UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
Vol. 1, Book 3

January 2013

education.uic.edu/ruepi

Transition for Urban Youth with Disabilities Leaving Secondary Education

By Lisa S. Cushing and Michelle Parker-Katz

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Lisa S. Cushing is an Associate Professor in the Special Education department in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Michelle Parker-Katz is a Clinical Professor who teaches masters and doctoral students, coordinates masters programs in Special Education at UIC, and publishes research related to teacher education and learning.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban youth with disabilities face complex uncertainties as they move from high school to life beyond, whether that is postsecondary education, joining the workforce, and/or determining living arrangements. Given such problems, federal and state policies have increasingly focused on developing and strengthening the transition services available to students; that is, services aimed at improving the academic and functional achievement of children with disabilities to facilite their movement from school to post-school, including postsecondary education, employment, and independent living. However, transition services are often poorly and inconsistently implemented in practice, particularly because these services are not grounded in a coordinated, transparent, and coherent system that spans across federal, state,

and local levels. As such, individuals with disabilities and their families often cannot acquire the information to successfully navigate the labyrinth of possible programs and services and then piece them together for a cohesive, individualized transition that builds toward maximum independence in adulthood. To best meet the needs of youth with disabilities and their families, current policies should be modified to faciliate the (1) formation of a coordinated interagency system, (2) formation of new partnerships among federal, state, and local institutions and agencies, (3) extension of services further beyond high school, and (4) development of cross-entity personnel training programs.

policy BRIEF
INTRODUCTION
Urban youth with disabilities face complex uncertainties as they move from high school to life beyond, whether that is postsecondary education, joining the workforce, and/or determining living arrangements. They are often ill prepared to plan for and make choices amongst existing postsecondary possibilities.1 The situation is particularly bleak for youth with disabilities who are also youth of color or poverty. They are the most likely group to drop out of high school, and many find themselves incarcerated, underemployed, or becoming young parents.2 When they are in school, the range and quality of resources, such as specially trained personnel to assist with transition, specialized curricular offerings, and technology, vary greatly and are inequitably distributed.3 When youth with disabilities leave school, they also leave behind access to school-based mandated services. With the loss of those services, students and their families must locate services and supports with little, if any, guidance.4 Given such problems, federal and state policies have increasingly recognized this significant period of life as transition, and focused on developing and strengthening transition services available to youth and young adults; that is, services aimed at improving academic and functional achievement to facilitate movement from high school to post-school, especially postsecondary education, employment, and independent living. Federal legislation, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and Social Security Act have increasingly focused on enhancing transition services, and states have interpreted and responded to such legislation in a range of ways. The emphasis on transition services represents an important step in the right direction. As research demonstrates, high quality transition services are critical for ensuring that youth with disabilities finish high school and succeed in whatever they choose to do as adults. However, transition services are often poorly and inconsistently implemented, particularly because they are not grounded in a coordinated, evidence-based, and transparent system that spans across federal, state, and local levels. Individuals with disabilities and their families accordingly find it difficult to acquire the information needed for successfully navigating the labyrinth of possible programs and services and then piecing them together for a cohesive individualized transition that builds toward maximum independence in adulthood. This brief examines the policy landscape governing transition services in the U.S., with specific attention to the major challenges associated with the incoherence and incongruence of transition policy. In particular, this brief reviews the state of the transition policy landscape, major problems of policies governing transition, and research on transition, and concludes by offering recommendations for improving transition policies.

1 2

Mary E. Morningstar, Kyeong-Hwa Kim, and Gary M. Clark, Evaluating a Transition Personnel Preparation Program: Identifying Transition Competencies of Practitioners, Teacher Education and Special Education 31, no. 1 (2008): 47. doi: 10.1177/08884064080310010. Lynn Newman, Mary Wagner, Renee Cameto, and Anne-Marie Knokey, The Post-High School Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities up to 4 Years After High School. A Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2009-3017) (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 2009); Mary Magee Quinn, et al., Youth with Disabilities in Juvenile Corrections: A National Survey, Exceptional Children, 71 no. 3 (2005): 339 345; Melissa Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National Report Series Bulletin (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2004); Mary Wagner, Characteristics of Out-of-School Youth with Disabilities, in After High School: A First Look at the Postschool Experiences of Youth with Disabilities. A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2, eds. Mary Wagner, et al., (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 2005); Mary Wagner and Maryann Davis, How Are We Preparing Students with Emotional Behavior Disturbances for the Transition to Young Adulthood? Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2, Journal of Emotional Behavioral Disorders 14, no. 2, (2006): 86-98. Susan Aud, et al., The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033), (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2011); Sheryl Burgstahler, DO-IT: Helping students with disabilities transition to college and careers, Research to Practice Brief: Improving Secondary Education and Transition Services through Research, 2, no. 3, 2003, Retrieved October 18, 2010 from www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1168; William Erickson, Camille G. Lee, and Sarah von Schrader, 2008 Disability Status Report: the United States, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics, 2009); U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, Facts from OSEPs National Longitudinal Studies: Minorities among Children and Youth with Disabilities, (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, August 2002), Retrieved on October 16, 2010 from www.nlts2.org/fact_sheets/nlts2_fact_sheet_2002_08.pdf; Audrey A. Trainor, et al., Marginalized to Maximized Opportunities for Diverse Youths With Disabilities: A Position Paper of the Division on Career Development and Transition, Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, n. 1 (2008): 56- 64, doi:10.1177/0885728807313777. Burgstahler , DO-IT: Helping students with disabilities transition to college and careers.

