little or no interagency collaboration. Data show that special educators are most often the group that facilitates the inclusion of rehabilitation counselors. If special educators fail to include rehabilitation counselors no one else (e.g., students with disabilities, families, and other professionals such as school social workers) seems to do so either. Even when the rehabilitation counselors are included on the transition planning team, they reported having a lack of information prior to the meeting, the expectations of their role were unknown to them, and they had limited opportunity for input.

Carlson, Brauen, Klein, Schroll, & Willig (2002) asked special education teachers how often they coordinated referrals to adult service providers (e.g., vocational rehabilitation, community colleges, or employment services agencies). Responses were never or rarely (55.9%) and sometimes (25.8%). Interestingly, these same special educators reported (53.1%) that they often developed career awareness activities for the curriculum. In addition, these special educators (87.6 %) reported sometime and often for identifying educational goals that correspond to transition-related goals. These data indicate that much of the time special educators spend on activities that focus on adult outcomes is independent of rehabilitation professionals' participation.

The data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS2) compound Agran's et al. (2002) and Carlson's et al. (2002) findings suggesting that rehabilitation professionals are waiting for an invitation to participate in transition planning from special educators who are not always likely to invite them (Cameto & Levine, 2005). Typically, rehabilitation professionals do not get involved with formal transition planning without referrals and an invitation to participate from special educators. Often these connections are not made. As a result, many special educators are attempting to meet transition needs and solve related issues independent of assistance from rehabilitation professionals. Yet special educators have not demonstrated the capacity to meet transition needs and at school separation relinquish responsibility and accountability. This is of particular concern; rehabilitation professionals' capabilities appear to be overlooked, and special educators' capabilities are stretched beyond their training.

In spite of the evidence supporting the benefits of rehabilitation professionals' participation in the transition planning process, this relationship continues to be under-utilized or non-existent until too late in the process. Rehabilitation professionals lack influence when they are included (Agran et al., 2002; Carlson et al., 2002). A key team member is missing when rehabilitation professionals are absent from the transition process. There is added value to the transition planning process when rehabilitation professionals contribute their skills, resources, information, community networks, and funding. The relationships among transitioning students, their families, and rehabilitation professionals should be facilitated prior to school completion. Transition planning offers a natural setting for building these relationships. Therefore, it makes sense that rehabilitation professionals be a presence at transition planning meetings (Agran et al.) to facilitate relationship building between special educators and rehabilitation professionals. The absence of rehabilitation providers' involvement in transition planning becomes a barrier to utilizing rehabilitation services, creating delays in receiving assistance for accessing employment, and participating in the community (Morningstar et al., 1999). It seems that special education and community rehabilitation, parallel systems, operate independently rather than interdependently. As a result, youth and their families are less informed regarding the services and opportunities available to them.

Morningstar et al. (1999) found that rehabilitation professionals consider transition from school to work a low priority because legislative mandates focus on the role of schools. The responsibility for coordinating and funding transition planning and services for students with disabilities ultimately falls on the school. Consequently, school personnel typically initiate and administrate the transition process. Referrals are made to rehabilitation services by special educators but data show that services are often accessed after the completion of high school (Morningstar et al.). As a result, rehabilitation professionals may not know how they can benefit students who are still enrolled in high school because they have not actively participated in school-based transition programs.

Focus of Rehabilitation Professionals

Rehabilitation professionals are more focused on learning about employers' needs, job development and placement, and less focused on building active relationships with school personnel. Wehman, Barcus, & Wilson (2002) surveyed community-based rehabilitation providers to assess their training and information needs. Survey results showed the highest priorities of rehabilitation professionals to be working closely with business, developing employment opportunities, and customer empowerment. Interestingly, these same rehabilitation providers reported their lowest priority to be learning more about One Stop Centers, policy and the law (e.g., IDEA), and transition from school to work, including interagency collaboration. Agran's et al. (2002) collaborative practice data indicated "62% of the counselors believed they were not integral members of transition planning teams" (pp. 152-153) which is concurrent with Wehman et al.

