![](media/image1.wmf){width="8.525in" height="11.002777777777778in"}

![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.583333333333333in"
height="3.6493055555555554in"}

Letter of Transmittal

October 28, 2008

The President\
The White House\
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD), I am pleased to
submit this report titled *The Rehabilitation Act: Outcomes for
Transition Age Youth* during National Disability Employment Awareness
Month. This report is a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the
Rehabilitation Act on the employment and postsecondary education
outcomes of eligible transition-age youth. The Council is deeply
appreciative of your efforts on behalf of people with disabilities. We
hope that the recommendations contained herein will aid the
administration in realizing the full potential of "America's People,
America's Talent, America's Strength."

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, together with the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975, set in motion policy changes that have
allowed many thousands of children and youth with disabilities in the
United States the opportunity to gain the educational and vocational
skills needed to transition to living, working, and participating as
adults in community life.

NCD undertook this study to examine the extent to which the vocational
rehabilitation system's (VR) existing federal/state structure promotes:

-   the delivery of effective transition services to adolescents and
    young adults with disabilities;

-   the long-term results of VR's investment in postsecondary education
    for individuals with disabilities;

-   and the effectiveness of collaborative efforts among vocational
    rehabilitation, secondary and postsecondary education, and other
    service systems in the planning and delivery of transition services.

The public sector VR program has been providing employment-related
services to young adults with disabilities for decades, and currently
serves more than 50,000 youth each year, but the results of the study
confirm that relatively little is known about the extent and
effectiveness of VR transition services. As a result, state VR agencies
continue to devote substantial resources to this population without the
benefit of methodologically sound evaluation approaches. These
approaches need to be used to assess the long-term impact of services on
the employment status and economic self-sufficiency, validated
evidence-based service delivery approaches that form the basis of
program planning, or systematic procedures for identifying new promising
practices.

The ever-increasing number of transition-age youth with disabilities who
will exit secondary education programs and attempt to enter the
workforce over the next decade will create tremendous challenges for VR
agencies. While many current service delivery approaches hold promise,
little empirical information is available that will allow VR agencies to
accurately predict the amount and type of services required to assist
transition-age youth to meet their employment goals, or the outcomes
that should be anticipated for individuals served through the program.

NCD stands ready to work with you, members of your Administration, and
the leadership in Congress as you work toward improving our nation's
vocational rehabilitation system.

Sincerely,

![](media/image3.png){width="1.7881944444444444in"
height="0.6708333333333333in"}

John R. Vaughn

Chairperson

> (The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore
> of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the U.S. House of
> Representatives.)

National Council on Disability Members and Staff

Members

John R. Vaughn, Chairperson

Chad Colley, Vice Chairperson

Patricia Pound, Vice Chairperson

Milton Aponte, J.D.

Victoria Ray Carlson

Robert R. Davila, Ph.D.

Graham Hill

Marylyn Howe

Young Woo Kang, Ph.D.

Kathleen Martinez

Lisa Mattheiss

Lonnie Moore

Anne M. Rader

Cynthia Wainscott

Linda Wetters

Staff

Michael C. Collins, Executive Director

Martin Gould, Ed.D., Director of Research

Mark S. Quigley, Director of Communications

Julie Carroll, Senior Attorney Advisor

Joan M. Durocher, Senior Attorney Advisor

Sharon M. Lisa Grubb, Special Assistant to the Executive Director

Geraldine Drake Hawkins, Ph.D., Senior Program Analyst

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant

Carla Nelson, Secretary

Acknowledgments

The National Council on Disability deeply appreciates Dr. John Kregel,
Dr. Beth Bader, Ms. Margaret Sander, Dr. Michael West, and Mr. Grant
Revell of Virginia Commonwealth University's Department of Special
Education and Disability Policy for the research and development of this
report.

Table of Contents

[**Executive Summary 9**](#refheading___toc210469512)

[Purpose of the Study 9](#__RefHeading___Toc210469514)

[Summary of the Methodology 10](#__RefHeading___Toc210469515)

[Findings 11](#__RefHeading___Toc210469516)

[Recommendations 13](#__RefHeading___Toc210469517)

[Recommendations for the U.S. Congress 14](#__RefHeading___Toc210469518)

[Recommendations for the U.S. Department of Education: RSA, NIDRR, OSEP,
and State VR Agencies 14](#__RefHeading___Toc210469519)

[Chapter 1: Introduction 17](#__RefHeading___Toc210469520)

[Mandates for Transition in the Rehabilitation Act
18](#__RefHeading___Toc210469521)

[Purpose of the Study 20](#__RefHeading___Toc210469522)

[Chapter 2: Research Questions and Methodology
21](#__RefHeading___Toc210469523)

[Research Questions 21](#__RefHeading___Toc210469524)

[Methodology Used for the Study 23](#__RefHeading___Toc210469525)

[Chapter 3: Overview of Vocational Rehabilitation and the Transition
Process 25](#__RefHeading___Toc210469526)

[What Is Transition? 25](#__RefHeading___Toc210469527)

[Current Statutes that Guide Transition Services
26](#__RefHeading___Toc210469528)

[The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Reauthorized Under Workforce Investment\
Act of 1998 26](#__RefHeading___Toc210469529)

[Other Sections of WIA Directed Toward Youth Services
27](#__RefHeading___Toc210469530)

[The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
28](#__RefHeading___Toc210469531)

[Role of Vocational Rehabilitation in the Transition Process
29](#__RefHeading___Toc210469532)

[Eligibility Criteria for VR Services 30](#__RefHeading___Toc210469533)

[Vocational Assessment 31](#__RefHeading___Toc210469534)

[Individualized Plan for Employment 31](#__RefHeading___Toc210469535)

[Services Provided Outside the IPE 37](#__RefHeading___Toc210469536)

[Characteristics and Goals of Transition-Age Youth Receiving VR Services
37](#__RefHeading___Toc210469537)

[Dependence on Financial Assistance 38](#__RefHeading___Toc210469538)

[Vocational and Postsecondary Education Goals of Transition-Age Youth
39](#__RefHeading___Toc210469539)

[Labor Market Activity of Youth with Disabilities
42](#__RefHeading___Toc210469540)

[Chapter 4: Known Obstacles to Successful Transition
43](#__RefHeading___Toc210469541)

[Participation by Youth in the Transition Process
43](#__RefHeading___Toc210469542)

[Determining Appropriate Career Goals 44](#__RefHeading___Toc210469543)

[Engaging VR Counselors in the Transition Process
44](#__RefHeading___Toc210469544)

[Work-Related Experience 44](#__RefHeading___Toc210469545)

[Roles and Responsibilities of Transition IEP Participants
45](#__RefHeading___Toc210469546)

[Linkages with Community Resources and Services
46](#__RefHeading___Toc210469547)

[Retention in Secondary Education: The Dropout Dilemma
47](#__RefHeading___Toc210469548)

[The Effects of Dropping Out of High School
47](#__RefHeading___Toc210469549)

[Reasons for Dropping Out 48](#__RefHeading___Toc210469550)

[Limited Capacity of VR Services to Meet the Demand
49](#__RefHeading___Toc210469551)

[Impact of the Order of Selection 50](#__RefHeading___Toc210469552)

[Insufficient Number of Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors
50](#__RefHeading___Toc210469553)

[Chapter 5: Findings of the Study 53](#__RefHeading___Toc210469554)

[Findings Responding to the Research Questions
54](#__RefHeading___Toc210469555)

[Extent to Which Special Education Students Are Served by VR
54](#__RefHeading___Toc210469556)

[Numbers of Transition-Age Youth Potentially Eligible for VR Transition\
Services 56](#__RefHeading___Toc210469557)

[Employment Outcomes for Transition-Age Students Receiving VR Services
56](#__RefHeading___Toc210469558)

[Findings from the Key Stakeholder Interviews: Availability and
Effectiveness of VR Services for Transition-Age Youth
58](#__RefHeading___Toc210469559)

[Summary of Key Findings of Research Question 1
60](#__RefHeading___Toc210469560)

[Benefits of Postsecondary Education 61](#__RefHeading___Toc210469561)

[Students with Disabilities Supported in Postsecondary Education by VR
63](#__RefHeading___Toc210469562)

[VR Funding Support for Postsecondary Education
65](#__RefHeading___Toc210469563)

[Findings from the Key Stakeholders: Employment and Postsecondary
Education Outcomes 67](#__RefHeading___Toc210469564)

[Summary of Key Findings of Research Question 2
67](#__RefHeading___Toc210469565)

[Examples of Promising Practices 70](#__RefHeading___Toc210469566)

[Identified Issues in Serving Transitioning Youth
70](#__RefHeading___Toc210469567)

[Summary of Key Findings of Research Question 3
73](#__RefHeading___Toc210469568)

[Collaboration and Participation in the Transition IEP Planning Process
75](#__RefHeading___Toc210469569)

[Collaboration in the Implementation of the Transition IEP
76](#__RefHeading___Toc210469570)

[Recent OSERS Initiatives with Federal Partners
78](#__RefHeading___Toc210469571)

[VR Participation in the Shared Youth Vision Collaborative Partnership
80](#__RefHeading___Toc210469572)

[Findings from the Key Stakeholders: VR Collaboration with Other
Agencies 81](#__RefHeading___Toc210469573)

[Summary of Key Findings of Research Question 4
83](#__RefHeading___Toc210469574)

[Summary of Key Findings of Research Question 5
90](#__RefHeading___Toc210469575)

[Chapter 6: Emerging Trends in Transition from School to Employment and
Postsecondary Education 91](#__RefHeading___Toc210469576)

[Postsecondary Education 91](#__RefHeading___Toc210469577)

[Financial Literacy and Asset Accumulation
93](#__RefHeading___Toc210469578)

[Social Security Administration Youth Transition Initiatives
94](#__RefHeading___Toc210469579)

[Section 301 95](#__RefHeading___Toc210469580)

[Student Earned Income Exclusion 96](#__RefHeading___Toc210469581)

[Work Incentives Planning and Assistance for Youth with Disabilities
96](#__RefHeading___Toc210469582)

[Dropout Prevention 97](#__RefHeading___Toc210469583)

[Check and Connect 97](#__RefHeading___Toc210469584)

[Achievement for Latinos Through Academic Success
98](#__RefHeading___Toc210469585)

[Self-Employment 99](#__RefHeading___Toc210469586)

[Veterans Services 100](#__RefHeading___Toc210469587)

[Chapter 7: Conclusions and Recommendations
103](#__RefHeading___Toc210469588)

[Recommendations to Improve VR Transition Outcomes Through Changes in
Current Service Delivery Practices 104](#__RefHeading___Toc210469589)

[Recommendations for the U.S. Congress
104](#__RefHeading___Toc210469590)

[Recommendations for the U.S. Department of Education: RSA, NIDRR,\
OSEP, and State VR Agencies 106](#__RefHeading___Toc210469591)

[Endnotes 109](#__RefHeading___Toc210469592)

[References 111](#__RefHeading___Toc210469593)

**APPENDICES**

[**A---Comparison of the Organization of Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and
Title IV of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998**
121](#__RefHeading___Toc210469594)

[**B---Titles and Sections of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 that
Address\
Programs and Services Applicable to Transition-Age Youth**
123](#__RefHeading___Toc210469595)

[**C---Panel of Experts** 125](#__RefHeading___Toc210469596)

[**D---Mission of the National Council on Disability**
127](#__RefHeading___Toc210469597)

[]{#refheading___toc210469512 .anchor}Executive Summary

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, together with the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975, set in motion policy changes that have
allowed many thousands of children and youth with disabilities in the
United States the opportunity to gain the educational and vocational
skills needed to transition to living, working, and participating as
adults in community life. The debate continues as to whether these laws
have gone far enough in making the changes needed to enable youth with
disabilities to leave high school, attain postsecondary education and
training, and achieve employment rates and levels of wages comparable to
their peers without disabilities.

In providing services to transition-age youth with disabilities who are
still in secondary education, vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies
collaborate with state education agencies (SEAs), local education
agencies (LEAs), and institutions of higher education (IHEs). The
collaboration that occurs is based on meeting statutory requirements
governing the vocational rehabilitation (VR) services program, the
methods of ensuring services and transition services requirements in the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the implementation of
specific agency operations or initiatives.

To fulfill these mandates, the federal/state VR program provides direct
services to tens of thousands of transition-age youth. In addition, the
program collaborates with multiple federal and state partners to
implement comprehensive transition programs that reach many other
individuals served through special education, workforce development,
mental health, developmental disability, and other service delivery
systems.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469514 .anchor}Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to synthesize both quantitative and
qualitative data on the impact that the Rehabilitation Act has had on
the employment and postsecondary education outcomes of eligible
transition-age youth. The study examines the extent to which VR's
existing federal/state structure promotes the delivery of effective
transition services to adolescents and young adults with disabilities,
the long-term results of VR's investment in postsecondary education for
individuals with disabilities, and the effectiveness of collaborative
efforts among vocational rehabilitation, secondary and postsecondary
education, and other service systems in the planning and delivery of
transition services.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469515 .anchor}Summary of the Methodology

The study design contained four components. First, a comprehensive
literature review was conducted to identify and review prior studies
that focused on the efficacy of VR services for adolescents and young
adults with disabilities. In this component of the research design,
various existing databases were assessed, analyzed, and queried to
obtain data related to transition outcomes that are directly or
indirectly tied to use of VR services by youth with disabilities.

Second, a series of structured qualitative interviews were conducted
with key stakeholders to gather additional data on the effect of VR
transition services. The key stakeholders who provided information
included federal Department of Education (ED) and Department of Labor
(DOL) officials, state and local VR transition specialists, local
education transition specialists, former consumers of VR transition
services, current transition-age youth who may or may not receive VR
services, and parents.

Third, the results of the data-collection activities were presented at
an expert panel meeting on April 23, 2008, of federal and state VR and
ED representatives, DOL representatives, representatives from national
disability organizations, nationally renowned researchers in the field
of transition, parent advocates, and transition-age youth in Arlington,
Virginia. The purpose of the meeting was to receive feedback on and
validate the preliminary findings, and to generate recommendations for
policymakers to improve transitional services in general and the
involvement of VR and other adult service agencies in the transition
process.

Fourth, three preliminary drafts of the study report were developed for
review by the National Council on Disability (NCD) Employment Committee
and staff and submitted on January 31, 2008, and April 2, 2008. Based on
feedback and guidance provided, a final report was submitted on July 3,
2008.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469516 .anchor}Findings

The following findings are reported according to the five research
questions that guided the study.

**Research Question 1: How effective has VR been in transitioning
students from school to work and/or from school to higher education?
Specifically, what short-term and long-term results are achieved through
the delivery of vocational rehabilitation services, particularly with
respect to students transitioning from school to work and school to
postsecondary education?**

The number of transition-age youth served by VR has increased steadily
over the past five years. For these individuals, employment rates and
earnings appear reasonable given the age and prior work experience of
this population. At the same time, it appears that VR is serving only a
small percentage of youth who could potentially benefit from transition
services. Unfortunately, available data is insufficient to develop
precise estimates of the number, characteristics, or service needs of
transition-age youth potentially able to access and benefit from VR
services.

**Research Question 2: How have particular VR services correlated with
successful employment outcomes, and how do existing definitions of
successful case outcomes influence the range and content of transition
services provided in the field? What are the payoffs from VR's
substantial investments in postsecondary training of consumers with
disabilities?**

Prior research efforts have not documented the effectiveness of specific
VR services in promoting employment outcomes of transition-age youth.
While the results of multiple demonstrations reveal promising practices,
no rigorous studies using experimental designs or comparison groups have
been completed. Available data clearly confirms that VR agencies provide
considerable support for individuals with disabilities enrolled in
postsecondary education. Further, prior research documents the increased
success that results from participation in postsecondary education and
training, although problems related to selection bias in study samples
limit the usefulness of these investigations.

**Research Question 3: To what extent has the Department of Education's
Monitoring Redesign Initiative promoted the transition of students from
school to employment and school to postsecondary education within the
vocational rehabilitation system?**

The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) redesign of its state
monitoring process has put in place a system that appears to work
closely with state agencies in reviewing performance in relation to
state plan goals and objectives. Performance strengths are noted.
Promising practices of potential value to other states are identified,
collected, and disseminated. Performance issues are also identified and
corrective action plans are developed. The actual impact of the
monitoring redesign in terms of strengthening VR services, including
services to transition-age youth, cannot be objectively determined at
this early stage in the implementation of the redesign process.

**Research Question 4: How effective has VR been in collaborating with
other agencies in achieving its transition results? What are the
outcomes from VR's collaboration with secondary and postsecondary
programs?**

Results clearly indicate that VR is an active partner with special
education and postsecondary educational institutions in the delivery of
services to transition-age youth. RSA is involved in a number of
collaborative efforts with other federal agencies. However, both the
quantitative and qualitative data reviewed indicated that lack of
personnel, service unit credit policies, and dedicated transition units
in local rehabilitation agencies limit the impact and effectiveness of
VR collaboration with other agencies involved in service delivery.

**Research Question 5: How effective has the Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) and RSA leadership been in the
implementation of the law over the past 30 years, particularly with
respect to transition from school to work and collaboration with the
postsecondary educational system?**

OSERS and RSA have consistently attempted to promote improved transition
outcomes for adolescents and young adults with disabilities. Recent
efforts have focused on the identification and dissemination of new or
innovative practices being used in individual states. However, the lack
of rigorous research and evaluation approaches significantly limits the
ability of VR agencies to identify programs and practices that may be
associated with superior employment outcomes. Despite a long history of
leadership in this area, these agencies have conducted very few rigorous
efficacy studies to determine the effect of specific service delivery
practices on the transition population.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469517 .anchor}Recommendations

The 11 recommendations that emanate from the study are directed to the
U.S. Congress and to the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and the National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) within the U.S.
Department of Education. Seven recommendations address changes to
current service delivery practices that are designed to improve
transition outcomes for youth with disabilities. These recommendations
are derived directly from data collected through the series of
structured interviews and review of promising practices and are
consistent with the quantitative data reported above. In addition, four
recommendations are offered to guide future research in a way that will
lead to sound data that can be used to assess the success of further
services, validate evidence-based practices, and create new service
delivery approaches.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469518 .anchor}Recommendations for the U.S.
Congress

1\. Congress should change existing VR transition legislation and policy
to require that VR services be made available to eligible youth no later
than three years before an adolescent or young adult exits from
secondary education.

2\. Congress should authorize and allocate sufficient funds to support
the development of a multifunctional transition unit in each state VR
agency.

3\. Congress should authorize and mandate the development and
implementation of coordinated service delivery approaches, specifically
targeted to transitioning youth with disabilities, that are based on the
"blending" of funds from VR, special education, postsecondary education,
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), Veterans Administration, Social
Security Administration, and other appropriate funding agencies.

4\. Congress should mandate that RSA, NIDRR, and state VR agencies
conduct rigorous evaluation studies that identify the transition program
components that directly correlate with improved employment and
postsecondary educational outcomes for transition-age youth.

5\. Congress should mandate and allocate funds to support the
implementation of rigorous evaluation studies designed to establish the
efficacy of fully developed transition programs, practices, and
policies.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469519 .anchor}Recommendations for the U.S.
Department of Education: RSA, NIDRR, OSEP, and State VR Agencies

6\. RSA, NIDRR, and state VR agencies should develop, implement, and
evaluate new service unit policies under which the services provided by
VR counselors outside the individualized plan for employment (IPE), such
as time spent in collaboration with other agencies, secondary and
postsecondary schools, families, etc., are recognized as service units
comparable to IPE services.

7\. RSA, NIDRR, and state VR agencies should design, implement, and
evaluate a tiered structure for services delivered by VR counselors
working with transition-age youth.