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
THE TRANSITION POLICY LANDSCAPE
Attention to transitions for youth with disabilities has grown in research and policy since the 1980s. In 1984, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for Special Education and Rehabilitation, Madeleine Will, issued a report highlighting the high unemployment rates for adults with disabilities, the lack of community services and supports for these individuals, and the segregation of supports for those who were receiving services. In this report, Will defined transition as a bridge between the security and structure offered by the school and the risks of life.5 In 1985, educational researcher Andrew Halpern proposed a broader definition of transition by drawing attention to successful living in a community as the major goal of transition.6 While maintaining an emphasis on employment and services that Will had proposed, Halpern reasoned that successful transition was affected by additional elements. Halpern underscored the importance of community integration of persons with disabilities and proposed a dynamic model in which three components interacted and contributed to successful transition: residential environment, social and interpersonal networks, and employment. With the 1990 reauthorization of the IDEA, transition emerged as an
5

important concept in federal legislation.7 The 1990 and subsequent reauthorizations of IDEA in 1997 and 2004 mandated transition services and stated that transition: [is a process targeted at improvement of] the academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the childs movement from school to post-school activities, including post-secondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment); continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation; (b) is based on the individual childs needs, taking into account the childs strengths, preferences, and interests; and (c) includes instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and, if appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation.8 In the 2004 reauthorization of the IDEA, Congress mandated that Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), written documents required for all students with disabilities to guide the services they receive, include measureable postsecondary goals in education and training, employment, and independent living skills when appropriate.9 Furthermore, the 2004 IDEA

As research demonstrates, high quality transition services are critical for ensuring that youth with disabilities finish high school and succeed in whatever they choose to do as adults.

6 7 8 9

Madeline Will, OSERS Programming for the Transition of Youth with Disabilities: Bridges from School to Working Life (Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, 1984): 1. Andrew S. Halpern, Transition: A Look at the Foundations, Exceptional Children 51, no. 6 (1985): 479. The IDEA was originally passed as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EACHA) in 1975. The 1990 reauthorization of the EACHA renamed the law as the IDEA. 34 CFR 300.43 (a); 20 U.S.C. 1401(34). 34 CFR 300.320(b) and (c); 20 U.S.C. 1414 (d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII). Transition for Urban Youth with Disabilities

policy BRIEF
reauthorization required IEPs to identify particular transition services that are needed for students, which potentially include acquiring the help of a representative from an outside agency to assist with the transition of services from the school setting to the out-of-school setting upon graduation. assist career readiness11 and, in April 2012, released A Blueprint for Transforming Career and Technical Education, a proposal for reauthorizing the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006.12 According to this blueprint, the Obama administration proposed to add significant investments to the Community College Career Fund and subsidize high school students to participate in career academies. Several federal funding sources also support research about transition, including the National Center for Special Education Research and the Institute for Education Sciences, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Education. Outside the field of education, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) provides significant funding for centers such as the VR Rehabilitation Research and Training Center. Despite the significant attention and resources devoted to developing and implementing transition services for youth with disabilities, we continue to see a disturbing picture for youth with disabilities in transition. The following section examines the problems raised by policies aimed at developing and enhancing transition services, and the challenges that youth with disabilities continue to confront.

Despite the significant attention and resources devoted to developing and implementing transition services for youth with disabilities, we continue to see a disturbing picture for youth with disabilities in transition.

Within the last two decades, federal funding has also supported postschool transition services under programs administered by various federal agencies. These agencies include the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), U.S. Department of Labor, and Social Security Administration (SSA). For example, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the U.S. Department of Education has supported technical centers like the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition and the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) that provide transition related resources and up-to-date research and data. OSEP currently supports the funding of fifteen personnel preparation grants for training teachers in transition at a total of $21 million.10 Moreover, the U.S. Department of Education under the Obama administration has added $2 billion to Trade Adjustment Assistant Grants that

10 Office of Special Education & Rehabilitation Services, Office of Special Education Programs, Application for New Grants under the IDEA Act: Personnel Preparation in Special Education, Early Intervention and Related Services (CFDA 84.325K) (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2011). 11 Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Summary of Investing in Americas Future: A Blueprint for Transforming Career and Technical Education, (Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Education, 2012). 12 Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109597; Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Investing in Americas Future: A Blueprint for Transforming Career and Technical Education, (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2012).