Findings such as Wehman's et al. (2002) and Agran's et al. (2002) show that rehabilitation professionals are focusing on one part of the transition process (e.g., employment), and are ignoring the transition process youth take to adult outcomes (i.e., moving from the school system to the adult rehabilitation system). Are rehabilitation professionals focusing on employment because they perceive this is where they make the biggest impact, have the greatest control, and the largest amount of knowledge, skills and training? For transition services to be most effective for youth, rehabilitation professionals must possess knowledge of the impact their role has in transition and interagency collaboration (i.e., the process to adult outcomes) as well as employment.

Bridging the Gap through Leadership

Coburn (2003) argues that a change in philosophy is required for people conducting policy reform and the scale it must take. Coburn suggests shifting from the standard practice of simple quantitative measures of counting numbers of federal initiatives, state transition councils, local transition planning teams and transition programs to broader, more explicit efforts that focus on depth of change and underlying assumptions, sustainability over time, internal and external spread, and ownership by both direct service personnel and administrators. Coburn believes these changes are necessary to shift from the traditional approach to scaling up (i.e., counting the increase in numbers of programs) to a reconceptualized view of scale which better represents its complexity. Used in this way, the terms "scaling up" refer to the ability to think and act beyond the mandated practices which drive quantifying transition successes as increases in related initiatives and programs to that of evidence-based transition practices that are known to yield high quality results. Approaching scale in this manner allows a "recasting of policies related to young adults as opportunities for social investment, the benefits of which must be weighed not only against immediate, but also long-range, risks and costs" (Settersten, 2004, Strengthening families and fostering civic engagement section, [paragraph] 5). Changing standard practice to that of a scaling up approach creates a legacy of professional quality and rich thinking upon which rehabilitation activities can build. Rehabilitation providers must take a leadership role in transition because the transition to adult life is one which cannot be reversed whereas data indicate that the dismal adult outcomes can be significantly improved through collaborative practices (Benz et al., 2000; Gowdy et al., 2003; Horn et al., 1998). Therefore rehabilitation professionals cannot wait for an invitation or a referral from special educators to get involved in transition activities; to be effective they must take the lead.

Interagency collaboration between special educators and rehabilitation professionals must be supported by administrators in both settings. Administrators influence collaboration practices, and can take the lead in supporting efforts to work together. Collaboration efforts must be valued throughout each organization to be effective. Administrators can demonstrate the value of these practices by budgeting the appropriate funds needed to support students as they transition (Lehmann et al., 2001). However, it is not always an issue of the amount of funding, but rather, how the funding is being used. Gowdy et al. (2003) found that low performing agencies were receiving, on average, nearly one million dollars more in state funds than did high performing agencies. Leadership and appropriate funding support from administrators to build collaborative relationships between special educators and rehabilitation professionals appear to increase the likelihood of successful transition focused partnerships (Lehmann et al). Effective partnering also takes commitment, interdependency, open communication, and education.

A commitment to interagency collaboration at all levels of the organization is essential. The commitment of direct service personnel such as rehabilitation professionals and special educators to interagency collaboration alone is insufficient. Commitment to interagency collaboration must be established by becoming an expected practice. When interagency collaboration becomes an effective and expected practice, then successful transition planning and outcomes become more likely (Johnson, Zorn, Tam, Lamontagne, & Johnson, 2003). Establishing partnerships is necessary to have effective means of connecting transitioning youth with community and workplace opportunities (Wehman et al., 2002). Collaborative practices provide a way to establish these necessary partnerships and build interdependency.

Incentives for rehabilitation professionals and special educators to work together need to be built into the transition process creating an opportunity for the recognition of interdependency. Wehman et al. (2002) suggest that states provide financial incentives for agencies maintaining high quality services including utilization of interagency collaboration. Federally, both OSEP and Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) are in the U. S. Department of Education, OSERS and housed in the same building, yet often it appears that there is a lack of communication and understanding because of differences in responsibilities, policies, and funding structures. Further examination of the barriers in federal and state policies and financial disincentives is needed to develop strategies to reduce or eliminate their impact and promote interagency collaboration (Benz et al., 2000).