8\. RSA and state VR agencies should allocate additional staff
development resources for the preparation of current and future
rehabilitation counselors to meet the needs of transition-age youth, and
target recruitment and professional development activities to attract
qualified people with disabilities to the field.

9\. RSA should coordinate its secondary transition efforts with those of
other federal and state agencies implementing dropout prevention
programs.

10\. RSA, NIDRR, OSEP, and state VR agencies should collaborate to
conduct a comprehensive review of existing VR transition programs,
practices, and policies being implemented in each individual state.

11\. RSA, NIDRR, OSEP, and state VR agencies should conduct a systematic
program of future research to identify the characteristics and service
needs of transition-age youth with disabilities currently unserved or
underserved by VR.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469520 .anchor}**Chapter 1:** Introduction

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, together with the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975, set in motion policy changes that have
allowed many thousands of children and youth with disabilities in the
United States the opportunity to gain the educational and vocational
skills needed to transition to living, working, and participating as
adults in community life. The debate continues as to whether these laws
have gone far enough in making the changes needed to enable youth with
disabilities to leave high school, attain postsecondary education and
training, and achieve employment rates and levels of wages comparable to
their peers without disabilities.

Collaboration among vocational rehabilitation (VR), educational, and
other public service systems has long been recognized as essential for
effective transition planning and positive student outcomes (Benz,
Lindstrom, & Latta, 1999). As Gould and Bellamy (1985) wrote many years
ago, prior to the transition mandates of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 (P.L. 101-476),

At the very least, transition must be dealt with as a problem of
organizing community services and opportunities, and as a problem of
structuring government policies to encourage needed responses from
community services, employers, families, and persons with disabilities.
(p. ix)

In providing services to transition-age youth with disabilities who are
still in secondary education, VR agencies collaborate with state
education agencies (SEAs), local education agencies (LEAs), and
institutions of higher education (IHEs). The collaboration that occurs
is based on meeting statutory requirements governing the VR services
program, the methods of ensuring services and transition services
requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the
implementation of specific agency operations or initiatives (H. Berry,
personal communication, February 5, 2008).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469521 .anchor}Mandates for Transition in the
Rehabilitation Act

Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), most
recently reauthorized under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA),
provides for individual states to receive federal grants to operate a
comprehensive VR program designed to assess, plan, develop, and provide
VR services to eligible individuals with disabilities to prepare for,
and engage in, gainful employment. Appendix A compares the table of
contents of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 with that of the reauthorized
act within Title IV of WIA.

Examples in the Rehabilitation Act of the required collaboration between
VR and other entities involved in the transition process were summarized
and provided by OSERS for the study. Sections of the Rehabilitation Act
addressing collaboration include, but are not limited to:

-   Section 101(a)(11)(D) of the Rehabilitation Act requires the state
    VR agency to coordinate with educational officials and to enter into
    a formal interagency agreement with the state education agency with
    regard to transition planning and the delivery of transition
    services. The primary purpose of the formal interagency agreement is
    to ensure that students with disabilities who are eligible for VR
    services do not experience an interruption in services after they
    leave secondary school settings.

-   Section 102(a)(4) of the Rehabilitation Act requires the VR program
    to use information submitted by education officials to assist in
    making eligibility determinations for VR services for students with
    disabilities. Education officials may provide critical information
    describing the students' vocational, employment, academic, and
    personal achievements that may contribute to the development of the
    student's individualized plan for employment (IPE).

-   Regulations at 34 CFR 361.22 require that each student determined to
    be eligible for VR services or, if the designated state VR agency is
    operating under an order of selection, for each eligible student
    able to be served under the order, an IPE is to be developed and
    approved before the student leaves the secondary school setting. It
    is important to note that VR agencies must collaborate with state
    education agencies in providing transition services to all students
    with disabilities and are required to conduct outreach and identify
    those students with disabilities who may need transition services
    (Section 101\[a\]\[11\]\[D\]\[iv\] of the Rehabilitation Act). This
    includes students receiving special education and related services
    under the IDEA and students with disabilities covered only by
    Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In regards to institutions of higher education (IHEs), the state
    plan for VR services must include an assurance that the governor
    will ensure that "an interagency agreement or other mechanism for
    interagency coordination takes effect "between the VR agency and
    public IHEs. Section 101(a)(8)(B) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34
    CFR 361.53(d)(3) of its implementing regulations outline specific
    elements that must be addressed in this interagency agreement,
    including financial responsibility, terms for reimbursement of the
    VR agency for services under the agreement, procedures for resolving
    disputes, and information regarding procedures for identifying the
    responsibilities of the IHE and the VR agency for coordination and
    timely delivery of VR services. (H. Berry, personal communication,
    February 5, 2008)

To fulfill these mandates, the federal/state VR program provides direct
services to tens of thousands of transition-age youth. In addition, the
program collaborates with multiple federal and state partners to
implement comprehensive transition programs that reach many other
individuals served through special education, workforce development,
mental health, developmental disability, and other service delivery
systems. This study aims to synthesize both quantitative and qualitative
data on the impact that the Rehabilitation Act has had on youth
transition outcomes. It also includes an examination of the partnerships
that VR maintains with secondary and postsecondary education, workforce
investment, and Social Security disability systems.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469522 .anchor}Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to conduct a comprehensive assessment of
the impact of the Rehabilitation Act on the employment and postsecondary
education outcomes of eligible transition-age youth. Transition-age
range varies among federal, state, and local agencies, but for the
purpose of this study, the transition experiences of youth between the
ages of 16 to 24 years are included. Transition data is reported by
various national entities on youth as young as 14 years and as old as 25
years. The age range chosen for this study uses the current Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) required age for
transition planning (i.e., age 16) as the lower limit, and the upper
limit of age 24 to allow for the reporting of employment outcomes of
those youth who are involved in postsecondary education or training.
This study examines the extent to which VR's existing federal/state
structure promotes the delivery of effective transition services to
adolescents and young adults with disabilities, the long-term results of
VR's investment in postsecondary education for individuals with
disabilities, and the effectiveness of collaborative efforts among
vocational rehabilitation, secondary and postsecondary education, and
other service systems in the planning and delivery of transition
services.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469523 .anchor}**Chapter 2:** Research
Questions and Methodology

Vocational rehabilitation agencies can be effective partners in the
transition from school to work or postsecondary education for students
with disabilities. VR-funded services and supports can be pivotal in the
success that those students achieve. However, the delivery of VR
transition services differs significantly across states. There is a need
to formally examine the extent to which transition-age students
participate in VR services, the outcomes they achieve, and exemplary
practices for student involvement with VR.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469524 .anchor}Research Questions

The specific research questions that are being addressed by this study
are as follows:

**Research Question 1: How effective has VR been in transitioning
students from school to work and/or from school to higher education?
Specifically, what short-term and long-term results are achieved through
the delivery of vocational rehabilitation services, particularly with
respect to students transitioning from school to work and school to
postsecondary education?**

-   To what extent do transition-age youth (16--24) participate in the
    federal/state VR program?

-   What are the type and amount of services provided to transition-age
    youth by the federal/state VR program? How do these services vary
    across state programs?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To what extent do transition-age youth who have received services
    through the federal/state VR program enter and succeed in
    employment? Are these individuals able to maintain employment and
    advance in their careers over time?

**Research Question 2:** **How have particular VR services correlated
with successful employment outcomes, and how do existing definitions of
successful case outcomes influence the range and content of transition
services provided in the field? What are the payoffs from VR's
substantial investments in postsecondary training of consumers with
disabilities?**

-   To what extent do transition-age youth who have participated in
    postsecondary education with assistance from the federal/state
    vocational rehabilitation system subsequently enter and succeed in
    employment settings? Are they able to obtain employment in their
    chosen career fields?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What are the "earnings impacts" of VR-funded postsecondary education
    services for transition-age youth in comparison to transition-age
    youth who do not receive VR services?

**Research Question 3: To what extent has the Department of Education's
Monitoring Redesign Initiative promoted the transition of students from
school to employment and school to postsecondary education within the
vocational rehabilitation system?**

-   What are the specific activities of the Department of Education's
    Monitoring Redesign Initiative related to the transition of students
    from school to employment and school to postsecondary education
    within the vocational rehabilitation system? How do these activities
    differ from prior monitoring activities by the Department?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To what extent have changes initiated through the Monitoring
    Redesign Initiative affected the participation of transition-age
    youth in the federal/state VR program, the types of services
    provided to these individuals, and the outcomes (employment and
    participation in postsecondary education) achieved by these
    individuals?

**Research Question 4:** **How effective has VR been in collaborating
with other agencies in achieving its transition results? What are the
outcomes from VR's collaboration with secondary and postsecondary
programs?**

-   To what extent does the federal/state VR system collaborate with
    secondary and postsecondary education institutions in the design and
    delivery of services for transition-age youth with disabilities?
    What is the nature of these collaborations?

-   To what extent does the federal/state VR system collaborate with
    other federal and state programs in the design and delivery of
    services to transition-age youth? How effective are these
    partnerships?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To what extent do VR collaborations with secondary and postsecondary
    education programs result in improved completion (graduation) rates
    and enhanced employment outcomes (employment rate, earnings,
    employment in one's chosen field)?

**Research Question 5: How effective has the Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) and RSA leadership been in the
implementation of the law over the past 30 years, particularly with
respect to transition from school to work and collaboration with the
postsecondary educational system?**

-   What actions have the OSERS and RSA leadership taken over the past
    30 years to implement the aspects of the Rehabilitation Act that
    pertain to transition-age students moving from school to work and
    collaboration with the postsecondary educational system?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What, if any, specific actions could be taken by the OSERS and RSA
    leadership that would enhance the participation rates and program
    outcomes of transition-age youth with disabilities served through
    the federal/state VR program?

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469525 .anchor}Methodology Used for the Study

The research design employed for the study to answer the research
questions examined the role and effectiveness of VR involvement in
transition from multiple perspectives and multiple data sources. The
study design contained four components:

First, a comprehensive review of existing national data sets was
conducted to examine the extent to which participation in the vocational
rehabilitation program has affected the employment and educational
outcomes of transition-age youth with disabilities. The data sources
included the RSA 911 data system, the National Longitudinal Transition
Study-2 (NLTS2), and the National Post-School Outcomes (NPSO) data
systems. In researching the existing data, a comprehensive literature
review was completed to obtain background information regarding issues
of VR's involvement in the transition process and to search for evidence
of best practices.

Second, telephone and face-to-face interviews with key stakeholders were
completed to gather additional data on the effect of VR transition
services. The key stakeholders who provided information included federal
ED and DOL officials, state and local VR transition specialists, local
education transition specialists, former consumers of VR transition
services, current transition-age youth who may or may not receive VR
services, and parents.

Third, the results of the data-collection activities were presented at
an expert panel meeting on April 23, 2008, of federal and state VR and
ED representatives, DOL representatives, representatives from national
disability organizations, nationally renowned researchers in the field
of transition, parent advocates, and transition-age youth in Arlington,
Virginia. The purpose of the meeting was to receive feedback on and
validate the preliminary findings and to generate recommendations for
policymakers to improve transitional services in general and the
involvement of VR and other adult service agencies in the transition
process. The list of expert panel members is included as Appendix C.

Fourth, preliminary drafts of the study report were developed for review
by the NCD Employment Committee and staff and submitted on January 31,
2008, and April 2, 2008. Based on feedback and guidance provided, a
final draft report was submitted on June 2, 2008. This draft of the
report was again reviewed by the Employment Committee and NCD staff as
well as representatives from the National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), RSA, and OSEP. The final report,
developed according to NCD specifications, was submitted on July 3,
2008.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469526 .anchor}**Chapter 3:** Overview of
Vocational Rehabilitation and the Transition Process

This section provides background information on current definitions of
transition, the statutes that guide current transition services for
youth with disabilities, the role of vocational rehabilitation in the
transition process, and the characteristics and labor market
participation of transition-age youth with disabilities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469527 .anchor}What Is Transition?

Beginning in 1990, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) required transition services for all children with disabilities.
Secondary education transition is defined in the 2004 reauthorization of
IDEA as:

...designed within an outcome oriented process, that promotes movement
from school to post-school activities, including postsecondary
education; vocational education; integrated employment (including
supported employment); continuing and adult education; adult services;
independent living or community participation (P.L. 108-446, §300.29).

Transition services identified for children with disabilities are
specified in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and must contain
transition goals and activities no later than the first IEP to be in
effect when the child is 16 and must be updated annually. Special
education and related services are intended to prepare students for
employment and independent living, which makes it clear that educators,
parents, and students must consider adult outcomes as they plan for
students' school experiences (Wehman, 2006).

In broad terms, transition is a "formal process of cooperative planning
that will assist students with disabilities to move from school into the
adult world" (O'Leary, 2007). Three primary areas in this planning
process are the development of (1) appropriate measurable postsecondary
goals; (2) a course of study; and (3) a coordinated set of activities.
Appropriate measurable postsecondary goals are based on age-appropriate
transition assessments and are related to training, education,
employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills. This
information is used to develop measurable postsecondary goals. These
goals succinctly describe what students would like to achieve once they
exit high school, and are based on students' strengths, preferences, and
interests. The course of study involves all courses and educational
experiences for students that will prepare students for the transition
from school to the community. The IEP team members develop an
educational program that directly relates to the postsecondary goals
developed for a student.

The development of a coordinated set of activities is designed to
provide a long-range educational plan with specific strategies to assist
students to move from school into the community. A coordinated set of
activities is based on students' strengths, preferences, and interests
and can include the following based on students' needs: instruction,
related services, community experiences, employment, postsecondary adult
living, daily living, and functional vocational evaluation.

Another component in the transition of students from secondary education
is the Summary of Performance. The Summary of Performance is for
students who terminate their eligibility for special education as a
result of graduation with a regular diploma or exceed the age of
eligibility. Although the summary is not part of the IEP, it serves to
document for students their academic achievement and functional
performance while in secondary education. The document also includes
recommendations to assist students in meeting their postsecondary goals.
The intent of the Summary of Performance is to provide students with
information that can assist them as they enter employment settings or
postsecondary education programs.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469528 .anchor}Current Statutes that Guide
Transition Services

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469529 .anchor}The Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Reauthorized Under Workforce\
Investment Act of 1998

The Rehabilitation Act was most recently reauthorized under the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998. With the stated purpose of
consolidating, coordinating, and improving employment, training,
literacy, and vocational rehabilitation, the Rehabilitation Act creates
the framework for a nationwide service system intended to support the
transition from school to work (Bader, 2003). The Rehabilitation Act
addresses the vocational and rehabilitation agencies and programs
through which individuals with disabilities may receive a variety of
employment support and training opportunities that will assist them with
reaching a desired employment outcome (National Council on Disability
\[NCD\], 2000). The act mandates that VR participate in transition
planning under IDEA, at the very least, in the form of consultation and
technical assistance. Although Title I of the Rehabilitation Act
specifically identifies state rehabilitation agency responsibility for
the provision of vocational rehabilitation services, it provides no
statutory age requirement for rehabilitation services in the 1998
reauthorization.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469530 .anchor}Other Sections of WIA Directed
Toward Youth Services

When WIA was enacted in 1998, individuals with disabilities, including
youth, were not earmarked as a special population in the language of the
legislation, but it was clearly the intent of Congress that individuals
with disabilities would be served in the workforce development system
(Bader, 2003). Although there were no special programs for people with
disabilities required within the statute, there was the expectation that
states and local workforce investment systems would include plans for
serving people with disabilities in their One-Stop Career Center systems
(Holcomb & Barnow, 2004). Also, VR was designated as a mandated partner
agency, indicating legislative intent to serve individuals with
disabilities (Bader, 2003).

It was the intent within WIA to create a comprehensive youth development
system at the local level by consolidating funding streams that were
used for job training and development for disadvantaged youth ages
14--21 into a single system (Resources for Welfare Decisions, 2002).
Localities were given the challenge of bringing together an array of
public and community-based organizations and programs, as well as
employers, to leverage additional funding streams for serving youth to
prepare them for entering the workforce. Not only were youth eligible
for specially identified Youth Service Programs, but older youth, ages
18--21, are able to be co-enrolled as both youth and adults in the
One-Stop Career Center system. The specific titles and sections of WIA
that are applicable to youth transition services are listed in Appendix
B.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469531 .anchor}The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act

Prior to the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, now the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), more
than half of students with disabilities were not receiving appropriate
educational services, and approximately 1 million were excluded from
public school entirely (Committee on Education and the Workforce, 1997).
The quality of special education and related services has improved since
the passage of IDEA's predecessor statute more than 30 years ago, and
IDEA's 1990 reauthorization articulated new transition requirements.
IDEA 1997 reduced the age that transition planning must begin from 16 to
14. IDEIA 2004 increased the age back to the pre-1997 age requirement of
16. Previous requirements regarding the age at which transition planning
should begin were not always clear in their interpretation. IDEIA
established one clear age requirement for the mandatory start of
transition planning and provided greater direction and clarification of
what IEP transition teams must consider and what transition plans must
contain (National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, 2007).
School IEP teams must now include transition planning in the first IEP
that will be in effect when the child turns 16 years of age. Although
many transition experts and advocates consider age 16 to be too late to
begin the transition process, IDEIA makes it clear that IEP teams are
free to begin transition planning at an earlier age if the team
determines it appropriate to do so (Cortiella, 2008).

It is in the school setting that vocational rehabilitation can first
become involved in youth transition planning: "The successful transition
of students with disabilities from school to adult life is a shared
responsibility...both \[Acts\] mandate and promote a shared vision"
(Institute on Rehabilitative Issues, 2002, p. 4). Both the
Rehabilitation Act and IDEIA require interagency collaboration and
outline partner agency responsibility. The Rehabilitation Act further
requires a formal interagency agreement with the public school systems
outlining the roles and responsibilities for the state education agency
and the VR program in assisting transitioning youth.

IDEA intended transition services to facilitate movement from school to
post-school activities prior to the student's leaving the school
environment (Price-Ellingstad & Berry, 1999). Post-school activities
could include vocational training, postsecondary education, or work.
Vocational rehabilitation evaluations become part of the eligibility
records to which parents have a right (*Barnett v. Memphis City
Schools*, 2004).

The current authorization of the law, IDEIA 2004, defines transition as
a results-oriented process that focuses on academic achievement as well
as functional activities, tightens the eligibility process, and includes
the requirement for measurable postsecondary goals that are to encompass
training, education, employment, and independent living skills. IDEIA
2004 also requires that the transition IEP specifies the services needed
to assist the child in reaching his or her transition goals (Wehman,
2006). Whether or not referral for VR services is included in the IEP
often depends on whether the individual or parent requests this service
to be included, according to all the key stakeholder parents in the
study.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469532 .anchor}Role of Vocational
Rehabilitation in the Transition Process

The Vocational Rehabilitation Act amendments signed into law in 1954
expanded and improved vocational and rehabilitation programs for
individuals with disabilities beyond those granted under the LaFollette
Act of 1943 and previous legislation that focused on veterans and
individuals with disabling conditions resulting from military service
(Bader, 2003). Yet, it was not until the Vocational Rehabilitation Act's
1967 and 1968 amendments that funds were designated specifically for
youth with disabilities (Stodden & Roberts, 2008). The 1967 and 1968
amendments included authorization to states for the set-aside of up to
10 percent of funds that they received for vocation and rehabilitation
programs for youth. Not many states took advantage of this funding
opportunity and, therefore, there was no evidence of improvement in
post-school outcomes tied to this funding appropriation (Stodden &
Roberts, 2008).