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
DILEMMAS OF SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION
The policies aimed at developing and enhacing transition services entail several interrelated problems that ultimately result in significant challenges faced by youth and young adults with disabilities as they move from high school to postsecondary life. The lack of a cohesive federal framework to support transition age youth is the most fundamental of these problems. The current system remains highly fragmented because transition-related programs are administered by many different agencies. Due in part to the problems of such fragmentation, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) acknowledged the need for systemic change at the federal level as early as 1997.13 Moreover, highlighting the inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and economic waste in disability programs that stem from such problems, the federal government has placed disability programs on a high risk list that it publishes annually.14 The fragmented federal framework is marred by redundant and incompatible practices that obfuscate the processes that youth with disabilities must navigate to effectively take advantage of transition services. For example, both the SSA and Vocational Rehabilitation Administration (VRA) under the U.S. Department of Labor fund programs directed at employment and training for individuals with disabilities. Those programs, however, have different eligibility requirements, application processes, and types of services. Ironically, the requirements established by VRA, aimed at helping people with disabilities obtain employment, often make individuals ineligible for programs offered through SSAindividuals may become ineligible for additional monetary support from the SSA if they demonstrate their ability to work.15 Moreover, the lack of coordination and clarity on roles and responsibilities for providing services to people with disabilities can result in confusion as to which agency is responsible for funding specific services. Making the transition policy landscape even more complex, each agency is governed by its own statutory requirements set forth by several pieces of legislation. Examples of legislation with transition components include: Assistive Technology Act 1994, Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act 2000, Higher Education Act of 1965; IDEA; Rehabilitation Act 1973; Social Security Act; and, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Yet, this collection of legislation has left several significant gaps in the policy structures governing transition. Nowhere is that more evident than in the breakdown between protections

The lack of a cohesive federal framework to support transition age youth is the most fundamental of these problems.

13 Government Accountability Office [GAO], People with Disabilities: Federal Programs Could Work Together More Efficiently to Promote Employment (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1997). 14 Government Accountability Office [GAO], Students with Disabilities: Better Coordination Could Lessen Challenges in the Transition from High School (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2012). 15 Valerie Brooke and Jennifer T. McDonough, The Facts Maam, Just the Facts: Social Security Disability Benefit Programs and Work Incentives, TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41, no. 1, (2008): 58-65; GAO, Students with Disabilities: Better Coordination Could Lessen Challenges in the Transition from High School. Transition for Urban Youth with Disabilities

policy BRIEF
for students with disabilities under the IDEA when they are in school and protections under the range of federal laws that apply to young adults with disabilities when they exit school.16 If a student is found to have a disability when in school, an IEP must identify all areas of need, provide supports and services to meet those needs, and support the students school progress. Depending on when a student becomes eligible for support under the IDEA, that student may receive up to 13 years of documented specialized education supports and services. The onus of delivering those services falls to the school, and the school essentially becomes a one-stop-shop for managing the students specialized needs. However, when youth with disabilities leave school, they enter a world in which a range of services are offered by several different providers that operate under different governance structures and utilize different processes for serving individuals. The various federal agencies that serve adults with disabilities generally rely on state and local community entities (each with their own set of guidelines for interpreting federal law) to impart funding and implement supports and services. Thus, the lack of a clear and coherent federal framework directly impacts the ability of state and local service providers to communicate and coordinate with each other, ultimately impairing effectiveness and efficiency.17 Mirroring what occurs at the federal level, state and local agencies responsible for implementing transition services often find themselves at odds about agency roles and expectations as well as funding. Responsibilities for services for postsecondary education and training, employment and independent living are often provided inconsistently with respect to the quality, intensity and duration of services. What accounts for such variance? In some cases, adult agencies turn individuals with disabilities who are 22 or younger away because these youth can still receive IDEA funding.18 In other instances, when providers determine that youth with disabilities are eligible to receive services, some services previously afforded may cease, leaving the person with the disability to do without or to pay out of pocket for what they may find necessary to succeed.19 For example,

Nowhere is that more evident than in the breakdown between protections for students with disabilities under the IDEA when they are in school and protections under the range of federal laws that apply to young adults with disabilities when they exit school.