Rehabilitation professionals need to create frequent opportunities to communicate with special educators (Johnson et al., 2003). Exchanges of information, resources, and knowledge cannot be limited to an annual meeting. Both formal and informal communication is critical for building relationships that promote effective interagency collaboration. As stronger relationships are built, deeper understandings, greater expectations, and more dynamic transition results are likely to occur (Johnson et al.). This understanding must come from education that is common to both special educators and rehabilitation professionals.

Rehabilitation professionals need further education to understand more deeply how important they are to the transition planning process and renew the commitment to transitioning students with disabilities. In addition, efforts must be made to educate all involved professionals about each other and the benefits of working together (Agran et al., 2002). An understanding of each agency's culture must be developed to promote mutual respect, and reduce "turf issues" (Johnson et al., 2003). Administrators can sponsor professional development activities that allow special educators and rehabilitation professionals the opportunities necessary to learn more about each other and how to meet the needs of transitioning students with disabilities (Lehmann et al., 2001). Research studies designed to investigate educators' and rehabilitation professionals' perceived roles by comparing data from those who completed joint training and those who were educated separately are necessary to increase knowledge and skills for working together across systems. Transition planning activities are of no value unless the plan is actualized in the adult world. As rehabilitation professionals learn more about their role in transition, the better they will understand the need for their presence and leadership prior to school separation for youth to achieve their desired results.

Two years post-high school, 11% of students who participated in special education were living independently (Levine & Wagner, 2005). In fact, in the last 30 years, there has been a 50% increase in the number of all youth living at home, which alone has led to a 19% increase in parental contributions (i.e., financial, emotional, and time expenditures) (Schoeni & Ross, 2004). Therefore, families are a significant support in many youths' lives as they leave high school and beyond. Transitioning students with disabilities and their families frequently rely on educators for information about community resources and service providers which often comes from secondary sources such as community resource booklets and referral contact information (Levine & Wagner). Rehabilitation professionals need to be the primary source of information regarding community resources and adult service providers to increase youth independence, choice, and success. Youths' goals in transition plans have the greatest likelihood of being realized when rehabilitation professionals are involved to bridge the educational and rehabilitation systems (Will, 1984). Through collaboration with educators, rehabilitation professionals can be in a position of leadership to inform youth and their families of the potential community opportunities available as well as assist in system navigation.

Youth need to have opportunities to build and utilize self determination and advocacy skills to successfully actualize their life as they transition to adulthood. Historically, Centers for Independent Living (CIL) have contributed to advocacy, leadership development, and mentorship for adults within the disability community. Guidelines and provisions for CILs have been supported by legislation (i.e., The Rehabilitation Act, 1973 and its amendments). "CILs are legislatively defined as consumer-controlled, community-based, cross-disability, nonresidential, and private nonprofit agencies" (Wilson, 1999, p. 248). Due to their legislated and historical position and consumer-controlled model, CILs have the potential to offer unique opportunities and support services for adults as well as youth. Traditionally, rehabilitation professionals have worked with CILs to address the needs of adults. Nevertheless, CILs are being called upon to assist transitioning youth and their families utilizing the CIL members' abilities to act as mentors in self determination and advocacy (Wilson; Wehmeyer & Gragoudas, 2004). The impact of CILs' involvement in transition and interagency collaboration has yet to be determined. Further study and evaluation are required to determine roles for providing the greatest impact.