The decade of the 1970s saw a number of pieces of federal legislation
that, even today, impact the availability and delivery of transition
services for youth with disabilities. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
together with the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975
(P.L. 94-142), set in motion policy changes providing children and youth
with disabilities the opportunity to gain the requisite educational and
vocational skills for transition to living, working, and participating
as adults in community life. Whether these laws provide sufficient
opportunity and support for youth with disabilities to exit secondary
school, obtain postsecondary education or vocational training, and
achieve employment levels and wages comparable to their peers without
disabilities continues to be properly questioned.

The Rehabilitation Act and IDEIA allow for state agencies to establish
parameters to guide the participation of vocational rehabilitation
counselors in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) transition
planning process. The result is wide variation from state to state in
programs, practice, and outcomes requiring complex data collection,
examination, and reporting (NCD, 2004b). Despite government efforts to
address transition through more effective cooperation between
educational, rehabilitation, and other adult service systems, smooth
transition from secondary school to post-school pursuits for youth with
disabilities has remained elusive in many cases (NCD, 2004b).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469533 .anchor}Eligibility Criteria for VR
Services

The SEA and VR commonly agree that VR is invited by school personnel or
parents to a transitioning youth's IEP meetings. VR does not
independently track youth through school. Once notified of a
transitioning individual, VR determines whether that person meets
eligibility criteria. The individual must be someone with (a) a physical
or mental disability that constitutes or results in substantial
impediment to employment; (b) can benefit in terms of an employment
outcome from vocational rehabilitation services; and (c) requires
vocational rehabilitation services to prepare for, secure, retain, or
regain employment. Eligibility for services must be determined within 60
days. However, even transitioning youth who meet the eligibility
criteria may not receive services due to an "order of selection."

For eligible transitioning youth, a VR counselor is responsible for
coordinating all VR services. The International Rehabilitation
Counseling Consortium (IRCC) defines a rehabilitation counselor as "a
counselor who possesses the specialized knowledge, skills and attitudes
needed to collaborate in a professional relationship with people who
have disabilities to achieve their personal, social, psychological and
vocational goals" (Virginia Commonwealth University Department of
Rehabilitation Counseling, n.d., quoting IRCC). The counselor's role is
to attend IEP transition planning meetings, coordinate interagency
relationships, and serve as a transition resource (deFur, 2005).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469534 .anchor}Vocational Assessment

Vocational assessment and evaluation and community assessment are
invaluable to the transition process. A proper assessment helps guide
transitioning youth toward their future career path (Virginia Department
of Education, n.d.). The vocational assessment should be coupled with
community assessment. Whereas vocational assessment attempts to match
skill with preference, community-based assessment examines work values
and reinforcements, which may be more important. Proper vocational
assessment will reveal employment preferences, training options, and
expeditious job access at a reasonable salary level (Fraser, Vandergoot,
Thomas, & Wagner, 2004).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469535 .anchor}Individualized Plan for
Employment

The individualized plan for employment (IPE) is perhaps the most
important document in the VR process. It is the cornerstone of the
transition process. The VR counselor works with eligible youth and the
IEP team to develop an IPE. The state plans required by the
Rehabilitation Act must provide for the development and implementation
of an IPE for eligible individuals (34 CFR 361.45). An IPE is required
to contain, among other things, "a description of the specific
employment outcome that is chosen by the eligible individual, consistent
with \[his or her\] unique strengths, resources, priorities, concerns,
abilities, capabilities, interests, and informed choice" (29 USC
722\[b\]\[3\]\[A\]).

Any services provided by VR listed and described in the IPE must be
focused toward securing a reasonable employment outcome. Beveridge and
Fabian (2007) explain that Section 600 of the Rehabilitation Services
Administration's VR Policies and Procedures mandates that the IPE shall
be:

Developed and implemented in a manner that affords eligible individuals
the opportunity to exercise informed choice in selecting an employment
outcome, the specific vocational rehabilitation services to be provided
under the IPE, the entity that will provide the vocational
rehabilitation services, and the methods used to procure the services.

The decision as to how to implement the goal is a highly individualized
decision that must be made on a case-by-case basis (*Stevenson v. Com.
Dept. of Labor and Industry*, 1994). Whether an employment outcome is
"consistent" with the consumer's listed attributes is subject to VR
approval (29 USC 722\[b\]\[2\]\[C\]\[ii\]). A plan that is unrealistic
given the market or the individual's characteristics may not be approved
(*Reaves v. Missouri Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Educ*., 2005).

VR provides a coordinated set of activities designed within an
outcome-oriented process that promotes movement from school to
post-school activities. The coordinated set of activities must be based
on the individual's needs, taking preferences and interests into
account, and must include instruction, community experiences, the
development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives,
and, when appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and a
functional vocational evaluation (WIA, 1998). The Rehabilitation Act
identifies categories of services for individuals that can be provided
through the IPE and that are shown in Table 1, including needs
assessment, counseling and guidance, referral, job-related services,
corrective surgery, or therapeutic treatment that may reduce or
eliminate an employment impediment, prosthetics, employment-related
transportation, related personal service, interpreter services, and
rehabilitation technology.

Services may be provided to eligible transitioning youth directly by
state VR agencies, or by other vendors arranged through VR. Other
vendors include Community Rehabilitation Programs, One Stop Career
Centers, and other public and private sources. The RSA *Reporting Manual
for the Case Service Report* (RSA 911) (2004) categorizes and defines 18
major service areas. These categories and paraphrased definitions are
listed in **Table 1**.

Table 1

VR Services Received by Transition-Age Youth\
as Documented on an IPE

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Service**      **Paraphrased definition**       **Percentage of
                                                    transition-age youth,
                                                    ages 16--25 at time of
                                                    application, who
                                                    received service in FY
                                                    2006**
  ---------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------
  Assessment       Determining an individual's      22.20%
                   eligibility for VR services,     
                   his/her priority under order of  
                   selection, and the nature and    
                   scope of VR services to be       
                   included in the IPE              

  Diagnosis and    A range of diagnostic and        9.60%
  Treatment of     treatment services for physical  
  Impairments      and psychiatric/psychological    
                   impairments                      

  Vocational       Any form of counseling necessary 22.53%
  Rehabilitation   for an individual to achieve an  
  Counseling and   employment outcome, though more  
  Guidance         specific than the general        
                   relationship that exists between 
                   counselor and individual during  
                   the entire rehabilitation        
                   process                          

  College or       Full- or part-time postsecondary 7.30%
  University       training toward a degree,        
  Training         certificate, or other recognized 
                   educational credential           

  Occupational/    Nondegree or noncertification    4.85%
  Vocational       training to prepare for gainful  
  Training         employment in a recognized       
                   occupation                       

  On-the-Job       Training in specific job skills  1.47%
  Training         by a prospective employer,       
                   generally paid and generally     
                   toward the individual remaining  
                   in the same or similar position  

  Basic Academic   Remediation of basic academic    0.92%
  Remedial or      skills necessary for competitive 
  Literacy         employment                       
  Training                                          

  Job Readiness    Training toward appropriate work 5.64%
  Training         behaviors and appearance         

                                                    *continued*
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  *continued*                                       
  ---------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Service**      **Paraphrased definition**       **Percentage of
                                                    transition-age youth,
                                                    ages 16--25 at time of
                                                    application, who
                                                    received service in FY
                                                    2006**

  Disability-\     Such training as orientation and 0.90%
  Related          mobility, sign language, and     
  Augmentative     Braille                          
  Skills Training                                   

  Miscellaneous    Any other type of training,      4.95%
  Training         including GED or similar         
                   training                         

  Job-Related      Job search assistance: support   9.65%
  Services         and assistance in searching for  
                   and securing an appropriate job  

                   Job placement assistance:        11.38%
                   referral to a specific job       
                   resulting in an interview        

                   On-the-job support services:     6.79%
                   support services provided to an  
                   individual who has been placed   
                   in employment to stabilize the   
                   placement and enhance job        
                   retention                        

  Transportation   Training in the use of public    9.11%
  Services         transportation and/or travel and 
                   related expenses necessary to    
                   participate in a VR service      

  Maintenance      Monetary support for expenses    5.14%
                   that exceed the normal expenses  
                   of the individual and that are   
                   necessary for eligibility        
                   determination and services under 
                   an IPE                           

  Rehabilitation   The systematic application of    1.58%
  Technology       technologies, engineering        
                   methodologies, or scientific     
                   principles to meet the needs of, 
                   and address the barriers         
                   confronted by, individuals with  
                   disabilities, including          
                   rehabilitation engineering       
                   service, assistive technology    
                   devices, assistive technology    
                   services                         

  Personal         Wide range of services provided  
  Assistance       by one or more people designed   
  Service          to assist with activities of     
                   daily living and to increase the 
                   individual's independence:       
                   reader services, interpreter     
                   services, and personal attendant 
                   services                         

                   Reader services                  0.13%

                   Interpreter services             0.43%

                   Personal attendant services      0.14%

                                                    *continued*

  Technical        Technical assistance and other   0.70%
  Assistance       consultative services to assist  
  Services         in the pursuit of                
                   self-employment, telecommuting,  
                   and small business operation     
                   outcomes                         

  Other Services   Services that cannot be recorded 8.89%
                   elsewhere                        
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services
Administration, 2004.

From these RSA 911 services, a 2003 Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report created four major service categories: employment,
training, education, and support. The GAO (2003) study found that using
those four categories, the following selected services identified in
**Table 2** were provided to youth through VR.

Table 2

Selected Services Provided to Youth through the\
VR Program in FY 2001

+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Type of Service                                      | Percentage of |
|                                                      | Youth Ages    |
|                                                      | 14--21 Served |
+======================================================+===============+
| Employment Services                                  |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Job finding services                               | 36%           |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Job placement services                             | 29%           |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Training Services                                    |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Business/vocational training                       | 12%           |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > On-the-job training                                | 8%            |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Educational Services                                 |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Postsecondary educational training                 | 21%           |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Educational training below postsecondary level     | 19%           |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Support Services                                     |               |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Counseling and guidance                            | 74%           |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| > Transportation services                            | 23%           |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+

> Source: Government Accountability Office, 2003.

GAO and RSA 911 data reveal similar use trends for most-used to
least-used services; however, there is great variation in the percentage
of use. It is notable that the ages of youth included in the data
collection vary, with GAO collecting data between ages 14 to 21 and RSA
collecting data between ages 16 to 25.

From these services, The Study Group (2007) identified two categorical
areas: transition to postsecondary education and transition to
vocational training. Within these categories, The Study Group identified
the most frequently used policies and practices of VR agencies, and the
accompanying services. Among those are:

-   Transition to postsecondary education: career counseling and
    guidance services to eligible youth of high school age, providing
    supports related to transportation, tuition, books, dormitory costs,
    assistive technology, personal counseling, professional tutoring,
    job coaching, job development, resource connection

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Vocational training: career counseling and guidance services to
    eligible youth of high school age, providing supports related to
    transportation, tuition, dormitory costs, assistive technology,
    personal counseling, professional tutoring, job coaching, job
    development, resource connection

The Study Group (2007) further identified the following as the most
effective transition policies and practices:

-   IEP and IPE coordination prior to high school exit

-   Career counseling and guidance services to eligible youth while
    still in high school

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   VR agency personnel rapport with and personal encouragement to youth
    in their transition efforts

This last practice, along with career exploration and collaboration with
educators in the development of the transition IEP, are not services
usually listed on the IPE, and therefore are unable to be represented in
the current RSA 911 data system.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469536 .anchor}Services Provided Outside the
IPE

Not all transition-related services provided by VR counselors are
identified within the IPE. Attendance at IEP meetings, career
exploration with students before or after age 16, meetings with family
members to explain VR services, and consultation with teachers and other
IEP team members are all examples of activities that counselors can be
called upon to provide, but are not captured in the data maintained by
VR agencies. These services provided by VR counselors can be considered
to be components of their counseling, guidance, and support role with
consumers and are a part of transition services. Specific activities,
such as meetings with IEP team members, are not listed as standalone
services in the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, are not generally listed
in the IPE, and are not included in the RSA 911 data-collection system.
Yet these are the very activities that are most often provided to
transition-age youth who are seeking VR services and the ones most often
requested by school personnel and parents of transitioning youth,
according to the key stakeholders of this study.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469537 .anchor}Characteristics and Goals of
Transition-Age Youth\
Receiving VR Services

The RSA 911 data reveals that from FY 2002 to FY 2006, 59 percent of VR
consumers ages 16 to 25 were male, and 41 percent were female. In 2006,
representation of females among this sample varied from 34.0 percent
(South Carolina) to 60.0 percent (Illinois). During this same period,
the service population of VR consumers ages 16 to 25 was 73.1 percent
white and 26.9 percent minority members. In 2006, minority
representation averaged 24.4 percent and varied greatly, from 93.1
percent (D.C.) to less than 2 percent (Maine). Among the 50 states,
Hawaii had the highest rate of minority participation at 73.4 percent
(Institute for Community Inclusion, n.d.).

VR service population by disability category is shown in **Table 3**.
From FY 2002 to FY 2006, individuals with learning disabilities
comprised the largest number of consumers, followed by individuals with
intellectual disabilities and mental health impairments. There were
large variations in the types of disabilities of participants served
across states, particularly among the three largest service populations
nationwide. Among consumers with learning disabilities, for example,
proportions ranged from 16.5 percent (Florida) to 57.0 percent
(Delaware). Participation by consumers with intellectual disabilities
ranged from under 10 percent (D.C., North Dakota, South Carolina,
Arkansas) to over 30 percent (Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia).
Consumers with mental health impairments varied from under 10 percent
(Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia) to over 30 percent (Vermont, Florida,
Utah).

Table 3

VR Consumers by Disability, FY 2002--2006

  ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------
  Learning disabilities                                   31.9%

  Intellectual disabilities\*                             18.4%

  Mental health impairments                               18.3%

  Orthopedic impairments                                  9.1%

  Hearing impairments                                     3.8%

  Substance abuse                                         3.8%

  Visual impairments                                      2.4%

  Traumatic brain injury                                  1.7%

  Other                                                   10.5%
  ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------

> \*Data was collected under category using term *mental retardation*.\
> Source: Institute for Community Inclusion, n.d.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469538 .anchor}Dependence on Financial
Assistance

Upon exiting VR, transition-age youth receive slightly more financial
assistance than when they entered (see **Table 4**). This may be
explained by increased use of Social Security work incentives by
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance
(SSDI), and SSI-Blind recipients at time of entry into the workforce as
well as use of other work-related benefits such as subsidized housing
and transportation.

Table 4

*Receipt of Financial Assistance by Transitional Youth*

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Funding Source                     VR Entry            VR Exit
  ---------------------------------- ------------------- -----------------
  SSI-Blind                          2.2%                2.5%

  SSI-Disabled                       61.0%               65.2%

  SSDI                               10.6%               13.4%

  General assistance (welfare)       8.6%                10.4%

  AFDC                               6.5%                4.2%

  Veterans disability                0%                  0%

  Other disability                   2.7%                0.8%

  Other public support               4.9%                5.4%

  Family and friends                 29.1%               17.3%

  Workers compensation               1.4%                0.6%

  Private relief agency              0%                  0%

  Private insurance                  1.9%                0%

  Public institution (tax-supported) 3.0%                1.1%

  All other support (excluding       3.0%                4.9%
  wages)                                                 

  **TOTAL**                          **27.8%**           **28.6%**
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Source: Research Triangle Institute, 2000.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469539 .anchor}Vocational and Postsecondary
Education Goals of Transition-Age Youth

According to a study by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI, 2000),
transition-age youth generally establish vocational goals in one of
three occupational fields, as shown in **Table 5**. As this table shows,
special education youth are less likely to establish IPE goals in
professional/managerial/technical occupations than are VR consumers in
general, and are more likely to establish goals in service occupations.
Once established, only 18 percent of youth VR consumers changed their
vocational goals following IPE development.

Table 5

Vocational Goals for Special Education Youth

  ----------------------------------- ----------- ---------------- -------------
  Field                               Overall     Special          Others
                                                  Education Youth  

  Professional/managerial/technical   40%         25%              63%

  Services                            24%         31%              13%

  Clerical/sales                      12%         13%              11%
  ----------------------------------- ----------- ---------------- -------------

Source: Research Triangle Institute, 2000.

The occupational aspirations of youth with disabilities are more closely
associated with their perceived efficacy than with their actual high
school academic achievement (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Marder,
2007, quoting Bandura et al., 2001). Higher expectations for academic
and career success are related to high school completion rates (Wagner
et al., 2007, quoting Franse & Siegel, 1987) and higher postsecondary
school attendance rates (Wagner et al., 2007, quoting Durham, Danner, &
Seyfrit, 1999).

Research suggests that transitioning youth make choices about their own
participation and effort partly on how they perceive learning tasks, the
learning environment, and other participants in their environment,
including teachers and other students (Wagner, et al., 2007, quoting
Hadwin et al., 2001). In their report on the NLTS2 data, Wagner, et al.
(2007) reveal that positive views dominate the self-descriptions of
youth with disabilities. These youth consider themselves to have a
variety of strengths and enjoyable personality characteristics and are
confident in their abilities. Further, they are optimistic about their
futures. Though most youth with disabilities expect to graduate from
high school with a regular diploma, they are less confident they will
attend postsecondary school, especially when compared with their peers
without disabilities (see **Table 6**).

Table 6

Predictions of Youth Regarding Regular High School Diplomas\
and Postsecondary School

  ---------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------
  Likelihood             Graduate from High       Attend Postsecondary
                         School with a Regular    School
                         Diploma                  

  ­­­­­­­­Definitely will        84.8%                    52.4%

  Probably will          11.7%                    34.0%

  Probably or definitely 3.5%                     13.6%
  won't                                           
  ---------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------

Source: Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Marder, 2007.

Mitigating the positive self-images is research revealing that youth
with disabilities show a positive, but erroneous, bias in their
self-assessment (Wagner et al., 2007). More discouraging, positive
outlooks are largely held by populations that tend to be waiting for
services because of order of selection. For example, youth with autism
are less likely than others to report a strong sense of affiliation at
school or be involved in school activities. They make friends less
easily, and do not feel cared about by friends as often. All these
beliefs are linked with a reduced likelihood of graduating from high
school. Youth with intellectual disabilities are more likely to feel not
at all useful. They rarely or never enjoy life and may feel more
depressed (Wagner et al., 2007). Yet these individuals show up as having
positive self-images in the NLTS2 data.