16 Kimberly Moherek Sopko, Preparation for Postsecondary Life for Students with Disabilities, In Forum, June 2010, www.projectforum.org/docs/PreparationforPostsecondaryLifeforStudents withDisabilities.pdf; Office for Civil Rights, Students with Disabilities Preparing for Postsecondary Education: Know Your Rights and Responsibilities (Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Education, 2004). 17 Kelli Crane, Meredith Gramlich, and Kris Peterson, Putting Interagency Agreements into Action, Issue Brief: Examining Current Challenges in Secondary Education and Transition, 3, no. 2. 2004, Retrieved December 10, 2010 from www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1689. 18 Autism Speaks, Transition Information: Michigan, available at: www.autismspeaks.org/docs/ family_services _docs/transition/MI.pdf; GAO, Students with Disabilities: Better Coordination Could Lessen Challenges in the Transition from High School, 2012. 19 Debra Hart, Karen Zimbrich, and Teresa Whelley, Challenges in Coordinating and Managing Services and Supports in Secondary and Postsecondary Options, Issue Brief 1, no. 6, 2002, Retrieved December 10, 2010 from www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1689; Sopko, Preparation for Postsecondary Life for Students with Disabilities; Office for Civil Rights, Students with Disabilities Preparing for Postsecondary Education: Know Your Rights and Responsibilities; Robert A Stodden, People with Disabilities and Postsecondary EducationPosition paper, September 15, 2003. Retrieved October 18, 2010 from www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/education.html.

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
many students with Autism Spectrum Disorders require social and behavioral supports to accommodate social and communication deficits. Such supports are rarely offered in postsecondary institutions, leaving those students socially isolated. Who, where, and when such support services are offered remain unclear. These ambiguous expectations and roles among agencies effectively keep students with disabilities in high school longer rather than helping them transition beyond high school because it is the only way for students to receive needed services. Providers of transition services also face challenges in working with transition age youth with disabilities. While proposals to more strongly link K-12 education to postsecondary education and employment at the provider level are underfoot, such efforts have been slow to emerge.20 The lack of longitudinal evidence of what works obscures service providers effectiveness, causing providers to operate with little guidance with respect to the quality, length and intensity of services. For example, under the IDEA, outside adult agencies identified on the students IEP are required to be invited to participate in a students IEP/transition planning meeting. However, those outside agencies are not required to attend the meetings, and more often than not, outside personnel do not participate.21 The lack of coordination, clarity of roles, and fragmentation of work and funding, function as strong barriers to collaborative work. Within such uncharted territory, information dissemination breaks down. What is left is a set of proposed practices through legislation with structures that are ill conceived, disparate, and disconnected. When youth exit high school, the obligation thus falls to them as adults to negotiate myriad funding agencies, determine which services are available, and determine if they meet the criteria for eligibility. Issues associated with access to information and resources, legal requirements, and services provided when moving from protections under different laws and regulations add up to a significant change to meet the needs of postsecondary education, employment, and/or independent living. This is a major adjustment for youth with disabilities because they suddenly must assume responsibility for managing all aspects of their disabilityfrom navigating and applying to all appropriate funding agencies, notifying an institution or employer of their disability, and advocating for specific supports and services they will require.22 These problems have resulted in poor postsecondary education, employment and independent living outcomes for many of the 2.2 million transition-age youth and young adults with disabilities.23 Nationally,

The lack of a clear and coherent federal framework directly impacts the ability of state and local service providers to communicate and coordinate with each other, ultimately impairing effectiveness and efficiency.

20 Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Policy and Planning, Transition Activities in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2011 (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Education, 2011). 21 Crane, Gramlich, and Peterson, Putting Interagency Agreements into Action; Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Policy and Planning, Transition Activities in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2011. 22 Sopko, Preparation for Postsecondary Life for Students with Disabilities. 23 GAO, Students with Disabilities: Better Coordination Could Lessen Challenges in the Transition from High School. Transition for Urban Youth with Disabilities

policy BRIEF
only 72 percent of youth with disabilities (ranging from 56 percent of youth with emotional behavioral disorders to 95 percent youth with visual impairments) complete high school.24 A mere 27 percent of youth with disabilities attend any kind of school after high school.25 Although still considered to be an underrepresented population in postsecondary education, the percent of students with disabilities attending higher education has tripled in the past 30 years from 3 percent to 10 percent.26 However, a paltry 50 percent of youth with disabilities graduate with a degree.27 In addition to postsecondary education, employment rates of individuals with disabilities remain abysmal. In August 2012, employment rates were three times higher for people without disabilities than with disabilities.28 Echoing national statistics, employment rates among working age individuals with disabilities in Illinois are less than half of that for people without disabilities.29 While researchers continue to tout the importance of integration of individuals in ones community30, Illinois pays an average per capita cost of $142,533 a year to state institutions for individuals with developmental disabilities to support over 2,000 people.31 In contrast, the state pays an average $53,291 per-person to approximately 200 communitybased organizations that service nearly four times the number of people with disabilities.32 So, reforming the ways in which transition services are provided is critical for the 2.2 million youth with disabilities in the U.S., Illinois, and the nation more broadly.