Implications for Future Research and Practice

In summary, we know that students with disabilities are more likely to secure desirable post-secondary education outcomes when appropriate support services are available to them and their families (e.g., Benz et al., 2000; Gowdy et al., 2003; Horn et al., 1998). We know that youth who wait until after high school completion to connect with rehabilitation professionals face greater transition obstacles (Agran et al., 2002). We know that when special educators and rehabilitation professionals have strong collaborative relationships, the transition process is more successful, which means, most importantly, better outcomes for transitioning students (Gowdy et al.; Morningstar et al., 1999). We know that transition planning without actualization in the adult world leads to undesirable results ("Keeping the Promises", 2003). Standard practice (Coburn, 2003), leadership (Lehmann et al., 2001), commitment (Johnson et al., 2003), interdependency (Wehman et al., 2002), open communication (Johnson et al.), and education (Agran et al.) focused on the role of interagency collaboration in transition are necessary to make the changes needed to improve the results of transition efforts.

Current research indicates collaboration efforts (Agran et al., 2002; Carlson et al., 2002) to facilitate adult outcomes for youth are less than satisfactory (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Bullis et al., 1997; Cameto & Levine, 2005; "Keeping the Promises", 2003). Further investigation is needed to better understand how special educators and rehabilitation professionals can reach out to each other to benefit these youth. More studies that focus on the rehabilitation professionals' perspectives regarding transition services and interagency collaboration are necessary. For example, how do rehabilitation professionals view their role in transition? What are their expectations of this role? What incentives are present for rehabilitation professionals who are involved with transitioning students with disabilities and interagency collaboration? What are the rehabilitation professionals' expectations of special educators? How can roles shift so that rehabilitation professionals have a more active part in the transition process? What are the underlying assumptions at play? Do transition specialists improve interagency collaboration between special educators and rehabilitation professionals? How can parent and family involvement facilitate collaboration efforts across the rehabilitation and special education systems? What impact will CIL involvement have on transition, interagency collaboration, and adult outcomes? Current literature does not provide answers to these questions. The answers could be helpful in developing strategies to improve interagency collaboration efforts during transition activities.

In addition, gathering information about rehabilitation professionals' knowledge could prove useful. Locating the gaps in interagency collaboration efforts provides a way to begin to build a bridge in which transitioning youth can cross into adulthood (Will, 1984) in the most meaningful and successful manner. This information will be invaluable to teachers who must begin the transition process and typically establish the first plan. Minimizing barriers to interagency collaboration is important for rehabilitation professionals given their responsibility in completing the transition process. Therefore, this information may create an avenue for rehabilitation providers to have a more effective role in providing transition services. Inevitably, transitioning students with disabilities and their families will benefit as they are the consumers of transition planning and services provided by educators and rehabilitation professionals. Ultimately, communities benefit from a stronger workforce and consumer base. Now is the time to work collaboratively to address transition issues while continuing to investigate what still needs to be understood. It is time to raise our expectations of all youth but especially our expectations for youth with disabilities. With rehabilitation professionals providing vital leadership, utilization of evidence-based transition practices can provide the way to achieve desired results.

References

Agran, M., Cain, H. M., & Cavin, M. D. (2002). Enhancing the involvement of rehabilitation counselors in the transition process. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 141-155.

Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perceptions. Exceptional Children, 66, 509-529.

Blackorby, J. & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal post-school outcomes of students with disabilities: Findings from the national longitudinal transition study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399-415.

Bullis, M., Davis, C., Bull, B., & Johnson, B. (1997). Expectations versus realities: Examination of the transition plans and experiences of adolescents who are deaf and adolescents who are hearing. [Electronic version]. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 40, 251-265.

Cameto, R. & Levine, P. (2005). Changes in the employment status and job characteristics of out-of school students with disabilities. National Transition Study 2. Retrieved April 1, 2006, from http://www.nlts2.org/pdfs/str6_completereport .pdf

Carlson, E., Brauen, M., Klein, S., Schroll, K., & Willig, S. (2002). Study of personnel needs in special education: Key findings. Retrieved March 3, 2004, from http://www.spense .org/KeyFindings.pdf

Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32, 3-12.

DeFur, S. H. & Taymans, J. M. (1995). Competencies needed for transition specialists in vocational rehabilitation, vocational education, and special education. Exceptional Children, 62, 38-51.