In 2003--2004, states reported more than 15.1 million students were
enrolled in one or more secondary or postsecondary vocational and
technical education courses. Of these, 1.15 million were individuals
with disabilities (ED/OSEP, 2005). Approximately 25 percent believe they
definitely will complete a vocational, technical, or trade school.
Approximately 25 percent of youth with disabilities believe they
definitely will graduate from a four-year college, and 34 percent
believe they definitely will graduate from a two-year college. In
reality, only 12 percent of individuals with disabilities graduate from
college, as opposed to 23 percent of individuals without disabilities
(Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, & Acosta, 2005).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469540 .anchor}Labor Market Activity of Youth
with Disabilities

In 2005, the national employment rate gap between people with
disabilities and without disabilities was 37 percentage points
(Institute for Community Inclusion, n.d.). Between 2000 and 2005, 4.2
percent of individuals 18--24 years old cite their disability as a
reason for limited activity (CDC, 2006). Most youth with disabilities
are certain they will get employment of some type following high school,
but are less certain that these jobs will pay enough for them to be
financially self-sufficient (Wagner et al., 2007). While 95 percent of
youth with disabilities believe they will get a paid job, only 65
percent believe they definitely will be financially independent, and 72
percent believe they will live independently. Social Security trends
support this fear. Between 1982 and 1994 there was an approximate 50
percent increase in the number of individuals working who were moving to
Social Security benefits. Forty-three percent of those individuals were
under the age of 30 (Fraser, Vandergoot, Thomas, & Wagner, 2004, quoting
SSA, 1994).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469541 .anchor}**Chapter 4:** Known Obstacles
to Successful Transition

Despite the increased knowledge and awareness of transition planning for
students with disabilities, there remain several obstacles that impede
the successful transition of these students from secondary education
into the community. Although the obstacles described below are in
separate categories, the interrelationship of these issues cannot be
overlooked. The lack of student participation in the process is an
obstacle that impacts on the understanding of the roles and
responsibilities of all IEP team members. A lack of understanding of the
extent of VR responsibility in the transition process impacts the
transition team's understanding of the role of the VR counselor.
Insufficient information of community resources contributes to the lack
of linkages between schools and the community agencies whose services
are needed to support successful transition from secondary school. Yet
the importance of each of these obstacles to the successful transition
of students with disabilities warrants a discussion on each one to
highlight their significance. The obstacles identified below are not an
exhaustive list, but reflect some of the key issues faced by transition
teams.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469542 .anchor}Participation by Youth in the
Transition Process

The public agencies (secondary schools) are required by IDEIA to invite
students to their IEP meetings; however, students can decide whether or
not they wish to attend. Reasons for their lack of participation vary.
Students with disabilities often do not understand the IEP transition
planning process and believe it has little, if any, impact on their
lives. They often lack the self-determination skills or self advocacy
skills needed to fully participate in the process. Cameto (2005)
reported on data collected through the NLTS2 on student participation in
the IEP meeting. Although 58 percent of the students reported providing
some input, only 12 percent reported taking a leadership role. Without
students actively participating in their transition IEP process, they
may not learn about their potential access of VR services while they are
still in school.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469543 .anchor}Determining Appropriate Career
Goals

Transition planning can often become a separate activity in the
development of an IEP, instead of becoming an integral part of the
development and implementation of the IEP goals and objectives. As a
result, the identification of educational assistance focuses on the
immediate needs of students with limited consideration of the knowledge,
skills, or behaviors needed in employment, postsecondary education, or
other post-school environments (Stodden & Jones, 2002). Confusion on the
part of IEP teams on the IDEIA requirement of determining appropriate
measurable postsecondary goals based on age-appropriate transition
assessments contributes to the issue of insufficient information for
transition-related activities in the IEP. School personnel in particular
are unsure what activities provide the information needed and how to
incorporate the information into the IEP transition planning process.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469544 .anchor}Engaging VR Counselors in the
Transition Process

In a study conducted in 2007 by The Study Group, one of the most
commonly reported barriers to effective transition was that local
education agencies (i.e., schools) did not effectively engage VR agency
personnel in the planning and provision of transition services for
transition-age youth. The difficulty of having VR pay for specific
vocational services while eligible transition-age youth were attending
high school (e.g., job coaches, assessment, establishing community-based
work experiences, or providing transportation) was also reported by this
study. Participating in the development of transition IEPs, establishing
IPEs and providing career counseling and guidance were considered to be
the most effective strategies utilized by VR counselors when working
with transition-age youth who are still in high school (The Study Group,
2007).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469545 .anchor}Work-Related Experience

Students with disabilities often lack work-related experiences that are
essential to an effective transition to adult living (Wehman & Kregel,
2004). Providing community-based work experiences for students while in
high school enables students to explore different work environments to
determine their possible career goals. This information is critical for
IEP team members to determine transition-related activities.
Work-related community experiences are often excluded as part of
students' transition planning due to the lack of understanding on how to
create these experiences and the increased focus on core academic areas
that limit these experiences as part of the students' high school
experiences (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2005; Wehman, 2006).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469546 .anchor}Roles and Responsibilities of
Transition IEP Participants

Transition planning is a collaborative effort involving students, family
members, special education personnel, and community service providers.
There is a lack of understanding of the roles and responsibilities that
each member brings to this process. For students, as described
previously, their lack of understanding involves their knowledge of
transition, the impact of the planning on their future goals, and their
role in this process. Family members lack information about available
resources in the community, who should be invited to participate in the
process, and their role in planning post-school goals and activities
(Chambers, Hughes, & Carter, 2004; Wehman, 2006). School personnel lack
an understanding on how transition is incorporated in the IEP, the
process for notifying community agency personnel for meetings (i.e.,
prior written consent by a family member or student, if age of majority,
must be obtained prior to inviting community agencies to the IEP
meeting), and information on the skills, demands, and behaviors required
in post-school settings. Adult agency service providers are unsure of
their roles and responsibilities in the transition planning process, in
particular during the early stages of the process. For example,
rehabilitation counselors may believe their role in transition planning
begins when the student is one or two years from exiting high school.
However, activities such as information sharing or technical assistance
can be provided to IEP team members as early as three to four years
prior to exit (Lovelace, Somers, & Steveson, 2006).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469547 .anchor}Linkages with Community
Resources and Services

It has been reported by key stakeholders that there is often a lack of
information sharing among IEP team members, in particular between school
and adult agency personnel. A thorough assessment of available community
services and resources and their potential support for students with
disabilities is often not communicated. This contributes to limited or
nonexistent linkages between the school and community services. When
there is some participation on the part of community services in the IEP
meeting, often school personnel are not familiar with the requirements
for receiving services from participating agencies. This lack of
understanding on how to access community services is also true for
family members and students. As a result, students and family members
often do not follow up with referrals to these agencies once a student
exits school and is in the community. For example, collaboration between
schools and vocational rehabilitation agencies is not widespread and is
limited to the basic referral of students to vocational rehabilitation
(Benz, Lindstrom, & Latta, 1999). For youth with learning disabilities
or emotional disabilities, and those living in rural areas, effective
collaboration appears to be especially problematic (Cimera & Rusch,
2000).

Understanding the obstacles confronting IEP team members when developing
and implementing IEP transition plans will expand as more is learned
from the results of the data collection of State Performance Plan
Indicators 13 and 14 as required under Part B of IDEIA. The IEP
transition planning process is the focus of Indicator 13. This indicator
requires states to provide the percentage of youth ages 16 and above
with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual goals and
transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the
postsecondary goals. States have developed procedures for LEAs to review
IEP transition plans and submit information to their state department of
education.

Indicator 14 requires states to provide the percentage of youth who had
IEPs, are no longer in secondary education, and who have been
competitively employed, enrolled in some type of secondary school, or
both, within one year of leaving school. States are required to conduct
follow-up surveys with students (or family members) who have graduated,
dropped out, or are no longer eligible for special education services to
assess their post-school outcomes.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469548 .anchor}Retention in Secondary
Education: The Dropout Dilemma

Preventing youth from dropping out of secondary education settings prior
to completion of their educational program is an enormous challenge for
school systems as well as for VR and other partners in the transition
process. The negative effects associated with dropping out of high
school for students in general are well established and widely known in
the educational community. Available data indicate that these negative
effects are exacerbated when the dropout is a student with disabilities.
However, these data are limited. It should be noted that, in the VR
context, the term *dropout* typically refers to eligible youth who drop
out of the VR system (data that are regularly reported), and not
students who have dropped out of high school. A review of state data
reveal that some state-level VR programs focus to some degree on serving
students who have already dropped out of school (Alabama Department of
Rehabilitative Services, 2000), while other state level programs do not
address dropouts (Florida Department of Rehabilitative Services, 2007).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469549 .anchor}The Effects of Dropping Out of
High School

The initial relief often experienced by a student with disabilities upon
dropping out is quickly replaced by the realistic apprehension about his
or her preparation for economic, academic, and social independence
(Scanlon & Mellard, 2002). A student with disabilities is already
disadvantaged in finding employment, equal pay, and equal hours. A high
school dropout is less likely to be in the labor force, but more likely
to be unhealthy and imprisoned (National Center on Secondary Education
and Transition, 2007). The NLTS2 found similar results specific to
students with disabilities (see **Table 7**).

An important issue identified by a VR transition key stakeholder is the
fact that there is no way to determine the extent to which resources and
financial support provided to transition youth during postsecondary
education actually result in positive employment outcomes. This key
stakeholder further stated that rather than keep a VR case open, it is
often closed after graduation without knowing how well the individual
has integrated into the workforce.

Table 7

[Results Associated with Dropping Out of School\
for Students with Disabilities]{.underline}

  ---------------------------------------- ------------------- -----------
  Result                                   High School         Dropout
                                           Completer           

  Engaged in school, work, or work prep    86%                 69%

  Enrolled in vocational or technical      5%                  8%
  school                                                       

  Enrolled in two- or four-year college    27%                 1%

  Supports an independent household and    7%                  27%
  children                                                     

  Parenting                                3%                  19%

  Has a driver's license                   73%                 51%

  Spent a night in jail                    11%                 33%

  Hours worked per week                    27                  34
  ---------------------------------------- ------------------- -----------

> Source: NLTS2.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469550 .anchor}Reasons for Dropping Out

The NTLS found that students with disabilities were more likely to drop
out of high school than their peers without disabilities. In between
Wave 1 and Wave 2 of the NLTS, 28 percent of students interviewed
dropped out of high school. Though some research and literature address
dropout prevention, the needs of students with disabilities have not
been addressed (Kemp, 2006). What little is written tends to be divided
into two categories: academic failure and disengagement from the
educational environment (Kemp, 2006).

NLTS2 Wave 1 parent surveys track four reasons for high school dropout:
academic difficulty/poor grades (17.5 percent); disliked school
experience (29.2 percent); illness or disability (2.8 percent); and
other reason (62.9 percent) (ED Institute of Educational Sciences,
2004a). The first three reasons are, at best, vaguely related to VR
services. The largest category of dropout reasons, "other," is
unexplored. These data do not appear to provide VR with guidance on
dropout prevention policy and programs.

NLTS2 also reports on the reasons that youth are not currently in
school, including dropout. Given that the prevailing reason (85.4
percent) was "on school vacation," these data were likely collected
during a standard vacation time and are not helpful in providing insight
as to why students are not in school (ED Institute of Educational
Sciences, 2004b).

Examination of the causes of dropout must also take into consideration
the number of students who are removed from school through expulsion. A
notable number of expulsions occur not because of the behavioral
difficulties of students, but because of an effort by schools and
districts to rid themselves of problem students, including students with
disabilities (NCD, 2004b). With the implementation of the No Child Left
Behind Act, some schools have falsified dropout rates and otherwise
pushed low-achieving students out of school to meet district
expectations (Goldberg, 2004). For example, a dropout may be falsely
classified as having moved or information on the student classified as
\"missing.\" Although no data were found during the study, it would be
important in the future to determine if there is a correlation between
the dropout rate reduction over the past decade and the rate of
expulsions during the same period.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469551 .anchor}Limited Capacity of VR Services
to Meet the Demand

The Study Group (2007) surveyed 80 VR agencies regarding VR counselor
caseloads, resulting in a 90 percent response rate. VR counselor
caseloads ranged from 46 to 202, with a mean of 108 and a median of 105.
Only 46 percent reported having counselors co-located with office space
in local high schools (The Study Group, 2007, p. v). As part of a study
assessing national transition policies and practices, an RSA survey of
state VR agencies included questions regarding collaboration barriers
and facilitators. Survey participants reported "that state and local
interagency agreements overestimated the capacity of the VR agency to
fully implement all of the procedures, processes, and services
identified within these agreements, and that state and local interagency
agreements were not specific enough concerning the roles and
responsibilities of each agency" (H. Berry, personal communication,
February 5, 2008).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469552 .anchor}Impact of the Order of Selection

Congress intended that the transition portions of the Rehabilitation Act
"include transition services \[to not only\] those students in special
education programs, but also to students with disabilities who are in
regular education programs" (Virginia Commonwealth University, 1993
quoting Senate Report 102-357, p. 24). However, limited financial
resources may prevent a state VR agency from providing extensive
services to all eligible individuals. The Rehabilitation Act requires
that if a state agency cannot provide vocational rehabilitation services
to all eligible individuals who apply for services, a process, called
Order of Selection, must be developed to establish the order in which
eligible individuals with disabilities will be provided services
(Section 101\[a\]\[5\]). Order of Selection does not affect the
eligibility determination process; eligibility determination follows all
existing policies and guidelines. The Order of Selection does require
that individuals with the most significant disabilities will be selected
first for the provision of vocational rehabilitation services; and those
eligible individuals who do not meet the order of selection criteria
will have access to services provided through the agency's information
and referral system (34 CFR 361.36).

The requirements related to Order of Selection reflect a clear
congressional intent to focus services on individuals with significant
disabilities. However, the implementation of these requirements may make
it highly unlikely that some groups of transition-age youth (e.g.,
individuals with milder learning disabilities, Asperger's Syndrome,
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) will actually receive
services, despite that fact that they have been determined eligible for
and could benefit from the array of VR services.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469553 .anchor}Insufficient Number of
Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors

From all anecdotal information reviewed during the course of this study,
it is clear that there continue to be insufficient numbers of VR
counselors who can actively participate in the transition planning
process, let alone provide services to all VR-eligible youth, given
current federal funding appropriation guidelines and amounts. There
currently is no dedicated funding appropriation for youth transition
services through VR. This has impact, especially on the services
provided by VR counselors that are documented on the IPE. These services
are not viewed as a priority by many state and local VR agencies,
according to VR key stakeholders who were interviewed for this study,
and counselor time may not be allocated to provide these services. The
exception to this, according to the key stakeholders, appears to be with
the VR agencies that have dedicated VR counselors who serve the
transition population as all or a set percentage of their consumer
caseload.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469554 .anchor}**Chapter 5:** Findings of the
Study

The results reported below are derived from multiple sources of data.
First, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify and
review prior studies that focused on the efficacy of VR services for
adolescents and young adults with disabilities. Second, various existing
databases were assessed, analyzed, and queried to obtain data related to
transition outcomes that are directly or indirectly tied to use of VR
services by youth with disabilities. Third, structured qualitative
interviews were conducted with 24 key stakeholders: transition-age
consumers of VR services (n=4), parents of transition-age youth (n=7),
parents of young adults who used VR services during their transition
from high school (n=2), state and local educators who are involved in
transition (n=7), and state and local VR personnel (n=4). The interviews
were conducted between October 18, 2007, and March 25, 2008. Interview
protocols were reviewed in advance by the NCD Employment Committee and
approved by a university Institutional Review Board. Also incorporated
into the findings is information received from the study's expert panel
members who submitted comments and data after the April 23, 2008, panel
meeting.

The primary data sources used to address the first research question
were the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS), the National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), and the Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA) 911 data system. The NLTS and NLTS2 are the main
data sources providing detailed information on the characteristics of
students who are VR participants (Wittenburg & Maag, 2002). NLTS2 is
tracking more than 11,000 special education students through secondary
and transitional services to early adulthood. Preliminary findings are
available as smaller special reports and data.

The RSA 911 data system is the second of two major data sources
providing detailed information on the characteristics of VR participants
(Wittenburg & Maag, 2002). Uniformly reported state VR data are
collected and compiled into a single database. Data tables using the RSA
911 data have been constructed by the Institute for Community Inclusion
(ICI), which makes public viewing of the data available through the
StateData.info Web site. The reports that are available are based on
annual case closures and include data elements such as consumer
demographics, services delivered and costs, and closure outcomes. While
the RSA 911 data system is an important evaluation tool, the system
lacks a comprehensive set of data elements specifically designed for
collecting information related to transitioning students (The Study
Group, 2007).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469555 .anchor}Findings Responding to the
Research Questions

**Research Question 1: How effective has VR been in transitioning
students from school to work and/or from school to higher education?
Specifically, what short-term and long-term results are achieved through
the delivery of vocational rehabilitation services, particularly with
respect to students transitioning from school to work and school to
postsecondary education?**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469556 .anchor}Extent to Which Special
Education Students Are Served by VR

Despite the identified barriers to involvement, participation in VR by
transition-age students appears to be increasing steadily. **Table 8**
provides the number of VR consumers with case closures who are ages
16--22 for the years 1991--2005 and the percentage of all VR consumers
that are represented by this group. It is unknown at what age cases
opened or how many total cases were closed for any individual year
listed. As this table shows, transition-age youth represented
approximately 17 percent of all VR consumers in the early 1990s, but
over one-fourth of all consumers in 2004 and 2005. The most dramatic
increase occurred between the years 2003 and 2004, when participation by
individuals of transition age increased over 50 percent. This may be due
to the fact that beginning in 2002 and continuing in 2003, there was an
increased emphasis on transition by RSA in its required monitoring
efforts with all 80 state VR agencies. In addition RSA began joint
monitoring efforts with OSEP during this same time period (H. Berry,
personal communication, July 2, 2008) which may have resulted in more
accurate reporting of data rather than a considerable increase between
2003 and 2004.

Table 8

Number of Transition-Age Consumers of\
Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies\
at Year of Case Closure

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
  FY           All                 16--22              \%

  1991         165,893             29,137              17.6%

  1993         159,629             26,882              16.8%

  1995         179,099             29,691              16.6%

  1997         184,370             32,036              17.4%

  1998         196,096             34,061              17.4%

  1999         205,392             37,205              18.1%

  2000         212,037             38,924              18.4%

  2001         210,283             38,336              18.2%

  2002         205,524             36,893              18.0%

  2003         204,383             36,338              17.8%

  2004         201,911             54,097              26.8%

  2005         197,168             54,743              27.8%
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

> Source: Institute for Community Inclusion, n.d.

Analyses of the NLTS2 data have shown that the state VR agency is not
contacted by the local education agency for participation for the
majority of special education students. In the Student's School Program
Survey, Regular School, NLTS2 defines a contact to be "when a state VR
agency is contacted by the school or school system regarding programs or
employment for the student." The comparable survey for "special schools"
does not contain this definition or a related question. Per NLTS2 data,
the percentage of contacts made in transition planning for youth by
state VR agencies averaged 37.8 percent for the 12 disability
categories. Youth with speech impairments had the least frequent
contacts at 28.6 percent; youth with visual impairments had the greatest
number of contacts at 59.3 percent.

According to the NLTS2 data in 2002, a total of 37.8 percent of youth
contacts were made by state VR agencies. The greatest percentage of
contacts was made between the age categories of 16 and 17--18. By age
14, 8.3 percent of youth had been contacted, 16.3 percent by age 15,
35.8 percent by age 16, and 56.4 percent by ages 17--18. Similarly, the
greatest percentage of contacts was made between the grade levels of 10
and 11 and between 11 and 12. At grade 7 and 8 levels, only 8.5 percent
of youth were contacted by a state VR agency. A total of 14.6 percent of
youth were contacted by VR by grade 9, 32.5 percent by grade 10, and
57.5 percent by grades 11 and 12.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469557 .anchor}Numbers of Transition-Age Youth
Potentially Eligible for VR Transition S***e***rvices

The Study Group (2007) noted that the fall 2005 IDEIA child count
identified 2,285,137 students with disabilities between the ages of 14
and 21, of which 317,062 were between 18 and 21 years of age.
Unfortunately, there are no national data available on the number of
transition-age youth receiving VR services while in school (The Study
Group, 2007); only the contacts made by the local education agency to VR
are known. Therefore, there is no way at this time for determining the
potential number of transition-age youth who are potentially eligible
and could benefit from VR services.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469558 .anchor}Employment Outcomes for
Transition-Age Students Receiving VR Services

Data from the RSA 911 database reveal that 118,100 transition-age
consumers exited the VR program in FY 2006 after receiving services. Of
these, 68,024, or 58 percent, achieved employment outcomes (Institute
for Community Inclusion, n.d.). For purposes of this study, the
definition of an employment outcome is that contained in Section 7(11)
of the Rehabilitation Act. An employment outcome means that an
individual enters into full-time or part-time (if more appropriate)
employment in the integrated labor market, has satisfied the vocational
outcome of supported employment, or has any other vocational outcome
that is determined appropriate by the Secretary of Education (e.g.,
self-employment, telecommuting, or business ownership). Data that are
available across state agencies reveal the extent to which
transition-age consumers participate in the VR program, the type of
services provided, and employment outcomes at the time of exit from the
VR system. 