A mere 27 percent of youth with disabilities attend any kind of school after high school.

RESEARCH
Research on youth and adults with disabilities points to several ways in which transition policies can be productively restructured to support the movement from high school to adult life. First, building from Will

24 Institute of Education Sciences, Facts from NLTS2: High School Completion by Youth with Disabilities, last modified November 2005, www.nlts2.org/fact_sheets/nlts2_fact_sheet_2005 _11.pdf; Newman, Wagner, Cameto, and Knokey, The Post-High School Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities up to 4 Years After High School. A Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. 25 Institute of Education Sciences, Facts from NLTS2; Newman, Wagner, Cameto, and Knokey, The Post-High School Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities up to 4 Years After High School. A Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). 26 Stodden, People with Disabilities and Postsecondary Education-Position Paper. 27 Stodden, People with Disabilities and Postsecondary Education-Position Paper. 28 Office of Disability Employment Policy, August 2012 Employment Statistics, last modified September 2012, www.dol.gov/odep. 29 Chicago Community Trust (CCT), A Quest for Equality: Breaking the Barriers for People with Disabilities. A Call to Action for Illinois Leaders, (Chicago, IL: Chicago Community Trust, 2010). 30 Leena Jo Landmark, Song Ju, and Dalun Zhang, Substantiated Best practices in Transition: Fifteen Plus Years Later, Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33, no.3, (2010): 165 176, doi: 10.1177/0885728810376410; Frank R. Rusch and David Braddock, Adult Day Programs versus Supported Employment (19882002): Spending and Service Practices of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities State Agencies, Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29, (2005): 237242; David W. Test, et al., Evidence-Based Secondary Transition Predictors for Improving Postschool Outcomes for Students with Disabilities, Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, no. 3, (2009): 160-181, doi: 10.1177/0885728809346960. 31 Chicago Community Trust (CCT), A Quest for Equality: Breaking the Barriers for People with Disabilities. A Call to Action for Illinois Leaders. 32 Chicago Community Trust (CCT), A Quest for Equality: Breaking the Barriers for People with Disabilities. A Call to Action for Illinois Leaders.

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
and Halperns work, research has led to the development of conceptual frameworks that comprise multiple facets to reflect the complex nature of transition to adulthood. Recent research reveals strong linkages between certain transition practices and successful post-school experiences for adults with disabilities. To encourage successful transitions, related policies should capitalize on evidence-based practices and fold them into regulations. Second, taking into account that transition is a dynamic process that occurs over a long period of time, researchers have begun to tout innovative and alternative ways to provide services and supports to transition-age youth and young adults with disabilities.33 Thus, policies should be reconfigured to take into consideration individual differences in the duration and intensity of services. Finally, personnel in organizations, agencies, and schools should be better trained to implement evidence-based practices. educational programming, in lieu of the commonly held practice that viewed transition as an add-on once the student is of transition age.34 From a systematic review of the literature, evaluation studies, and model demonstration transition projects, researchers have identified five essential elements for effective transitions: (1) student focused planning, (2) student development, (3) interagency collaboration, (4) family involvement and (5) program structures and attributes.35 Moreover, researchers have compiled information about effective practices in each of these arenas. NSTACC, for example, identified practices within the five categories that were predictive of post-school success for students with disabilities.36 Principal indicators of later adult success consisted of: inclusion in general education, graduation high school with a diploma, completion of a program that included a focused attention to occupation, completion of a program about transition, and paid employment opportunities.37 Other researchers identified 16 transition practices associated with improved outcomes in education, employment and independent living.38 Nearly half of the sixteen practices (i.e., career awareness, occupational coursework, interagency collaboration, selfadvocacy, and social skills) were

To encourage successful transitions, related policies should capitalize on evidence-based practices and fold them into regulations.

INTEGRATE EVIDENCEBASED PRACTICES INTO POLICY

Researchers have developed dynamic models that illustrate how key transition elements can be interwoven into the fabric of all

33 Andrew S. Halpern, Transition: Old Wine in New Bottles, Exceptional Children 58, no. 3: (1991): 202; Paula D. Kohler and Sharon Field, Transition-Focused Education: Foundation for the Future, Journal of Special Education 37 no. 3 (2003): 174, doi: 10.1177/00224669030370030701; Lauren Lindstrom and Michael R. Benz, Phases of Career Development: Case Studies of Young Women with Learning Disabilities, Exceptional Children 69, no. 1: 67. 34 Kohler and Field, Transition-Focused Education: Foundation for the Future. 35 Paula D. Kohler, A Model for Planning, Organizing, and Evaluating Transition Education, Services, and Programs, (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, 1996). 36 NSTTAC, Predictors by Outcome, last modified August 30, 2011, www.nsttac.org/sites/default/ files/pdf/Predictors_by_OutcomeTable_with_x%27s_new_%282%29.pdf. 37 NSTTAC, Predictors by Outcome. 38 Test et al., Evidence-Based Secondary Transition Predictors for Improving Postschool Outcomes for Students with Disabilities, 160. Transition for Urban Youth with Disabilities