Disability Status Reports United States (2005). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics (StatsRRTC), Retrieved February 18, 2007 from http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/disabilitystatistics/Status Reports/2005-pdf/2005-StatusReports_US.pdf?CFID= 19977965&CFTOKEN=91723376

Gowdy, E. L., Carlson, L. S., & Rapp, C. A. (2003). Practices differentiating high-performing from low-performing supported employment programs. [Electronic version]. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 26, 232-239.

Green, H. & Brooke, V. (2001). Recruiting and retaining the best from America's largest untapped talent pool. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 83-88.

Halpern, A. S. (1985). Transition: A look at the foundations. Exceptional Children, 51,479-486.

Hayward, B. J. & Schmidt-Davis, H. (2000, July). Longitudinal study of the vocational rehabilitation service program. Fourth Interim Report: Characteristics and Outcomes of Transitional Youth in VR. Research Triangle Institute. Received August 20, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/ speced/leg/rehab/eval-studies.html#vr

Horn, J. R., Trach, J. S., & Haworth, S. L. (1998). Employment outcomes from a collaborative work study program. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 64, 30-35.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 20 U. S. C. 1400 et seq. Retrieved March 3, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/Policy/IDEA/the_law html

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act Amendments of 2004, 20 U. S. C. 1400 et seq. Retrieved August 11, 2005, from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi? dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:pub1446.108

Johnson, D. R. (2000). Challenges facing the future of transition services. In D. R. Johnson & E. J. Emanuel (Eds.), Issues influencing the future of transition programs and services in the United States (153-158) University of Minnesota: National Transition Network, Institute on Community Integration.

Johnson, L. J., Zorn, D., Tam, F. K. Y., Lamontagne, M., & Johnson, S. A. (2003). Stakeholders' views of factors that impact successful interagency collaboration. Exceptional Children, 69, 195-209.

Keeping the promises: National goals, state of knowledge and research agenda for person with intellectual and developmental disabilities. (2003, January). Findings & Recommendations: Invitational Conference. The Arc of the United States.

Kohler, P. D. (2003). Transition-focused education: Foundation for the future. [Electronic version]. The Journal of Special Education. 37, 174-83.

Lehmann, J., Cobb, B., & Tochterman, S. (2001). Exploring the relationship between transition and educational initiatives. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24, 185-197.

Levine, P. & Wagner, M. (2005, July). The transition to adulthood for the special education population. (MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood and Public Policy, Policy Brief Issue No. 24). University of Pennsylvania, Department of Sociology.

Morningstar, M. E., Kleinhammer-Tramill, P. J., & Lattin, D. L. (1999). Using successful models of student-centered transition planning and services for adolescents with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31, 1-19.

Nirje, B. (1969). The normalization principle and its human management implications. In R. B. Krugel & Wolfensberger (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded (pp. 179-195). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Rumbaut, R. G. (2004, March). Young adults in the United States: A profile. (MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood and Public Policy, Research Network Working Paper, No. 4). University of Pennsylvania, Department of Sociology. http://www.transad.pop.upenn.edu/ downloads/Young%20Adults%20in%20the%20United%20 States%20-%20A%20Profile.pdf

Schoeni, R. & Ross, K. (2004, October). Family support during the transition to adulthood. (MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood and Public Policy, Policy Brief Issue No. 12). University of Pennsylvania, Department of Sociology. Retrieved April 1, 2006, from http://www.transad.pop.upenn.edu/downloads/chap%2012-formatted.pdf

Settersten, Jr., R. A. (2004, October). Social policy and the transition to adulthood. (MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood and Public Policy, Policy Brief Issue No. 16). University of Pennsylvania, Department of Sociology.

Szymanski, E. M. (1994). Transition: Life-span and life-space considerations for empowerment. Exceptional Children. 60, 402-410.