In 2000, a fourth interim report focusing on transition-age VR consumers
and their long-term outcomes was completed by the Research Triangle
Institute for RSA. The report found that nearly two-thirds (63 percent)
of VR consumers who were transition-age youth achieved an employment
outcome as a result of VR services; the rate for youth who had received
special education services in high school was slightly higher than that
of VR consumers who had not received special education services (64
versus 59 percent). On the negative side, VR consumers who received
special education earned less per hour (\$5.57 versus \$6.47) and worked
fewer hours (33.6 versus 37.1) than did those transition-age VR
consumers who had never been involved in special education (RTI, 2000).

**Tables 9--12** compare key employment outcomes for transition-age VR
consumers with all VR consumers served from 1991 through 2005. As these
tables show, outcomes for youth compared favorably with those of all VR
consumers. For example, mean work hours per week for youth was nearly
equal to, and in some years greater than, the mean for all VR consumers.
Hourly wages and weekly earnings for youth were lower than the overall
means, but this would be logical given that they would likely have less
work experience and many would be entering their first job.

+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| <table>                           | <table>                          |
| <colgroup>                        | <colgroup>                       |
| <col style="width: 24%" />        | <col style="width: 24%" />       |
| <col style="width: 26%" />        | <col style="width: 26%" />       |
| <col style="width: 24%" />        | <col style="width: 24%" />       |
| <col style="width: 24%" />        | <col style="width: 24%" />       |
| </colgroup>                       | </colgroup>                      |
| <tbody>                           | <tbody>                          |
| <tr class="odd">                  | <tr class="odd">                 |
| <td colspan="4"><p>Table 9</p>    | <td colspan="4"><p>Table         |
| <p>Work Hours per Week of         | 10</p>                           |
| Transition-Age VR                 | <p>Hourly Wages of<br />         |
| Consumers</p></td>                | Transition-Age VR                |
| </tr>                             | Consumers</p></td>               |
| <tr class="even">                 | </tr>                            |
| <td>FY</td>                       | <tr class="even">                |
| <td>All</td>                      | <td>FY</td>                      |
| <td>16–22</td>                    | <td>All</td>                     |
| <td>%</td>                        | <td>16–22</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>%</td>                       |
| <tr class="odd">                  | </tr>                            |
| <td>1991</td>                     | <tr class="odd">                 |
| <td>34.5</td>                     | <td>1991</td>                    |
| <td>34.3</td>                     | <td>$6.59</td>                   |
| <td>99.4%</td>                    | <td>$5.26</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>79.8%</td>                   |
| <tr class="even">                 | </tr>                            |
| <td>1993</td>                     | <tr class="even">                |
| <td>35.1</td>                     | <td>1993</td>                    |
| <td>34.5</td>                     | <td>$6.71</td>                   |
| <td>98.3%</td>                    | <td>$5.38</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>80.2%</td>                   |
| <tr class="odd">                  | </tr>                            |
| <td>1995</td>                     | <tr class="odd">                 |
| <td>34.4</td>                     | <td>1995</td>                    |
| <td>34.3</td>                     | <td>$7.04</td>                   |
| <td>99.6%</td>                    | <td>$5.65</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>80.3%</td>                   |
| <tr class="even">                 | </tr>                            |
| <td>1997</td>                     | <tr class="even">                |
| <td>33.7</td>                     | <td>1997</td>                    |
| <td>33.8</td>                     | <td>$7.66</td>                   |
| <td>100.3%</td>                   | <td>$6.21</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>81.1%</td>                   |
| <tr class="odd">                  | </tr>                            |
| <td>1998</td>                     | <tr class="odd">                 |
| <td>33.8</td>                     | <td>1998</td>                    |
| <td>34.0</td>                     | <td>$8.06</td>                   |
| <td>100.6%</td>                   | <td>$6.58</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>81.6%</td>                   |
| <tr class="even">                 | </tr>                            |
| <td>1999</td>                     | <tr class="even">                |
| <td>34.1</td>                     | <td>1999</td>                    |
| <td>34.2</td>                     | <td>$8.29</td>                   |
| <td>100.2%</td>                   | <td>$6.84</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>82.5%</td>                   |
| <tr class="odd">                  | </tr>                            |
| <td>2000</td>                     | <tr class="odd">                 |
| <td>34.1</td>                     | <td>2000</td>                    |
| <td>34.3</td>                     | <td>$8.68</td>                   |
| <td>100.6%</td>                   | <td>$7.16</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>82.5%</td>                   |
| <tr class="even">                 | </tr>                            |
| <td>2001</td>                     | <tr class="even">                |
| <td>34.0</td>                     | <td>2001</td>                    |
| <td>33.9</td>                     | <td>$9.13</td>                   |
| <td>99.8%</td>                    | <td>$7.48</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>81.9%</td>                   |
| <tr class="odd">                  | </tr>                            |
| <td>2002</td>                     | <tr class="odd">                 |
| <td>33.4</td>                     | <td>2002</td>                    |
| <td>33.1</td>                     | <td>$9.61</td>                   |
| <td>98.9%</td>                    | <td>$7.64</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>79.5%</td>                   |
| <tr class="even">                 | </tr>                            |
| <td>2003</td>                     | <tr class="even">                |
| <td>33.0</td>                     | <td>2003</td>                    |
| <td>32.3</td>                     | <td>$9.77</td>                   |
| <td>97.8%</td>                    | <td>$7.71</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>79.0%</td>                   |
| <tr class="odd">                  | </tr>                            |
| <td>2004</td>                     | <tr class="odd">                 |
| <td>32.9</td>                     | <td>2004</td>                    |
| <td>32.7</td>                     | <td>$9.97</td>                   |
| <td>99.5%</td>                    | <td>$8.68</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>87.1%</td>                   |
| <tr class="even">                 | </tr>                            |
| <td>2005</td>                     | <tr class="even">                |
| <td>32.7</td>                     | <td>2005</td>                    |
| <td>32.6</td>                     | <td>$10.24</td>                  |
| <td>99.5%</td>                    | <td>$8.89</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>86.8%</td>                   |
| </tbody>                          | </tr>                            |
| </table>                          | </tbody>                         |
|                                   | </table>                         |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| <table>                           | <table>                          |
| <colgroup>                        | <colgroup>                       |
| <col style="width: 21%" />        | <col style="width: 17%" />       |
| <col style="width: 29%" />        | <col style="width: 29%" />       |
| <col style="width: 27%" />        | <col style="width: 30%" />       |
| <col style="width: 21%" />        | <col style="width: 22%" />       |
| </colgroup>                       | </colgroup>                      |
| <tbody>                           | <tbody>                          |
| <tr class="odd">                  | <tr class="odd">                 |
| <td colspan="4"><p>Table 11</p>   | <td colspan="4"><p>Table         |
| <p>Weekly Earnings of             | 12</p>                           |
| Transition-Age VR                 | <p>Transition-Age VR Consumers   |
| Consumers</p></td>                | Receiving Employer Health        |
| </tr>                             | Insurance</p></td>               |
| <tr class="even">                 | </tr>                            |
| <td>FY</td>                       | <tr class="even">                |
| <td>All</td>                      | <td>FY</td>                      |
| <td>16–22</td>                    | <td>All</td>                     |
| <td>%</td>                        | <td>16–22</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>%</td>                       |
| <tr class="odd">                  | </tr>                            |
| <td>1991</td>                     | <tr class="odd">                 |
| <td>$ 227.76</td>                 | <td>1991</td>                    |
| <td>$ 180.78</td>                 | <td>4.3%</td>                    |
| <td>79.4%</td>                    | <td>3.5%</td>                    |
| </tr>                             | <td>81.9%</td>                   |
| <tr class="even">                 | </tr>                            |
| <td>1993</td>                     | <tr class="even">                |
| <td>$ 235.47</td>                 | <td>1993</td>                    |
| <td>$ 185.62</td>                 | <td>37.5%</td>                   |
| <td>78.8%</td>                    | <td>35.0%</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>93.2%</td>                   |
| <tr class="odd">                  | </tr>                            |
| <td>1995</td>                     | <tr class="odd">                 |
| <td>$ 242.45</td>                 | <td>1995</td>                    |
| <td>$ 193.74</td>                 | <td>39.0%</td>                   |
| <td>79.9%</td>                    | <td>37.3%</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>95.5%</td>                   |
| <tr class="even">                 | </tr>                            |
| <td>1997</td>                     | <tr class="even">                |
| <td>$ 258.09</td>                 | <td>1997</td>                    |
| <td>$ 209.98</td>                 | <td>44.8%</td>                   |
| <td>81.4%</td>                    | <td>42.7%</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>95.2%</td>                   |
| <tr class="odd">                  | </tr>                            |
| <td>1998</td>                     | <tr class="odd">                 |
| <td>$ 272.34</td>                 | <td>1998</td>                    |
| <td>$ 223.75</td>                 | <td>45.8%</td>                   |
| <td>82.2%</td>                    | <td>44.3%</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>96.9%</td>                   |
| <tr class="even">                 | </tr>                            |
| <td>1999</td>                     | <tr class="even">                |
| <td>$ 283.07</td>                 | <td>1999</td>                    |
| <td>$ 234.05</td>                 | <td>45.3%</td>                   |
| <td>82.7%</td>                    | <td>44.1%</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>97.2%</td>                   |
| <tr class="odd">                  | </tr>                            |
| <td>2000</td>                     | <tr class="odd">                 |
| <td>$ 295.82</td>                 | <td>2000</td>                    |
| <td>$ 245.73</td>                 | <td>45.7%</td>                   |
| <td>83.1%</td>                    | <td>44.0%</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>96.3%</td>                   |
| <tr class="even">                 | </tr>                            |
| <td>2001</td>                     | <tr class="even">                |
| <td>$ 310.15</td>                 | <td>2001</td>                    |
| <td>$ 253.42</td>                 | <td>47.4%</td>                   |
| <td>81.7%</td>                    | <td>44.4%</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>93.7%</td>                   |
| <tr class="odd">                  | </tr>                            |
| <td>2002</td>                     | <tr class="odd">                 |
| <td>$ 321.26</td>                 | <td>2002</td>                    |
| <td>$ 252.73</td>                 | <td>28.7%</td>                   |
| <td>78.7%</td>                    | <td>25.4%</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>88.5%</td>                   |
| <tr class="even">                 | </tr>                            |
| <td>2003</td>                     | <tr class="even">                |
| <td>$ 322.20</td>                 | <td>2003</td>                    |
| <td>$ 248.72</td>                 | <td>30.9%</td>                   |
| <td>77.2%</td>                    | <td>26.5%</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>85.6%</td>                   |
| <tr class="odd">                  | </tr>                            |
| <td>2004</td>                     | <tr class="odd">                 |
| <td>$ 327.50</td>                 | <td>2004</td>                    |
| <td>$ 283.84</td>                 | <td>29.7%</td>                   |
| <td>86.7%</td>                    | <td>29.5%</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>99.2%</td>                   |
| <tr class="even">                 | </tr>                            |
| <td>2005</td>                     | <tr class="even">                |
| <td>$ 335.31</td>                 | <td>2005</td>                    |
| <td>$ 289.82</td>                 | <td>30.0%</td>                   |
| <td>86.4%</td>                    | <td>29.9%</td>                   |
| </tr>                             | <td>99.8%</td>                   |
| </tbody>                          | </tr>                            |
| </table>                          | </tbody>                         |
|                                   | </table>                         |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

> Source for Tables 9--12: Institute for Community Inclusion, n.d.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469559 .anchor}Findings from the Key
Stakeholder Interviews: Availability and Effectiveness of VR Services
for Transition-Age Youth

Although data reveal that an increasing number of transition-age
students are receiving VR services, the key stakeholder groups all
identify issues regarding the extent to which they are available to
students in secondary and postsecondary settings. An area of agreement
across all stakeholder groups is that youth with disabilities and their
families are not always aware that their children may be eligible for VR
services during their high school years. For many students, it is not
until their final year in high school that the school requests approval
from the family for a referral to the local VR agency.

For example, a VR counselor/transition coordinator from a small state in
the Northeast reported having great success in being able to complete
formal intakes, attend IEP meetings, and work successfully with special
education staff at least 18 months prior to an individual's graduation
or exit from secondary education. Yet all other VR transition
coordinators interviewed expressed great concern because of the
impossibility of meeting the demand for involvement in the transition
IEP process by VR counselors. This concern was shared by key
stakeholders in all groups.

Funding is needed to hire more VR counselors so the wait time for
service for transitioning youth is decreased.

Education transition key stakeholder from a state in the West

VR counselors are overwhelmed---service level varies from one locality
to the next.

Parent key stakeholder from a state in the Northeast

In addition to the lack of a sufficient number of counselors available
to serve the transitioning youth population across the United States,
stakeholders also expressed concern that there is inequality in how VR
service units are assigned between the direct services that an adult
might receive and the service units for the time that a VR counselor
spends in nondirect activities on behalf of youth, such as in meetings
and collaborating with teachers and school personnel.

In very few states or localities of key stakeholders, there are
specified transition VR counselors at the local level who are assigned
to local education agencies (i.e., local school districts). For the
other key stakeholder states, VR services are only provided to
transition-age youth upon request of the parent or when initiated by the
school.

Issues also were identified when VR counselor changeover occurs and
accurate historical information may not be used by others involved in
the VR process.

I did not see \[Department of Rehabilitative Services counselor\] again
until the summer before graduation when my son was invited to
participate in the center-based weeklong rehabilitative assessment
process....The assessment findings concluded that my son was eligible
for segregated facility--based or supported employment but that he would
not be a candidate for competitive employment. By this time he had been
employed competitively for 18 months \[through the IEP process in which
VR participated\].

Parent key stakeholder from a mid-Atlantic state

During my sophomore or junior year of high school, I received a new
counselor from \[VR Services for the Blind\]....VR counselors need to be
more attuned to the needs of their individual clients. \[I am\] blind,
yet my VR counselor put a handwritten note on a document and sent it to
me in the mail.

Transition-age key stakeholder from a state in the Northeast

The need for consistency within and across states of how VR services are
made available to transition-age youth was a shared theme among a number
of VR key stakeholders. For example, one state VR key stakeholder
indicated, "In most areas of our state, our local counselors are
directly involved in the development of transition planning and the
delivery of transition services to eligible transition-age youth in
secondary schools. However, there is not a clearly defined process for
how \[VR\] receives referrals for secondary students with disabilities.

I think we need to look at how transition caseloads differ from adult
caseloads and the RSA data collection \[that\] may not allow for that
flexibility in terms of looking at outcomes prior to a 26 closure.

VR key stakeholder from a s*t*ate in the Northeast

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469560 .anchor}Summary of Key Findings of
Research Question 1

The number of transition-age youth served by VR has increased steadily
over the past five years. For these individuals, employment rates and
earnings appear reasonable given the age and prior work experience of
this population. At the same time, it appears that VR is serving only a
small percentage of youth who could potentially benefit from transition
services. Unfortunately, available data are insufficient to develop
precise estimates of the number, characteristics, or service needs of
transition-age youth potentially able to access and benefit from VR
services.

**Research Question 2: How have particular VR services correlated with
successful employment outcomes, and how do existing definitions of
successful case outcomes influence the range and content of transition
services provided in the field? What are the outcomes from VR's
substantial investments in postsecondary training of consumers with
disabilities?**

VR services are defined as any services described in an IPE toward
securing a reasonable employment outcome. The state plans required by
the Rehabilitation Act must provide for the development and
implementation of IPEs for eligible individuals (34 CFR 361.45). An IPE
is required to contain, among other things, "a description of the
specific employment outcome that is chosen by the eligible individual,
consistent with \[his or her\] unique strengths, resources, priorities,
concerns, abilities, capabilities, interests, and informed choice" (29
USC 722\[b\]\[3\]\[A\]).

The study did not uncover data that correlate specific VR services with
employment outcomes for youth with disabilities. Available data confirm
the increased success that results from participation in postsecondary
education and training and document VR's support of youth pursuing
postsecondary education and training opportunities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469561 .anchor}Benefits of Postsecondary
Education

Obtaining higher levels of education have clear positive impacts on
employment rates, though at lower rates than individuals without
disabilities (see **Table 13**).

Table 13

Rates of Employment for People with Disabilities by Level\
of Educational Achievement: Individuals with Disabilities\
Versus Individuals Without Disabilities

  ----------------------------- ------------------ -----------------------
  Education Level               Labor Market       
                                Participation for  
                                Individuals:       

                                With Disabilities  Without Disabilities

  Less than a high school       29.9%              61.7%
  diploma                                          

  High school diploma           50.5%              82.5%

  Some postsecondary education  60.1%              83.7%

  At least four years of        72.2%              88.5%
  college                                          
  ----------------------------- ------------------ -----------------------

Source: Stodden, Roberts, Picklesimer, Jackson, & Chang, 2006.

Evidence from analyses of general labor force data indicate that
increasing levels of education result in higher rates of labor force
participation and employment. Data from the RSA 911 report show two
dimensions of postsecondary education for VR consumers---receiving
college and university training through the VR program and level of
education attained at closure (representing the level of education the
individual had attained when the individual exited the VR services
program). For consumers who received college or university training
through the VR program, we do not find substantially different
rehabilitation rates. That is, 57 percent of individuals who receive
college and university training exit the VR program with an employment
outcome nationally, as compared to 58 percent of exiting VR consumers
overall. However, for those who attain some level of postsecondary
education prior to case closure, we find that rehabilitation rates are
higher than the overall national rate, 64 percent versus 58 percent
(Institute for Community Inclusion, n.d.).

Participation in the labor market through VR services necessarily
requires continued participation in VR services until an employment
outcome is achieved. The number one reason a VR case is closed is not
due to a successful employment outcome, but because the consumer decides
to end participation with VR services. Determining why VR consumers exit
the program prior to a successful outcome is difficult to ascertain
because data collection is lacking. The RSA Consumer Satisfaction Report
found 80--90 percent satisfaction in such areas as perceived interest by
counselor, time to develop complete plan, and counselor knowledge of
available programs (RSA-PA, 2007). However, the survey is done with the
consumers who remain active on the VR roles, not all, consumers.
Further, some states, such as Pennsylvania, only send consumer
satisfaction surveys to consumers who exit the program with a successful
employment outcome (RSA-PA, 2007).

Recent estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau indicate that people with
bachelor's degrees will earn approximately \$600,000 more during their
lifetime than those without an undergraduate degree. This estimate was
cited by Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley in his statement before
Congress during the most recent authorization of the Higher Education
Act of 1965. He noted:

More than ever before, education is the fault line between those who
will prosper in the new economy, and those who will be left behind.
Today's jobs increasingly require skills and training beyond a high
school education, and accessible postsecondary education is critically
important to individuals as well as our Nation's economy and democracy.
(Price-Ellingstad & Berry, 1999, p. 1, quoting Riley, 1997)

Recent statistics from the Department of Labor (**Table 14**) confirm
that Riley's statements are accurate. Fewer than half of citizens
without at least a high school diploma are participating in the labor
force (i.e., either employed or seeking employment) and only 43.2
percent are employed. Increases in education level correspond with
increases in labor force participation and employment rates.