policy BRIEF
predictive of success in employment and postsecondary education.39 The remaining five were linked with improved outcomes in employment.40 Research findings over the last decade show how a focus on future employment, education and independent living in high-school and beyond can help youth with disabilities to succeed. Thus, policies should infuse such findings into comprehensive frameworks and associated practices. choosing training programs), the timing of services, and the intensity of supports should vary in direct relation to the needs of individual persons going through the transition.41 Given this view of effective transition, some researchers have suggested that the public high schools should contract with postsecondary agencies while particular students move through high school.42 Thus, as students age, increasingly more postsecondary agencies would provide services alongside school-based supports. Ultimately, by age 22, high school supports would be replaced by supports and services in the adult arena, allowing for a seamless transition. A related suggestion is to change policies at the federal level to make them mimic services individuals with disabilities receive under IDEA.43 This move would create a continuous system of supports that does not cease once a person turns 22 years old and/or leaves school. It would also better reflect the diverse needs of people

Research findings over the last decade show how a focus on future employment, education and independent living in high-school and beyond can help youth with disabilities to succeed.

STRUCTURE TRANSITION AS A DYNAMIC AND INDIVIDUALIZED PROCESS

The research also indicates that transition should be considered a dynamic and individualized process that changes over time. As the student ages, goals, services, and supports accordingly should change. For example, the types of supports (e.g., employment such as job shadowing versus job coaching, post secondary education such as help

39 Test et al., Evidence-Based Secondary Transition Predictors for Improving Postschool Outcomes for Students with Disabilities, 160. 40 Test et al., Evidence-Based Secondary Transition Predictors for Improving Postschool Outcomes for Students with Disabilities, 160. 41 Erik W. Carter et al., Availability of and Access to Career Development Activities for TransitionAge Youth with Disabilities, Career Development for Exceptional Individuals 33, no. 3. (2010): 13, doi:10.1177/0885728809344332; Erik W. Carter, et al., Exploring School-Business Partnerships to Expand Career Development and Early Work Experiences for Youth with Disabilities, Career Development for Exceptional Individuals 32, no. 3 (2009): 145, doi:10.1177/0885728809344590; Ellen S. Fabian, Urban Youth with Disabilities: Factors Affecting Transition Employment, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50 no. 3 (2010): 130, doi: 1-.1177/0343552070500030101; Audrey A. Trainor et al., Perspectives of Adolescents with Disabilities on Summer Employment and Community Experiences, Journal of Special Education 45 no. 3 (2011): 157, doi: 10.1177/022466909359424. 42 Nicholas J. Certo et al., Seamless Transition and Long-Term Support for Individuals with Severe Intellectual Disabilities, Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, no. 3 (2008): 85. 43 Nicholas J. Certo et al., Seamless transition and long-term support for individuals with severe intellectual disabilities, 85; Nicholas J. Certo et al., Review and Discussion of a Model of Seamless Transition to Adulthood, Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, no. 1 (2003): 3; Carolyn Hughes, Postsecondary Outcomes in the 21st centuryA Change Is Gonna Come? Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, no. 3 (2008): 100; Frank R. Rusch and Pamela Wolfe, When Will Our Values Finally Result in the Creation of New Pathways for ChangeChange that We Can Believe In? Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, no. 3 (2008): 96; James R. Thompson et al., Integrating supports in assessment and planning, Mental Retardation, 40, no. 5, (2002): 390-405.

10

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
with disabilities by providing long terms supports to those who require it.44 Thus, policies could be reconfigured to reflect the individual differences in the duration and intensity of transition services. interests or independent living arrangements. To address such problems, researchers have identified core competencies required for all secondary educators to implement best practices for transition.45 The competencies include knowledge of (1) specific curriculum and instruction, (2) student focused planning and assessment, (3) family involvement, (4) accountability and post-school outcomes, and (5) interagency collaboration. In each area, educators can gain information about best supports and services for all students, specialized supports and services for diverse students, and supports and specific transition services. A similar training profile exists for adult service personnel.46 Such training would remedy the current focus on teaching discreet skills to a service provider to do a particular job, rather than identifying the comprehensive goals of each individual and directing personnel to connect and coordinate services with other agencies and organizations.