The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998, 20 U. S. C. 2301 et seq. Retrieved March 3, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/1999-1/021799c.html

The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006, Retrieved August 28, 2006 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/sectech/leg/perkins/index.html

The Rehabilitation Act 1973 and its amendments, 29 U. S. C. 794. Retrieved March 3, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/ speced/reg/narrative.html?exp=0

United States Department of Labor. (2001, July). Statistics about people with disabilities and employment. Retrieved 11/09/03 from http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/ek01/stats.htm

Wehman, P., Barcus, M., & Wilson, K. (2002). A survey of training and technical assistance needs of community-based rehabilitation providers. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 17, 39-46.

Wehman, P. & Targett, P. (2002). Supported employment: The challenge of new staff recruitment, selection, and retention [Electronic version]. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 434-446.

Wehmeyer, M. L. & Gragoudas, S. (2004). Centers for independent living and transition-age youth: Empowerment and self-determination. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 20, 53-58.

Will, M. (1984). Bridges from school to working life. Programs for the handicapped. Washington DC: The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, Office of Information and Resources for the Handicapped.

Will, M. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411-415.

Wilson, K. E. (1999). Centers for independent living in support of transition. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13, 246-252.

Kathleen Marie Oertle

University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign 

John S. Trach

University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign

Kathleen Marie Oertle, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, College of Education, Department of Special Education, 288 Education, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820.

Email: [e-mail] 

Table 1
Transition Practices of Educators and Rehabilitation Professionals

                        Typical current
                        practices               What is needed

Purpose--               Legislative             Meet individual
What drives             compliance (e.g.,       transition needs
transition practices?   IDEA, 2004); Event      (e.g., person-
                        driven (e.g., turning   centered support
                        16 years old);          services); Continuous
                        Mandated education      linkages (e.g.,
                        (e.g., entitlement);    network utilization
                        Eligibility-based       and collaboration)
                        adult services (e.g.,
                        set criteria)

Outcomes--              Limited (i.e.,          Community presence
What results from       provider-driven         (e.g., consumer-
transition practices?   services, persistent    driven services,
                        unemployment, unequal   community employment,
                        acquisition of          post-secondary
                        post-secondary          education, housing
                        education, congregate   choices, and social
                        housing, and social     inclusion)
                        isolation)

Relationship--          Independent (i.e.,      Interdependent (e.g.,
How might transition    parallel operation      seamless support
practices be            of education and        services, recognition
conducted?              rehabilitation          of support needs,
                        systems)                and service
                                                determination based
                                                on needs)

Responsibility--        School (e.g., often     Shared (e.g., a
How do transition       services are            process that is
practices proceed?      unilateral and          coordinated,
                        practices are           outcome-focused, and
                        mandate-based)          consists of
                                                evidence-based
                                                practices)

Role--                  Teacher driven (e.g.,   Partners (e.g.,
Who might conduct       school personnel        collaborative
transition practices?   initiate,               transition activities
                        administrate, and       and blended funding
                        fund transition         from special
                        plans)                  education and
                                                rehabilitation)

Focus--                 Curriculum (e.g.,       Employment, post-
What do transition      meeting federal and     secondary education,
practices target?       state academic          and community
                        standards)              integration (e.g.,
                                                skills, abilities,
                                                and knowledge for
                                                career and adult
                                                living

Policy--                Limited scale (e.g.,    Scaling up through
What results from       time-limited results    system and
policy?                 because school          organizational change
                        responsibility ends     (e.g., interagency
                        at school completion)   collaboration  as
                                                standard practice
                                                leading to
                                                substantial, lifelong
                                                results, and social
                                                investment in youth)

Communication--         Problem-based (e.g.,    Open (e.g., formal
How does it occur?      school services are     and informal);
                        ending); One-           Interactive and
                        dimensional (e.g.,      multidimensional
                        referral to community   (e.g., information
                        support services and    and resources are
                        a community resource    valued by each other)
                        booklet)

Education--             Few joint trainings     Collaborative
What professional       (e.g., continuing       opportunities for
development is          maintenance;            learning with
offered?                one-sided perspective   required partici-
                        of service              pation. (e.g., course
                        provisions)             work, workshops,
                                                teleconferences, and
                                                conferences focused
                                                on transition
                                                practices and
                                                interagency
                                                collaboration)