Table 14

Employment Statistics by Education Level, Civilian Population:\
With and Without Disabilities, Ages 25 and Older

  ------------------------------ ----------------- -----------------------
  Education Level                Participation     Employment Rate
                                 Rate              

  Less than a high school        46.8%             43.2%
  diploma                                          

  High school graduate, no       62.6%             59.8%
  college                                          

  Some college or associate      72.0%             69.6%
  degree                                           

  Bachelor's degree or higher    77.6%             75.9%
  ------------------------------ ----------------- -----------------------

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, 2007.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469562 .anchor}Students with Disabilities
Supported in Postsecondary Education by VR

Data analyses from the RSA 911 data reveal that nationwide, 12.7 percent
of VR consumers ages 16 to 25 receive postsecondary education and
training. Across states, the rate varies from under 5 percent (Virginia,
New Hampshire, Colorado) to over 25 percent (Utah, Arkansas, West
Virginia, Nebraska, New Mexico). As noted previously, pursuit of
postsecondary education is statistically related to youth engagement in
their high school education (Wagner et al., 2007). However, youth with
disabilities have substantially lower academic achievement as compared
with their peers without disabilities. A decade ago, a 1998 Harris
Survey, found that approximately 20 percent of adults with disabilities
have not completed high school, compared to 9 percent of adults without
disabilities (Price-Ellingstad & Berry, 1999). Fifty-nine percent of
youth with disabilities report that school is "not very hard" or "not
hard at all." Sixty-eight percent report enjoying school "a lot" or
"pretty much." The youth with disabilities most likely to be eligible
for VR services are the most likely to report school being "pretty hard"
or "very hard" (Wagner et al., 2007).

The National Center for Educational Statistics reported in 2001 that
enrollment in four-year postsecondary institutions by students with
disabilities had been declining since 1994, but that enrollment in
community colleges and vocational colleges continued to steadily
increase (Wehman & Yasuda, 2005). For example, in 2004, the percentage
of students with disabilities in California's community college system
was 3.86 percent in comparison with the California State University
system (2.45 percent) and the University of California system (1.48
percent) (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2008).

One reason for this could be that community colleges have traditionally
served the most diverse population (Rioux-Bailey, 2004) and many have
open enrollment policies. In addition to having more flexible admission
policies, community colleges tend to provide more individualized
services for students with disabilities than do four-year colleges and
universities (Wehman & Yasuda, 2005). Cocci (1997) reports that two-year
colleges provide more assistance by increased access to academic
accommodations, assistive technology, counseling, tutoring, and
assessment. With the higher level of academic support, it is likely that
VR provides tuition support for a greater number of transition-age
consumers attending two-year than four-year institutions, but no data
were found to support this.

Although significant progress has been made to increase successful
transition to employment following entrance into and completion of
postsecondary education for students with disabilities, there is still
much to be done (Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, & Acosta, 2005). Youth with
disabilities struggle to obtain and maintain employment. For those youth
employed, the jobs are more likely to be part-time, and they are more
likely to be fired as compared to youth without disabilities
(Garcia-Iriate, Blacazar, & Taylor-Ritzler, 2007). The National Council
on Disability in 2000 concluded that "the data on the employment of
youth with disabilities showed little change in the status of those who
exit school prepared to enter the workforce" (NCD, 2000).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469563 .anchor}VR Funding Support for
Postsecondary Education

With regard to VR funding of postsecondary education, **Table 15**
indicates the numbers of consumers ages 16 to 25 for whom the state VR
agency provided some level of funding for postsecondary education or
training between the years 2002 and 2006 as is collected in the RSA 911
database.

Table 15

Percentage of VR Consumers\
Ages 16 to 25 Receiving\
Postsecondary Education

  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------
  FY                                \%

  2002                              17.1%

  2003                              17.9%

  2004                              21.1%

  2005                              21.9%

  2006                              22.3%
  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------

> Source: Institute for Community\
> Inclusion, n.d.

As Table 15 indicates, VR agencies as a whole have steadily increased
the percentage of consumers in this age range for whom service funds are
being directed to postsecondary education, a very positive trend given
the documented financial benefits of higher education on earning
potential. Further analysis of this data indicates that in 2002, four
states provided funding for postsecondary education to less than 10
percent of consumers in this age range: Virginia (5.2 percent), South
Carolina (7.6 percent), Colorado (7.8 percent), and Mississippi (8.2
percent). However, six states provided funding for 40 percent or more of
their consumers in this age range: Utah (44.9 percent), Tennessee (44
percent), Wyoming (43.7 percent), Arkansas (42.3 percent), Nebraska
(40.5 percent), and West Virginia (40.0 percent).

ED provided \$2.6 billion in FY 2005 in VR grants to the states and
territories based on a formula that considers the state's population and
per capita income (GAO, 2007). Yet, many state VR agencies have been
financially challenged to the point of being unable to fund services for
significant periods, leaving VR participants adrift in their
rehabilitation plans or on a basic services waiting list. As evidenced
by the "order of selection" practice, funding limitations can have a
major influence on who receives services and how those services are
delivered (Fraser, Vandergoot, Thomas, & Wagner, 2004).

Funding for state transition efforts not related to workgroups or task
forces comes mostly from the individual state departments of vocational
rehabilitation (23 states) and education (22 states). Other funding
sources listed by states include Medicaid, Workforce Investment Act,
National Governors Association's Center for Best Practices, grants,
state departments of social services, local businesses, the Vocational
and Technical Education Act, workforce commissions, a state division of
public assistance, the Social Security Administration, and a state
department of employment security. Under the Perkins Act, as amended,
Congress has appropriated more than \$1.1 billion for grants to states.
In recent years, states have chosen to allocate an average of 40 percent
to postsecondary education, with some states allocating as little as 10
percent (Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act
of 2006).

VR receives funding from many sources, and as noted above, those sources
all have different objectives and requirements. The National
Collaborative on Workforce and Disability (NCWD/Youth) advocates the
creation of strategies to allow the "blending and braiding of funds and
resources." The ability to combine funds toward a single goal will
naturally create a system of improved flexibility, coordination, and
sustainability (NCWD/Youth, 2006). None of the stakeholder organizations
can afford to independently fund the services VR consumers require.
Pooled resources toward unified goals identified by VR consumers will
result from necessary cross-system collaboration (NCWD/Youth, 2006,
quoting National Governors Association, 2004). Combining resources
requires stakeholder groups to forfeit some degree of control, a
complicating factor given their own reporting requirements. However,
government support of combined resources has identified benefits:
expanding employer connections; shared fiscal responsibility;
establishing joint processes and procedures; flexible funding for
mentoring efforts; service integration for transitioning youth;
consolidated approach to service delivery and information sharing; and
establishing a broker of resources.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469564 .anchor}Findings from the Key
Stakeholders: Employment and Postsecondary Education Outcomes

VR involvement with youth who are transitioning to postsecondary
education received favorable comments from key stakeholders and families
who have received financial support for tuition and assistive
technology.

The Special Education Transition Counselor in my daughter's school
referred her to VR when she was a junior. There was excellent
communication between my daughter and her VR counselor who fully
participated in the development of my daughter's transition plan. VR
paid for the assistive technology that my daughter needed for college,
and paid for a community college course needed as an alternative to her
college's language requirement. My daughter finished college in six
years and is currently successfully self-employed and in graduate
school. VR services ended when my daughter started her own business.

Parent key stakeholder from the Northeast

Other key stakeholders pointed out that participation in postsecondary
education does not automatically lead to employment for all individuals
with disabilities. Many of the same issues encountered by youth who
desire employment after high school are faced after completion of
postsecondary education.

My son attended private school until graduation. He became involved with
VR as he was applying for college. VR funded his tuition, for which we
were very grateful. After graduation from college, my son remained
unemployed for several years. During that time, VR made sporadic contact
and provided him with lists of available jobs. At one point, on his own,
my son returned to school for a brief period. Eventually he found
employment on his own.

Parent key stakeholder from the Southeast

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469565 .anchor}Summary of Key Findings of
Research Question 2

Prior research efforts have not documented the effectiveness of specific
VR services in promoting employment outcomes of transition-age youth.
While the results of multiple demonstrations reveal promising practices,
no rigorous studies using experimental designs or comparison groups have
been completed. Available data clearly confirm that VR agencies provide
considerable support for individuals with disabilities enrolled in
postsecondary education. Further, prior research documents the increased
success that results from participation in postsecondary education and
training, although problems related to selection bias in study samples
limit the usefulness of these investigations.

**Research Question 3: To what extent has the Department of Education's
Monitoring Redesign Initiative promoted the transition of students from
school to employment and school to postsecondary education within the
vocational rehabilitation system?**

Section 107 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, requires that
the Rehabilitation Services Administration conduct annual reviews and
periodic onsite monitoring of programs authorized under Title I of the
act. The goal of these reviews is to determine compliance with the
assurances made in the state VR agency's state plan and the evaluation
standards and performance indicators established under Section 106 of
the act (ED/OSEP, 2005). In 2005, RSA implemented a new structure for
completing this monitoring function. The State Monitoring and Program
Improvement Division (SMPID) of RSA was given responsibility for
monitoring seven of RSA's formula grant programs, to include the Title I
Basic VR state grants and the Supported Employment (SE) state grants.

In order to fulfill its monitoring responsibilities, RSA, through state
teams made up of staff from the SMPID:

-   Reviews the state agency's performance in assisting eligible
    individuals with disabilities to achieve high-quality employment and
    independent living (IL) outcomes

-   Develops, jointly with the state agency, performance and compliance
    goals as well as strategies to achieve those goals

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Provides technical assistance to the state agency in order to
    improve its performance, meet its goals, and fulfill its state plan
    assurances

During a monitoring review of a state VR agency's performance, the state
team from SMPID:

-   Gathers and reviews information regarding state agency performance

-   Identifies a wide range of VR and IL stakeholders and invites them
    to provide input into the review process

-   Conducts onsite visits and holds discussions with state agency
    staff, State Rehabilitation Council members, State Independent
    Living Council members, and stakeholders to share information and
    identify promising practices and areas for improvement

-   Provides technical assistance to the state agency

-   Works with the state agency to develop goals, strategies, and
    evaluation methods to address performance issues

-   Makes recommendations to the state agency

-   Identifies potential issues for further review

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Identifies the technical assistance that RSA would provide to help
    improve the performance of the state's VR, SE, and IL programs^i^

The state-specific RSA FY 2007 Monitoring Reports on the Vocational
Rehabilitation and Independent Living Programs prepared by RSA staff are
posted at
<http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/107-reports/2007/index.html>. As
of June 2008, the site contained monitoring reports for 15 states and
two territories. These reports were reviewed for specific references to
VR services to transition-age individuals. The following are examples of
the type of transition indicators being noted during the RSA performance
reviews.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469566 .anchor}Examples of Promising Practices

Based on the monitoring reports described above, RSA identified and
posted on its Web site a description of 10 specific promising practices
for transitioning youth.^ii^ Several of these promising practices are
described in detail later in this section.

Alabama [College Preparation
Programs](http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/promising-practices/transition-age/al-2007-1.html)\
[Career Preparation and Training Initiative
(CPTI)](http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/promising-practices/transition-age/al-2007-2.html)

Maryland [Transitioning
Youth](http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/promising-practices/transition-age/md-2007.html)

Nebraska [Transition
Scholarships](http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/promising-practices/transition-age/ne-2007.html)

Pennsylvania [Participation in the Pennsylvania Community on
Transition](http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/promising-practices/transition-age/pa-2007.html)

Rhode Island [Shared Youth Vision Federal Collaborative
Partnership](http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/promising-practices/transition-age/ri-2007-1.html)\
[Statewide Partnerships Leveraging Resources and Maximizing Access to
Services for Transitioning
Youth](http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/promising-practices/transition-age/ri-2007-2.html)

South Dakota [Leveraging Resources and Maximizing Access to Services for
Transition-Age Youth Through Statewide
Partnerships](http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/promising-practices/transition-age/sd-2007.html)

Vermont [Jump on Board for Success
(JOBS)](http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/promising-practices/transition-age/vt-2007-1.html)\
[Learn, Earn and Prosper
(LEAP)](http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/promising-practices/transition-age/vt-2007-2.html)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469567 .anchor}Identified Issues in Serving
Transitioning Youth

RSA also uses the monitoring reviews to identify issues impacting
delivery of VR services to transitioning youth. Examples drawn from the
review of FY 2007 state monitoring reports are as follows:

**Alabama**. Regarding the expansion of Supported Employment services
for students reaching the age of 21 and the connection to resources and
ongoing support for clients exiting the school system; Alabama
Department of Rehabilitative Services needs consistent connection and
outreach to community resources beyond the existing supported employment
projects; funding to serve the most severe clients in need of SE
services; and consistent interagency coordination across the state.
Also, concerns were raised related to the quality of job placement
services for consumers completing college degree programs.

**Georgia**. One explanation for Georgia's difficulty in meeting and
exceeding performance indicator 1.5^iii^ may be the focus it places on
serving transition-age individuals with disabilities. The percentage of
transition-age individuals with disabilities served in comparison to the
total number of individuals served in Georgia in 2005 is approximately
60 percent higher than the national average. In 2005, 43.6 percent of
the total number of individuals served by Georgia Department of Labor
and Vocational Rehabilitation (GADOLVR) were transition-age individuals.
The national average in 2005 was 26.4 percent. Transition-age
individuals with IEPs referred from secondary schools usually include
high percentages of individuals with cognitive impairments or mental
illness. For GADOLVR in FY 2006, 1,658 of the 2,182 transition-age
individuals who achieved an employment outcome were individuals with
some type of mental impairment, and the majority of these were
individuals with mental retardation and severe and chronic mental
illness. These individuals are most often receiving SSI and relying on
Medicaid for services that maintain them in the community. However, the
need for Medicaid support means that individuals risk losing needed
benefits if earnings exceed Medicaid eligibility guidelines. For a
combination of reasons, these individuals typically earn low wages, and
in Georgia they appear to be primarily placed into entry-level jobs that
pay close to minimum wage.

**Pennsylvania**. The report for the Pennsylvania state VR agency
monitoring review is an example of RSA noting an issue and then working
with the state on a response plan.

*Issue:* Transition-Age Youth. During FY 2005, Pennsylvania Office of
Vocational Rehabilitation (OVR) served 4,926 transition-age youth
representing 26.04 percent of the total of the number of individuals
served by OVR. In FY 2006, PA OVR served 5,033 transition-age youth
representing 26.55 percent of the total number of individuals served.
The rehabilitation rate for transition youth also increased from 57.23
percent in FY 2005, to 59.45 percent in FY 2006, as a result of an
increase from 2,819 successful outcomes in FY 2005, to 2,992 successful
outcomes in FY 2006. The national employment rate for 16- to 24-year-old
youth reported by the U.S. Department of Labor in the summer of 2006 was
88.8 percent.

Providing services that result in the successful transition of youth to
employment outcomes is a significant issue for OVR. Transition-age youth
represent a substantial percentage of the total number of individuals
OVR serves. During the onsite visit, OVR staff expressed concern about
tracking youth who participate in programs conducted through the PA
Community on Transition. In FY 2006, 1,288 youth cases were closed after
determination of eligibility for services without an IPE being
developed, or after development of the IPE without receiving services.
Data regarding participation and outcomes could be used to maximize
resources and improve programs.

In addition, issues such as those related to the provision of services
and policy development, which were expressed by stakeholders during the
monitoring process, have implications for providing services to
transition-age youth that result in quality employment outcomes.

*Goal:* Close the gap between the rehabilitation rate of transition-age
youth with disabilities and the employment rate of all youth.

*Strategies:* Three specific actions designed to improve program
outcomes were identified.

1\. Hire new transition coordinator by October 1, 2007, to continue to
enhance effective collaborative relationships with state and federal
entities serving youth, and family and student organizations.

2\. Develop and implement common data elements with collaborating
partners to enhance tracking and reporting capabilities.

3\. Analyze data to assess impact of collaborative activities on
outcomes.

*Method of Evaluation:* OVR will be successful as the gap between the
rehabilitation rate of transition-age youth with disabilities and the
employment rate of all youth is closed.

*Technical Assistance:* RSA will provide technical assistance on
measurement of progress and outcomes.

Each state report also contains a table providing longitudinal trend
data for approximately 16 performance indicators. Two of the data
indicators were specific to VR services for transition-age youth. The
following example (**Table 16**) of the transition-specific trend data
is taken from the Pennsylvania report.

Table 16

Example of the Transition-Specific Trend Data\
from the Pennsylvania Report

  ----------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  PENNSYLVANIA            2002      2003      2004      2005      2006

  Percentage of           25.89%    25.01%    25.30%    26.04%    26.55%
  transition-age served                                           
  to total served                                                 

  Employment rate for     67.86%    66.82%    62.53%    57.23%    59.45%
  transition-age served                                           
  ----------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

Source: RSA-PA, 2007.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469568 .anchor}Summary of Key Findings of
Research Question 3

The RSA redesign of its state monitoring process has put in place a
system that appears to work closely with state agencies in reviewing
performance in relation to state plan goals and objectives. Performance
strengths are noted. Promising practices of potential value to other
states are identified, collected, and disseminated. Performance issues
are also identified and corrective action plans are developed. The
actual impact of the monitoring redesign in terms of strengthening VR
services, including services to transition-age youth cannot be
objectively determined at this early stage in the implementation of the
redesign process.

**Research Question 4: How effective has VR been in collaborating with
other agencies in achieving its transition results? What are the
outcomes from VR's collaboration with secondary and postsecondary
programs?**

Congress intended the Rehabilitation Act to foster the collaboration of
rehabilitation and educational services:

\[The Rehabilitation Act is intended to\] ensure that all students who
require VR services receive those services in a timely manner. There
should be no gap in services between the educational system and the VR
system. Thus, an individual's \[IPE\] should be completed before the
individual leaves the school system.... The Committee wishes to
reiterate that the VR program should use information from the public
schools if that information reflects the current status and abilities of
the student. Coordination between agencies regarding the adequacy of
data needed by each agency will save time and money. The Committee also
intends that the \[IPE\] be coordinated with an IEP for such students
with disabilities (Senate Report 102-357, pp. 33--34, as cited in NCD,
2000).

Ideally, transition services should be a coordinated effort of multiple
agencies to support the individual across many aspects of life
(Rutkowski, Daston, Van Kuiken, & Riehle, 2006). The Rehabilitation Act
allows agencies to enter into third-party agreements with other state or
local agencies to coordinate the services provided to their common
program participants (GAO, 2005). The call for interagency coordination
and cooperation in the transition process is a strong thread throughout
the transition initiatives and related federal legislation (deFur &
Reiff, 1994). Youth with disabilities who ranked the importance of
various issues related to transition did not list a strictly academic
concern among their top choices. Rather, youth were concerned with
health services, knowledge about reasonable accommodations and reliable
transportation, and self-assertion and self-advocacy techniques (NCD,
2003). Through collaborative relationships, the VR counselor can guide
the transitioning youth toward success with all employment-related
goals.

The most recent authorizations of the Rehabilitation Act and IDEIA allow
state agencies to determine the role of vocational rehabilitation
counselors in the transition process for students of various ages. The
result is wide variation in programs, practice, and outcomes. The
National Council on Disability (2004a) also notes that transition
services are one of the best strategies for improving the quality of
school programs and post-school outcomes experienced by students with
disabilities, but it is the least often used. Despite government efforts
to address transition through more effective cooperation between
educational, rehabilitation, and other adult service systems, smooth
transition from secondary school to post-school pursuits for people with
disabilities has remained elusive in many cases (NCD, 2004a).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469569 .anchor}Collaboration and Participation
in the Transition IEP Planning Process

Consistent involvement and participation of the appropriate individuals
is essential for effective transition. **Table 17** shows that parents
actively participate in the transition planning process 84.9 percent of
the time. Special education teachers actively participate 97.4 percent
of the time. Vocational rehabilitation counselors participate 14.3
percent of the time. Fewer than 1 in 10 students up to age 16 are
reported to have a VR counselor actively involved in transition
planning, compared with one in four students who are 17 or 18 years old
(NLTS2, 2005). Yet, VR counselor participation is higher than the
participation of other outside agencies.