TRAIN PERSONNEL TO IMPLEMENT EVIDENCEBASED PRACTICES

Putting into action research-based frameworks and specific practices falls to personnel who work in schools, adult service agencies and government organizations that serve youth, and adults with disabilities. Given the incoherence in the transition policy landscape, the roles and work responsibilities for persons in each location vary. In a school, for instance, a range of people provides counseling, teaches, provides therapeutic services, and oversees the overall coordination and management of transition supports and services. In adult services, personnel expectations vary in relation to the agency focus. Some personnel may work in college or university or trade schools, and they may assume roles as counselors, disability analysts, administrators, or teachers. Others adult service providers may be charged with employment supports that could include recruiting businesses to offer jobs, setting up job coaching, or evaluating job success. Still, other adult service personnel may be focused on determining youth

As the student ages, goals, services, and supports accordingly should change.

RECOMMENDATIONS
There are several possible ways that are grounded in research to improve transition policies. The most important step for improving transition policies is implementing a systems approach in which governmental departments, community agencies, schools, and

44 Nicholas J. Certo et al., Seamless transition and long-term support for individuals with severe intellectual disabilities, 85; Hughes, Postsecondary Outcomes in the 21st CenturyA Change Is Gonna Come?,100; Thompson et al., Integrating Supports in Assessment and Planning, 390. 45 Mary E. Morningstar and Gary M. Clark, The Status of Personnel Preparation for Transition Education and Services: What is the Critical Content? How Can it be Offered, Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 26, no. 2 (2003): 227. doi: 10.1177/088572880302600208. 46 David R. Johnson et al., Current Challenges Facing Secondary Education and Transition: What Research Tells Us, Exceptional Children, 58 no. 4 (2002): 519. Transition for Urban Youth with Disabilities

11

policy BRIEF
personnel work cohesively and collaboratively to improve transition for youth with disabilities and families. As the General Accountability Office recently recommended, the U.S. Departments of Education, HHS, Labor and SSA could form an interagency coalition to focus on (1) operating toward common outcome goals for transitioning youth; (2) increasing awareness of available transition services; and (3) assessing the effectiveness of their coordination efforts. All four agencies agreed with the recommendation.47 This federal initiative could open venues for additional joint work toward the alignment of requirements that have traditionally differed under various federal jurisdictions. An excellent example of such alignment is how NCLB and the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA coalesced. With the 2004 reauthorization of the IDEA, statutory text and regulations of both laws began to borrow from and reference the other. Legislative and regulatory alignment is particularly needed between IDEA policies that guide transition in schools and policies that govern adult services under the VRA. Adult service policies such as the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and the Bill of Rights Act for People with Disabilities should mimic entitlement services delineated in the IDEA.48 This move would allow individuals with intellectual disabilities access to supported employment services and long term supports. Similarly, IDEA and adult disability policies should be connected in ways that offer seamless support to youth with disabilities as they exit school. Adult disability policies could use language and definitions consistent in the IDEA.49 This consistency would help to ensure that all youth receiving services under IDEA would continue to be supported. By simplifying the transition process, this reform would also ease the burden on youth with disabilities and families as they enter the adult service sector. Rather than merely aligning such policies, the entire constellation of transition policies should be systematically revamped so as to provide consistency in type, duration, and intensity of transition services. Such reconfiguring of policies would require the creation of new partnerships across federal, state, and local institutions and organizations. These partnerships should focus primarily on improving information and access to resources for transition services to students, families, and service-providers. The elimination of redundancies in services would result in greater coordination and articulation of expectations, responsibilities and outcomes, and allow funding to be stretched across greater numbers of youth with disabilities. Partnerships should also focus on enabling

The most important step for improving transition policies is implementing a systems approach in which governmental departments, community agencies, schools, and personnel work cohesively and collaboratively.

47 GAO, Students with Disabilities: Better Coordination Could Lessen Challenges in the Transition from High School; Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, OSERS Transition Data Fact Sheet, last modified May 2012, from www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/products /transition/transition-datasheet-2011.pdf. 48 Nicholas J. Certo et al., Seamless transition and long-term support for individuals with severe intellectual disabilities, 85. 49 Nicholas J. Certo et al., Seamless transition and long-term support for individuals with severe intellectual disabilities, 85; Rusch and Wolfe, When Will Our Values Finally Result in the Creation of New Pathways for ChangeChange that We Can Believe In?, 96.

12

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
transition service providers to discover, plan, implement and assess transition particular to individuals interests and capacities. Drawing on research-based frameworks and practices to structure these partnerships should strengthen outcomes as well. In addition to creating formal partnerships, transition policies should be modified to facilitate the implementation of promising programs and services that provide supports to individuals with disabilities over time and well into adulthood. One excellent example is the one-stop career centers in which a wide array of clients can be served. The 1998 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) mandated One-Stop Career Centers in order to bring together federally funded employment and training programs with those seeking jobs.50 Currently there are 1760 comprehensive onestop centers and close to 1000 affiliated centers in the U.S., which can be found via a zip code to locate local services.51 The state of Michigan provides another example of how policies can be modified to provide support over time. The state requires schools to educate students in some disability categories to age 26, instead of to age 22 as required by federal law.52 Partnerships between service providers and higher education should also play a critical role in enhancing the coordination of transition services between federal, state, and local organizations and institutions. For example, the Institute on Disability/UCED, housed at the University of New Hampshire, is aimed at providing a coherent university-based focus for the improvement of knowledge, policies, and practices related to the lives of persons with disabilities and their families.53 The Institute on Disability recently initiated a threeyear funded project through the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to examine health disparities for persons with disabilities in New Hampshire. Such work is further echoed in 27 U.S. TPSID grants worth over $10.9 million that were awarded in 2010 to two- and four-year institutions of higher education to fund programs for helping persons with intellectual disabilities transition to postsecondary education programs.54 In addition to federal, state and local affiliations, the program requires the integration of other key players, such as businesses and higher education institutions, in ways that enable a mixing of community resources to set joint aims and challenges and create beneficial processes for implementing the work.

Partnerships between service providers and higher education should also play a critical role in enhancing the coordination of transition services between federal, state, and local organizations and institutions.

50 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training, Administration 20 CFR Part 652 and Parts 660 through 671, Federal Register 65, no. 156 (August 11, 2000). 51 Career One Stop, Americas Service Locator, last modified 2012, www.servicelocator.org/ onestopcenters.asp. 52 Autism Speaks, Transition Information: Michigan, available at: www.autismspeaks.org/docs/ family_services_docs/transition/MI.pdf. 53 Institute on Disability, About the Institute on Disability, last modified 2011, www.iod.unh.edu. 54 Office of Postsecondary Education, The Model Comprehensive Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID). Grant Announcement. 84.407A, last modified July 8, 2011 www2.ed.gov/programs/tpsid/index.html. Transition for Urban Youth with Disabilities

13

policy BRIEF
Lastly, higher education institutions should become a key partner of federal, state, and local institutions and organizations for improving the training of transition personnel. University faculty should engage in an ongoing process of conducting research and sharing research findings with transition personnel. From the data, researchers should present analyses and help lead conversations amongst federal, state, and local partners to create training program curricula. Moreover, policy should support higher education in designing and implementing evaluation and research to assess the outcomes of such partnerships. outcomes. Forming a coordinated interagency system, inviting new partners to the coalition who traditionally have not been part of conversations, extending services by beginning earlier and lasting longer depending on who shows a need, and developing cross-entity personnel training programs should comprise key elements of a framework that connects disparate agencies and organizations and ultimately supports the 2.2 million transition age youth with disabilities and their families. Finally, supporting strong research to conduct evaluation of such work, processes, and effects should facilitate a final important component to transition reform: integrating ideas for change from not only all providers, but also the direct recipients of servicesthe youth and adults with disabilities and their families.

Such reconfiguring of policies would require the creation of new partnerships across federal, state, and local institutions and organizations.

CONCLUSION
Taken together, transition services for youth and adults with disabilities are slowly beginning to change in aims, structures, processes, and

The contents of this policy brief were developed in part from funds under a grant from the US Department of Education, #H325K110509. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the US Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officer, Corinne Weidenthal. 14
UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
ABOUT US
The Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative (RUEPI) is an education policy research project based in the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Education. RUEPI was created in response to one of the most significant problems facing urban education policy: dialogue about urban education policy consistently fails to reflect what we know and what we do not about the problems education policies are aimed at remedying. Instead of being polemic and grounded primarily in ideology, public conversations about education should be constructive and informed by the best available evidence.

OUR MISSION
RUEPIs work is aimed at fostering more informed dialogue and decision-making about education policy in Chicago and other urban areas. To achieve this, we engage in research and analysis on major policy issues facing these areas, including early childhood education, inclusion, testing, STEM education, and teacher workforce policy. We offer timely analysis and recommendations that are grounded in the best available evidence.

OUR APPROACH
Given RUEPIs mission, the projects work is rooted in three guiding principles. While these principles are not grounded in any particular political ideology and do not specify any particular course of action, they lay a foundation for ensuring that debates about urban education policy are framed by an understanding of how education policies have fared in the past. The principles are as follows: Education policies should be coherent and strategic Education policies should directly engage with what happens in schools and classrooms Education policies should account for local context RUEPI policy briefs are rooted in these principles, written by faculty in the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Education and other affiliated parties, and go through a rigorous peer-review process.

Learn more at www.education.uic.edu/ruepi

Transition for Urban Youth with Disabilities

15

1040 West Harrison Street Chicago, Illinois 60607

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF
CONTACT US
bsuperfi@uic.edu education.uic.edu/ruepi

FOLLOW US
facebook.com/ruepi