Of all the contacts made by school staff on behalf of students with
transition planning, the state VR agencies were the most frequently
contacted (37.8 percent). The second most frequently contacted agency is
the Social Security Administration (11.5 percent) (NLTS2, 2005).
Fifty-six percent of those 17 or 18 years old report that the school
system contacted the state VR agency on their behalf, whereas only 16
percent of 15-year-olds had the agency contacted on their behalf.

Table 17

Active Participants in Transition Planning\
for Students with a Transition Plan

  --------------------- ----------------- --------- -------- -------- ------------
                        **Percentage with **\                         
                        Active            Years of                    
                        Participation**   Age**                       

                                          **14**    **15**   **16**   **17--18**

  Parent/guardian       85%               79%       88%      86%      85%

  Special Education     97%               97%       97%      98%      97%
  Teacher                                                             

  General Education     59%               59%       64%      55%      58%
  Teacher                                                             

  Gen. Ed. Vocational   31%               20%       24%      30%      40%
  Teacher                                                             

  School Counselor      61%               49%       62%      60%      66%

  Related Services      18%               12%       20%      25%      16%
  Personnel                                                           

  School Administrator  56%               48%       44%      58%      63%

  Vocational Rehab.     14%               3%        5%       10%      25%
  Counselors                                                          

  Others                17%               15%       11%      18%      20%
  --------------------- ----------------- --------- -------- -------- ------------

Source: NLTS2, 2004.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469570 .anchor}Collaboration in the
Implementation of the Transition IEP

Quality VR services provide consumers the ability to exercise choice in
determining their career goals and identifying the support services
necessary to achieve these goals (Wilson, 2003). The identification of
preferences leading to placement in preferred jobs is important to
obtaining and maintaining employment and is required by the
Rehabilitation Act (Morgan and Ellerd, 2005). Fundamental to achieving
satisfactory postsecondary education or employment through VR counselor
assistance is the alignment of consumer and counselor expectations at
the beginning of the process. McMahon, Shaw, Chan, and Danczyk-Hawley
(2004) recommend that counselors be trained on an instrument that
recognizes divergent expectations, such as the Expectancies About
Rehabilitation Counseling Scale.

The Rehabilitation Act allows agencies to enter into third-party
agreements with other state or local agencies to coordinate the services
provided to their common program participants (GAO, 2005). NCD (2000)
reported that documented models of multidisciplinary, coordinated, and
accountable service systems that meet local requirements are urgently
needed to close the gaps between post-school outcomes for youth with
disabilities and the general population.

IDEA established new parameters intended to smooth the transition of
students with disabilities from secondary school to higher education and
work. NCD (2004b) asserts that only by making educators and
rehabilitation providers equally and jointly responsible for the success
or failure of transition can accountability be achieved. Across the
country, state VR agencies are working to establish relationships with
local education agencies and workforce development initiatives that
smooth the transition process of students from school to work (Wilson,
2003). NCWD/Youth (2006) cited significant variation in levels of
coordination between schools and VR agencies, with several states
acknowledging that their coordination efforts are yet underway. Support
in the postsecondary education environment also lacks coordination. A
2005 survey of several dozen postsecondary students with disabilities
had a predictable finding that "students would be better served at
postsecondary institutions if there were a more comprehensive network of
support services, working cooperatively to support students with
disabilities and educating peers and faculty" (Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer,
& Acosta, 2005).

In the NCWD/Youth (2006) survey of states, 3 of the 25 responding states
reported having developed formal interagency and collaborative
agreements to increase the scope and effectiveness of transition
services offered. These states were Arizona, California, and Louisiana.
Nine of the states reported systems of coordination between various
state and local agencies. Four states reported having significant
coordination efforts underway. Many of the states indicated that
improving the level and channels of communication between various
parties involved in transition efforts to be a major goal, and 22
indicated that further technical assistance would be useful toward this
goal.

NCWD/Youth found in its 2006 report that collaboration is not simply a
matter of creating partnership. Each stakeholder group will have its own
set of goals and expectations regarding transition for youth. The
funding sources for each party also vary, and the funding sources may
have their own goals, desired outcomes, and bureaucracies. NCWD (2006)
further contends that transition-age youth should be informed about
health care options and transportation services and other available
resources for whatever supports they need. Vocational rehabilitation,
vocational education, and special education are essential in the
transition process (deFur & Reiff, 1994).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469571 .anchor}Recent OSERS Initiatives with
Federal Partners

OSERS reports (H. Berry, personal communication, February 5, 2008) that
it has initiated and supported numerous transition activities and
projects to improve the overall statewide service delivery system for
youth with disabilities. Many of these activities are coordinated and
administered in partnership with other federal programs.

A review of federal documents reveals that OSERS established working
relationships and participates in collaborative activities with other
federal agencies that have a focus on improving educational, independent
living, and employment outcomes for youth with disabilities.
Specifically, representatives from OSERS are active members in the
Interagency Committee on Disability Research/Interagency Subcommittee on
Employment, the Federal Partners in Transition Workgroup, the Youth
Vision Federal Collaborative Partnership, and the New Freedom Initiative
Workgroup. The agencies involved in these and other activities include
the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS),
Agriculture, Transportation, Justice, and Housing and Urban Development
and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

As a result of these relationships and collaborative efforts, the
following events or activities have been achieved as reported by OSERS
(H. Berry, personal communication, February 5, 2008):

-   RSA hosted the 2006 National Employment Conference, "Transition into
    High-Demand Job Sectors." The conference brought business and
    industry leaders together with representatives of the public VR
    agencies and other stakeholders with an interest in the transition
    and employment of youth with disabilities.

-   RSA issued the 28th Institute on Rehabilitation Issues Document,
    "Investing in the Transition of Youth with Disabilities to
    Productive Careers." A prime study group composed of youth with
    disabilities, parents of youth with disabilities, educators, and
    rehabilitation and employment professionals authored this document.
    The document provides information and perspectives on the
    philosophy, vision, legislative authorities, and community
    foundation for transition services.

-   OSERS began the Youth to Work Coalition (YWC) with Mitsubishi
    Electric America Foundation more than three years ago. Many
    businesses and organizations have joined the Youth to Work Coalition
    to increase internship opportunities in the private sector for
    students with disabilities.

-   The National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET), a
    technical assistance center funded by OSERS's Office of Special
    Education Programs, sponsored a National Leadership Summit in 2003,
    in collaboration with 15 federal programs and national
    organizations. The purpose of the national summit was to provide a
    forum for states to increase their capacity to work collaboratively
    on improving outcomes for youth with disabilities.

-   In addition, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
    Research to Practice Division supports a number of technical
    assistance centers that have impact on the field of secondary
    transition. As a whole, these centers address OSEP's Government
    Performance and Results Act (GPRA) indicators to improve graduation
    and dropout rates for students with disabilities.

-   In FY 2003, the RSA senior management team identified the transition
    of youth with disabilities from school to work as a major focus in
    the conduct of monitoring 80 state VR agencies. All onsite review
    teams followed a monitoring guide that addressed VR agency
    performance in the implementation of transition services to youth
    with disabilities to achieve employment outcomes and to determine
    compliance with the assurances made in the state plan.

-   OSEP redesigned its accountability system into a Continuous
    Improvement Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) that incorporates
    strategies designed to ensure compliance and improve performance
    under Part B of the IDEA, foster greater state accountability,
    increase parental involvement, and establish a data-driven process
    to inform improvement planning. Implementation of the CIFMS has
    increased accountability, ensured public involvement, focused on
    processes with the strongest relationship to positive results, and
    increased emphasis on improving academic and post-school outcomes
    for children with disabilities.

-   Also, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
    Research (NIDRR) leads initiatives on addressing transition needs.
    NIDRR awarded a grant to focus on transitioning youth who are deaf
    and severely hearing impaired; and a grant was awarded to evaluate
    the implementation of transition services delivered by VR agencies
    that serve only individuals with significant visual impairments.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In March 2007, the Office of Civil Rights issued a booklet titled
    \"Transition of Students with Disabilities to Postsecondary
    Education: A Guide for High School Educators.\" The purpose of this
    booklet is to inform educators about the rights and responsibilities
    of students with disabilities and to facilitate their transition
    from high school to postsecondary environments. The booklet is
    available at
    [www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/transitionguide.html](http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/transitionguide.html).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469572 .anchor}VR Participation in the Shared
Youth Vision Collaborative Partnership

In 2003, a White House report identified a lack of communication and
coordination among federal agencies serving youth, resulting in the
nation's neediest youth not having successful employment outcomes
despite the expenditure of billions of public and private funds (DOLETA,
2007). The Employment and Training Administration within the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOLETA), in response to this report, formed the
federal Shared Youth Vision Collaborative Partnership (SYV) with the
Departments of Education, Agriculture, Justice, Health and Human
Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation and the
Social Security Administration and Corporation for National and
Community Service (DOLETA, 2007). In 2006, OSERS became a partner in
addition to other representation from ED when DOL issued guidance that
expanded the focus of the interagency SYV group to include American
Indian youth and youth with disabilities (G. Weltz, personal
communication, April 29, 2008).

Although the SYV was initiated at the federal level, states and local
areas play the critical role in facilitating the outcomes of the youth
that are served. There are no federal mandates that states and
localities are required to meet, only that they are to develop a
coordinated approach that works for their own region for serving the
neediest youth with a braided funding approach (DOLETA, 2007). Currently
there are pilot SVY teams in 12 states in which VR is a participant,
four of which (Rhode Island, Vermont, Minnesota, and Iowa) list youth
with disabilities as one of their target populations. A number of SYV
teams in which VR has a role also have representation of Disability
Program Navigators, created through DOL funding (G. Weltz, personal
communication, April 29, 2008).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469573 .anchor}Findings from the Key
Stakeholders: VR Collaboration with Other Agencies

An overarching theme that became apparent early in the key stakeholder
interview process is the lack of information about the transition
process and the role of VR in this process that is made available to
students and families. Parents, consumers, and educators shared this
view. In general, key stakeholders reported that VR services do reflect
the principles of self-determination and consumer choice. One parent
took issue with this by stating that her son did not benefit from the
self-directed services model that VR employed. A consumer key
stakeholder felt strongly that it should be up to the student to make
decisions concerning career choice and planning that were part of the
IEP planning process.

Although every VR key stakeholder identified efforts that are being made
at the state and local level to collaborate with local school districts,
a disconnect remains between the educational system and VR, according to
education and consumer key stakeholders. There continue to be
differences in expectations among all key stakeholder groups regarding
the services and level of involvement that VR can currently provide to
transition-age youth. Education personnel want more communication with
VR counselors, a consistent referral process, and more work-based
learning opportunities provided through VR for their students. One
transition-age consumer wants high school students with disabilities to
automatically receive VR services and recommends that the services be
student directed. All key stakeholders did agree that increased funding
to support increased capacity of the VR counselor workforce would allow
for increased collaborative efforts on the part of local VR agencies.

Key stakeholders were specifically asked about VR's relation to other
community service providers, yet very few of them talked about the
relationship among agencies at the local level. It was stated that
community agencies need to talk more to each other and that a common
intake/eligibility determination process would be helpful. One parent
did discuss the relationship between the local VR agency and the
services that were contracted for through a community employment vendor.

...it should be noted that DRS services are only as good as the vendor
with whom they contract. Though the DRS counselor was intuitive,
supportive, and viewed my son as a potential member of the labor force,
the vendor was another story....Where I was seeking information to help
better direct instruction and related services with an employment
outcome, the conclusion of the vendor simply closed a door....At the
interpretive meeting the vendor's position was to shut doors rather than
encourage skill development.

Parent key stakeho*l*der from a mid-Atlantic state

This same parent went on to describe what happened five years later when
her son was approaching the age of 21.

Subsequent experiences with another vendor demonstrated to me the
awesome differences in attitudes in those who conduct assessments. A
second vendor\...conducted assessments and found that he \[the son\] had
great strengths and was clearly employable. With her findings in hand
and her assistance at the IEP meeting, the employment coordinator with
the school took my son on two job interviews. At the second interview he
was hired and has been employed there for four years.

Transportation was the most frequently identified barrier within
community service systems, followed closely by the issues regarding
Social Security disability benefits and the fear that families have of
planning for employment for their sons or daughters at the cost of
losing benefits.

In a recent survey, OVR transition counselors, school staff, and OVR
branch managers overwhelmingly said that the primary obstacles to
eligible transition-age consumers obtaining a positive employment
outcome are a lack of support from parent/guardians, consumer dependence
on SSI/SSDI and a lack of job opportunities....

...It is very difficult to foster support from parents/guardians for
their child to obtain employment when they often rely on their child's
SSI earnings to boost their household income....It is difficult to
continuously promote SSA work incentives to suspicious consumers who
feel secure in receiving a monthly check, which they often went through
an arduous process to obtain.

State VR key stakeholder

Key stakeholders across all categories referred to the misunderstanding
of families regarding Social Security disability benefits and how this
misinformation and fear often influence the transition process.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469574 .anchor}Summary of Key Findings of
Research Question 4

Results clearly indicate the VR is an active partner with special
education and postsecondary educational institutions in the delivery of
services to transition-age youth. RSA is involved in a number of
collaborative efforts with other federal agencies. However, both the
quantitative and qualitative data reviewed indicated that lack of
personnel, service unit credit policies, and dedicated transition units
in local rehabilitation agencies limit the impact and effectiveness of
VR collaboration with other agencies involved in service delivery.

**Research Question 5: How effective has the Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) and RSA leadership been in the
implementation of the law over the past 30 years, particularly with
respect to transition from school to work and collaboration with the
postsecondary educational system?**

In accordance with the Rehabilitation Act, the Commissioner of the
Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) conducts annual reviews and
periodic onsite monitoring of programs authorized under Title I of the
act to gauge compliance with the act and with evaluation standards and
performance indicators established under Section 106 of the act. This
review is published by the United States Department of Education. Also,
in accordance with the Rehabilitation Act, each state publishes an
annual report detailing its program activities and outcomes.

RSA monitored 23 states in FY 2007 and identified several states as
implementing "promising practices." These practices are unique to the VR
agencies providing them, and are intended to serve as models for other
states (RSA, 2007). These states are not touted as being highly
effective overall, but may represent states that are among the most
innovative and progressive. Each state's "promising practices" are
summarized, and each state is examined for overall efficacy over
numerous years. For each state examined here, some of the RSA (2007)
monitoring data and the states' annual reports will be summarized. While
the RSA monitoring data provide the same categorical data for all
states, each state's individual report may have some data that are
different from what another state reports.

**Alabama.** RSA identified Alabama as a state with a promising practice
known as a Career Preparation and Training Initiative (CPTI). Since
2003, for two weeks each summer Alabama Department of Rehabilitative
Services (ADRS) hosts a training session focusing on seniors planning to
enter the workforce following high school. ADRS partners with local
school systems, transportation agencies, local colleges, and employers
to introduce youth to the world of work. Students participate in
team-building activities, employment site tours, potential employer
visits, tours of two-year colleges, socialization activities, and
discussions on getting and maintaining employment. Each student's
counselor is required to participate, a feature that RSA specifically
praised. In its fourth summer, ADRS processed 114 applications for the
program. Per RSA-AL (2007), this pilot program is expanding to other
Alabama and out-of-state locations.

Alabama reports that in 2005 it served 17,112 transitioning students
with disabilities and rehabilitated 2,819 on a \$2.5 million budget.
Transitioning students were one-third of all the individuals ADRS served
and placed in employment. Eighty full-time job coaches---possible
through joint funding---served 75 school districts, assisting
transitioning students. Approximately 67 percent of the 600 ADRS
transitioning consumers who participated in supported employment
successfully achieved an employment outcome. The ADRS 2006 annual report
highlights specialized services for students with specific learning
disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, the college
preparatory program, and collaboration projects with Children's
Rehabilitative Service, Department of Youth Services, Department of
Corrections, and the Special Education Division of the Alabama
Department of Education.

**Maryland.** Maryland Department of Rehabilitative Services (DORS)
assigns a counselor to each public secondary school in the state to
promote effective transition. Of course, it requires DORS to complete an
IPE for eligible students with disabilities who can be served under the
order of selection prior to school exit (RSA-MD, 2007). Maryland youth
who remain in school are referred to DORS during the fall semester of
their next-to-last year in secondary school (RSA-MD, 2007).

Maryland was recognized for its "outreach to youth with disabilities,
funding of services for eligible youth while they are still in high
school, and its positive relationships with partners in providing
services and leveraging services." Specifically, RSA was impressed with
the interagency agreements Maryland executed with four local school
districts to ensure transitioning students have the necessary transition
accommodations, namely, assistive technology and training on the
technology for students with significant disabilities.

Maryland's 2006 annual report provided limited data on transition-age
youth. Maryland reported serving 4,606 students in 2004, 5,073
transitioning students in 2005, and 6,553 transitioning students in
2006, but gives no data on the total population served or the number of
successful employment outcomes. Although DORS provides numerical and
statistical data on its population, the total number served does not
match between categories. For instance, DORS reports serving 13,251
males and 11,636 females for a total of 24,887 consumers. DORS also
reports serving 12,154 whites, 11,936 African-Americans, 1,314 other
races, and 225 nonidentified races, for a total of 25,629 consumers.
Thus, the numbers and statistics provided by DORS should be considered
approximations. Yet, when RSA reviewed 15 service records per year for
2004, 2005, and 2006 to determine the accuracy of the RSA 911 data
reporting, they had accuracy ratings of 94.44 percent for FY 2004 and
95.87 percent for FYs 2005 and 2006. RSA considers data accuracy a
strength of Maryland DORS.

Educational institutions provided 4,921 (20 percent) of the DORS
referrals, second only to individual self-referral (7,631 or 31
percent). A total of 29 percent of individuals referred were under age
22 at the time of referral; 22 percent were under age 20. Maryland DORS
reports that 71 students participated in five geographically and
programmatically different technical programs throughout the state, but
provides no outcome data. Maryland DORS reports exceeding its goal for
transitioning youth served through the Workforce and Technology Center
by 17 percent.

**Nebraska.** Nebraska Vocational Rehabilitation (NVR) assists schools
in planning for the transition of students with disabilities "upon
request...during their school years to the extent determined by
cooperative agreements with local school districts" (RSA-NE, 2007). This
plan results from Nebraska's "strong tradition of local control" for its
300+ local school districts offering secondary education. NVR further
notes that its districts are small, often enrolling fewer than 100
secondary students, of whom approximately 10 would have disabilities
(RSA-NE, 2007).

RSA-NE (2007) recognizes NVR for its awarding of scholarships to
transition-age VR-eligible youth. The youth are given internships
lasting up to 12 weeks, for which NVR pays half the costs. The employer
acts as a mentor and teacher, giving the youth necessary job and
job-specific skills and, ultimately, the job. The success of this
initiative prompted the NVR goal of "creating a minimum of 30 employer
scholarships statewide for transition students with a minimum of 14
employers offering scholarships by September 30, 2008."

Over 30 percent of NVR consumers are transition-age youth (RSA-NE, 2007,
p. 14). Collaboration between NVR and the Nebraska Department of
Education (NDOE) is guaranteed, with the transition program director
position being jointly funded by NVR and NDOE. NVR provides services to
groups of transition-age youth even prior to their eligibility
determination. Their notable 18-page publication, "Arranging Transition
Services with Vocational Rehabilitation: A Guide for Educators," details
these and many other aspects of transition and the process of
transition. Each of NVR's teams has a transition counselor who interacts
with the adult counselor regularly, making the transition from
potentially eligible youth to eligible consumer seamless. Despite this,
NVR does not have access to NDOE data on such items as graduation rates
and postsecondary education rates (RSA-NE, 2007, p. 15).

In its 2006 annual report, Nebraska provides essentially no data related
to transition-age youth. RSA, in its 2007 monitoring report on Nebraska,
identified this as an issue, creating for NVR this September 30, 2008,
goal: "Develop a system for measuring success of transition-age youth."
NVR shares this goal (RSA-NE, 2007, p. 14). Yet, RSA deems NVR as
providing "exemplary transition services, but \[lacking\] sufficient
resources to make these services available in every school to all youth
with disabilities who could benefit from them."

**Pennsylvania.** Pennsylvania reports that during the 2004--2005 school
year, 148,030 children ages 12--17 were enrolled in special education in
the Commonwealth. Of those, 54,715 students were between the ages of 16
and 21 and eligible for transition services. Transition-age youth
comprised 26.55 percent of the Pennsylvania Office of Vocational
Rehabilitation (OVR) 2006 caseload, a total of 5,033 people.
Pennsylvania employs an order of selection with the following
priorities: (1) Most Significantly Disabled; (2) Significantly Disabled;
and (3) Non-significantly Disabled (RSA-PA, 2007).

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) established by the governor's
Executive Order in 1998 and reconfirmed and advanced in 2006 created the
Pennsylvania Community on Transition---State Leadership Team (RSA-PA,
2007). This MOU results in the collaboration of four agencies:
Department of Education; Department of Labor and Industry; Department of
Public Welfare; and Department of Health. OVR participated in and
"significantly contributed to the development and implementation of more
than 40 transition programs" (RSA-PA, 2007). Additionally, OVR actively
participates in more than 70 Local Transition Coordinating Councils
throughout the state. Despite this, RSA identifies "improving the
rehabilitation rate of transition-age youth" as one of OVR's three
challenging areas (RSA-PA, 2007, p. 4). Further, RSA (2007) cites OVR's
concerns about tracking youth who participate in the Community on
Transition's programs (p. 12).

RSA-PA (2007) reports that between 2002 and 2006, OVR served 25.76
percent of the total transition-age population. In 2002 they served
25.89 percent and in 2006 they served 26.55 percent, a 0.66 percent
increase with a range of 1.54 percent over those five years. RSA-PA
(2007) reports that between 2002 and 2006, OVR's employment rate for
transition-age youth served averaged 62.78 percent, with a range of
10.63 percent. The 2002 employment rate was 67.86 percent and the 2006
employment rate was 59.45 percent, a decrease of 8.41 percent. In 2005,
Pennsylvania's youth who received special education, who are ages 16--24
and who had successful competitive labor market closures through VR,
worked 28.21 hours per week compared with the national mean of 29.28
hours per week, and earned a weekly average of \$215.50 compared with
the national mean of \$224.04 (Institute for Community Inclusion, n.d.).

RSA (2007) reports that in FY 2006, 1,288 young people were "closed
after determination of eligibility for services without an
Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) being developed, or after
development of the IPE without receiving services" (RSA-PA, 2007, p.
12). To improve, OVR strives to hire a transition coordinator, develop
and implement common data elements with their collaborating partners,
and analyze their collaborative success through data analysis (RSA-PA,
2007, p. 12).

Through input from OVR and stakeholders, RSA-PA (2007) identified 17
issues related to performance and compliance. Notable among these issues
are counselor vacancies and large caseloads; communication with referral
sources; need for training VR program participants in the use of
assistive technology prior to entering college; merit scholarships in
computing costs for college programs; and long-term employment support
and outcome-based contracting (RSA-PA, 2007).

As noted above, these states are identified by RSA as having "promising
practices." A review of data on **Table 18** from the RSA FY 2006 Annual
Review Report indicates that in general these states generated closure
outcomes for transition-age students that met or exceeded national
averages.

Table 18

Transition Performance Indicators from Selected States

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Closure                    AL -       MD -       NE -      PA -       National
  Performance---Transition   Combined   Combined   General   Combined   Averages
  population                 2006       2006       2006      2006       2006
  -------------------------- ---------- ---------- --------- ---------- ----------
  Employment rate            71.83%     76.07%     65.95%    59.45%     57.88%

  Percentage of              43.25%     25.65%     31.13%    26.55%     26.99%
  transition-age served to                                              
  total served                                                          

  Percentage with            99.42%     99.19%     99.80%    98.50%     98.01%
  competitive employment                                                

  Percentage closed with     88.93%     100.00%    100.00%   99.97%     94.53%
  competitive employment                                                
  with a significant                                                    
  disability                                                            

  Percentage closed with     57.05%     51.10%     71.98%    60.06%     55.40%
  competitive employment at                                             
  35 or more hours per week                                             

  Percentage closed with     54.52%     50.64%     70.96%    59.08%     54.47%
  competitive employment at                                             
  SGA level at 35 or more                                               
  hours per week                                                        

  Percentage closed with     18.66%     20.67%     38.65%    31.66%     27.057%
  competitive employment                                                
  with employer-provided                                                
  medical insurance                                                     
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: RSA FY 2006 Annual Review Report.

When analyzing the efficacy of the promising practices identified by RSA
and reported above, it is important to note that RSA has not conducted
rigorous impact analyses on the success and efficacy of these programs.
RSA does not recommend these programs as highly effective overall, but
indicates that the identified programs may represent states that are
proactively working to develop innovative practices. The individual
state data reported do not allow a comprehensive impact analysis to be
completed. In some instances, improvements in employment outcomes
(employment rate, wages, hours worked per week) are reported for program
participants and compared to outcomes in the overall population. In
other instances, comparisons are made between outcomes achieved by
program participants and program outcomes in prior years.

Additional information is necessary to fully assess the efficacy of the
state VR programs. These analyses should compare preprogram outcomes of
participants to those of comparison group members to test for selection
bias. In addition, the data described (employment rate, wages, and hours
per week) is directly affected by local economic conditions. This
information is not readily available. However, the results of these
identified programs are sufficient to justify recommendation for future
research that would include comprehensive evaluation studies of
state-based promising practices that hold potential for widespread
replication.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469575 .anchor}Summary of Key Findings of
Research Question 5

OSERS and RSA have consistently attempted to promote improved transition
outcomes for adolescents and young adults with disabilities. Recent
efforts have focused on the identification and dissemination of new or
innovative practices being used in individual states. However, the lack
of rigorous research and evaluation approaches significantly limits the
ability of VR agencies to identify programs and practices that may be
associated with superior employment outcomes. Despite a long history of
leadership in this area, OSERS and RSA have conducted very few rigorous
efficacy studies to determine the effect of specific service delivery
practices on the transition population.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469576 .anchor}**Chapter 6:** Emerging Trends
in Transition from School to Employment and Postsecondary Education

In addition to collaborative efforts of state and local VR and special
education agencies, a number of other trends are emerging at the policy
and programmatic levels that are becoming the focus of federal and state
initiatives. Several of the trends are discussed below.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469577 .anchor}Postsecondary Education

Trends in enrollment of students with disabilities in two- and four-year
programs continue to increase, with some estimates ranging from 9.3
percent to as high as 17 percent (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2000; NCD, 2000). In spite of this increase, individuals
with disabilities still remain less likely to pursue postsecondary
education when compared to individuals without disabilities (Whelley,
Hart, & Zaft, 2002). Although the gap for high school completion is
closing between individuals with and without disabilities, this trend is
not the case in higher education. In fact, completion of some college
coursework has declined from 30 percent to 26 percent from 1986 until
2001. Earning a college degree has dropped during this same time period
from 19 percent to 12 percent (National Organization on Disability,
2001). Contributing to the lack of persistence and retention of college
students with disabilities is the issue of their adapting to an entirely
new set of challenges in managing their academic program. Such a student
now becomes one of potentially hundreds of students seeking services
through a Disability Support Services office on campus. They are
responsible for requesting their supports and services, providing
documentation to receive these accommodations, and interacting with
faculty to implement their supports.

Adjusting to a college environment presents challenges for all students;
however, for students with disabilities, the responsibility of managing
their accommodations along with their academic coursework presents a set
of challenges unique to these students. Often students with disabilities
enter college unprepared to disclose their disability, or they lack the
understanding of how to access services on campus. Students with
disabilities must self-identify to the university to request
accommodations and supports. Students decide for varying reasons not to
self-disclose. Some students are anxious for a "new beginning" in an
educational setting by not having to deal with being labeled. Others
decide to wait to disclose until they are experiencing academic
problems. In too many instances students with disabilities are made to
feel that they do not belong in advanced degree programs because of
their need to self-identify for specific services. As a result, students
may elect not to disclose their disability to the university in order to
avoid being labeled (Burgstahler & Doe, 2006; Getzel & McManus, 2005;
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports
\[NCSPES\], 2000). These attitudes by faculty and other university staff
could result from their lack of understanding of students' needs or
familiarity with campus services (Getzel & McManus, 2005; Scott, 1996).

As a result of the increasing number of students with disabilities
seeking opportunities in postsecondary education, several options for
educating these students are being developed, implemented, and
evaluated. There remains an ongoing need to explore the services and
supports that can assist students with disabilities; however,
information on the effectiveness of these services is limited due to the
insufficient research on best practices in postsecondary education
(Moore, 2006). Essentially, there are four types of postsecondary
education options. The first option is the traditional college
experience with supports provided through the Disability Support
Services office. There are specialized programs that are offered at some
colleges and universities in conjunction with the services provided by
this office. The next three options listed below are considered
specialized programs that are designed for students with disabilities
who are in need of more intensive services and supports (Hart, Grigal,
Sax, Martinez, & Will, 2006; Hart, Zafft, & Zimbrich, 2003).

1\) Mixed/hybrid Model: Students with disabilities are involved in
social activities and/or academic classes with students without
disabilities (for audit or credit). These students also participate in
classes with other students with disabilities, typically life skills or
transition classes. Employment experiences are offered both on and off
campus.

2\) Substantially Separate: Students are on campus, but are in classes
only with other students with disabilities. Access to socializing with
students without disabilities is part of the model. Employment
experiences typically in pre-established employment settings on and off
campus.

3\) Inclusive Individual Support Model: Students receive individualized
services (i.e., educational coach, tutor, technology) and are enrolled
in college classes, certificate programs, and/or degree programs (for
credit or audit). This model is not program based but is integrated into
the existing college structure---for example, courses are selected on
students' career goals and employment experiences include internships,
apprenticeships, or work-based learning.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469578 .anchor}Financial Literacy and Asset
Accumulation

An emerging trend in transition programs for secondary and postsecondary
students with disabilities is the growing emphasis on financial literacy
and asset accumulation. This trend is arising from an increased
realization that in addition to enabling students to increase their
income through employment, transition programs should assist individuals
to leverage available paths to asset development through a series of
educational and support services that ensure long-term success.

As the national financial system becomes increasingly complex, it places
even more responsibility on individuals to manage the details of their
own finances. In response, there is a growing emphasis in educational
circles on developing and implementing financial literacy curricula.
While many different curricula have been developed to promote financial
literacy among children and adolescents, only recently have efforts been
made to modify these curricula for youth with disabilities. Examples
include the work of the Jump Start Coalition
([http://www.jumpstartcoalition.org](http://www.jumpstartcoalition.org/))
and a financial literacy curriculum available from the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

In addition to the emphasis on promoting financial literacy among youth
with disabilities, in recent years there has been a growing emphasis on
asset-development strategies to help youth with disabilities avoid
lifelong dependence on federal and state disability benefit programs.
These approaches attempt to move beyond outdated methods for helping
people move out of poverty that were based solely upon income supports.
Asset accumulation focuses on encouraging people to save money and
invest in assets that increase in value over time.

A good example of the shift in disability policy away from income
support to asset development is the advent of individualized development
accounts, or IDAs. These are special accounts that allow members of
low-income groups to save for specific goals such as home ownership,
employment, small business ownership, or education while also receiving
matching funds and financial counseling. The deposits are matched,
usually by a combination of government and private sector funds, at
rates that vary from 1:1 to 8:1; depending on the program and the
availability of funds.

IDAs are currently most widely available to youth with disabilities
through the Assets for Independence Act (AFIA) program. Participants use
earnings from work to set up an approved bank account for an IDA. Any
earnings an individual contributes to an AFIA IDA are deducted from
wages when determining countable income for Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) purposes. State matching funds that are deposited in an AFIA IDA
are also excluded from income as well as any interest earned on the
individual\'s own contributions.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469579 .anchor}Social Security Administration
Youth Transition Initiatives

Until very recently, adolescents and young adults who received
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) through the Social Security
Administration (SSA) were often considered unlikely candidates for VR
services. Disincentives in the SSA programs created significant
obstacles to employment and program participation, based on the view
that beneficiaries would be unwilling to pursue employment for fear of
jeopardizing their federal payments. In response to these concerns, SSA
has developed and implemented a number of program reforms that are
designed to promote employment among transition-age beneficiaries. Two
of these provisions, which have dramatic implications for
transition-to-work programs, are the Student Earned Income Exclusion and
the Section 301 provisions related to program participation. In
addition, SSA has initiated a new service program, termed Work
Incentives Planning and Assistance, that can provide adolescents and
young adults receiving SSA benefits with the information and support
necessary to pursue their career goals.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469580 .anchor}Section 301

In many instances, adolescents who receive SSI benefits during their
youth lose those benefits when they turn 18 and are reevaluated using
the more stringent adult eligibility criteria. However, disability
benefit payments may continue even though the student is not found to
meet the adult definition of disability if eligibility can be
established for \"Section 301\" status. Section 301 refers to several
parts of the Social Security Act that allow continued disability
benefits under certain circumstances to individuals who no longer meet
the disability standard.

Prior to June 2005, payment of benefits under Section 301 was highly
restrictive. It required that the beneficiary be actively participating
in an approved vocational rehabilitation program before the
determination of ineligibility. Further, SSA had to determine that
continued participation in the VR program was likely to result in
permanent removal from the disability rolls. The 2005 regulatory changes
allowed the criterion of an "approved program" to include participation
in school for students ages 18 to 22 as long as the student receives
services under an IEP or an individualized transition plan (ITP). This
provision allows adolescents to continue to receive the financial
supports they need as they prepare for postsecondary education or
employment.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469581 .anchor}Student Earned Income Exclusion

The Student Earned Income Exclusion, or SEIE, is an SSI work incentive
that allows individuals who are under the age of 22 who regularly attend
school to exclude (as of January 2006) up to \$1,550 of earned income
per month (up to a maximum of \$6,240 per year). This exclusion is
applied before any other exclusion. Earnings received prior to the month
of eligibility do not count toward the \$6,240 annual limit. These
amounts will be automatically adjusted on an annual basis based on the
cost of living. The SEIE allows young adults to earn significant amounts
while building a work history and developing confidence in their ability
to be independent and economically self-sufficient.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469582 .anchor}Work Incentives Planning and
Assistance for Youth with Disabilities

Social Security benefits serve as a valuable resource to eligible
students as they transition from school to adult life. These benefit
programs offer not only cash payments and health insurance but also
include numerous work incentives specifically designed to increase
employment and earnings capacity during and after secondary education.
Failure to focus on Social Security benefits during transition is not
just a missed opportunity, but may also cause harm when students and
family members are not educated about or prepared for the effect of
earnings on cash benefits and medical insurance.

The impact of Social Security benefits on transition-age youth is seldom
considered by VR and special education programs during the formal
transition planning process. Fortunately, a new program supported by the
Social Security Administration can help address this concern. The Ticket
to Work and Work Incentive Improvement Act created a whole new service
called Work Incentives Planning and Assistance (WIPA). SSA recognized
that many beneficiaries who might otherwise be able to work were
choosing not to out of fear of benefit loss. While the work incentives
built into the disability programs make it quite possible to work and
gradually reduce dependence on benefits, nobody seemed to be aware of
these provisions or understand how they worked. Community Work Incentive
Coordinators (CWICs) now provide beneficiaries with disabilities
(including youth in the transition-to-work age) access to individualized
benefits counseling services to help them understand the effect of paid
employment on cash benefits and public health insurance.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469583 .anchor}Dropout Prevention

Much has been written about prevention programs for students without
disabilities. There is also limited information about explaining the
reasons why students with and without disabilities drop out of school.
While some factors associated with dropping out cannot be controlled
(socioeconomic and racial minority status), other factors are more
amendable to interventions: absenteeism, course failure, and peer
influences (Scanlon & Mellard, 2002). There are few experimental,
evidence-based intervention studies directly investigating dropout
prevention or school completion, and even fewer for students with
disabilities (Lehr, Hansen, Sinclair, & Christenson, 2003). Most studies
are nonexperimental and descriptive; these, though valuable, are not the
studies upon which policymakers and practitioners should rely (Sinclair,
Christenson, & Thurlow, 2005).

In 2007, What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) summarized its findings for 59
studies of 16 dropout prevention programs. Of these, 16 studies of 11
programs met their evidence standards, 7 without reservations and 9 with
reservations. The 11 remaining programs were evaluated on three domains:
staying in school, progressing in school, and completing school. On
these domains, the Check and Connect and the Achievement for Latinos
Through Academic Success (ALAS) programs had positive or potentially
positive effects on staying in school and on progressing in school for
students with disabilities (WWC, 2007). Programs with minimal or no
discernable effects were Financial Incentives for Teen Parents to Stay
in School, High School Redirection, Middle College High School, Project
GRAD, Quantum Opportunity Program, Talent Development High Schools,
Talent Search, and Twelve Together (WWC, 2007).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469584 .anchor}Check and Connect

Check and Connect was originally funded in the early 1990s by the U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). In
2005, Sinclair, Christenson, and Thurlow reported their study of Check
and Connect. Check and Connect intends to promote student engagement for
urban high school students with emotional or behavioral disabilities.

The "check" component of the model refers to the continuous and
systematic assessment of student levels of engagement with the school
(e.g., attendance, suspensions, grades, credits). The "connect"
component refers to timely and individualized intervention focused on
students' educational progress, guided by the check indicators, and
provided by program staff in partnership with school personnel, family
members, and community workers (Sinclair, Christenson, & Thurlow, 2005).

The longitudinal study of 144 predominantly African-American males
experienced lower rates of dropout and mobility, higher rates of
persistent attendance and enrollment status in school, and more
comprehensive transition plans (Sinclair et al., 2005). Further, Check
and Connect is an otherwise empirically supported model with
demonstrated effectiveness for students with and without disabilities,
in elementary, middle, and high school, and in urban and suburban
communities (Sinclair, Christenson, & Thurlow, 2005, citing Lehr,
Sinclair, & Christenson, 2004).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469585 .anchor}Achievement for Latinos Through
Academic Success

Achievement for Latinos Through Academic Success (ALAS) was developed to
prevent high-risk Latino students with and without disabilities from
dropping out of school. WWC (2007) describes the four fundamental
aspects of the program:

-   Students receive social problem-solving training, counseling,
    increased and specific recognition of academic excellence, and
    enhancement of school affiliation.

-   Schools are responsible for providing frequent teacher feedback to
    students and parents and attendance monitoring. In addition, schools
    are expected to provide training for students in problem-solving and
    social skills.

-   Parents of program participants receive training in school
    participation, accessing and using community resources, and how to
    guide and monitor adolescents.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Collaboration with the community is encouraged through increased
    interaction between community agencies and families. Efforts to
    enhance skills and methods for serving the youth and family are also
    implemented.

WWC (2007) reported that program participants had lower rates of
absenteeism, lower percentages of failed classes, and a higher
proportion of credits (on track to graduate) when compared to
nonparticipants.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469586 .anchor}Self-Employment

Traditionally, VR agencies have been reluctant to promote and support
self-employment as an appropriate employment option for individuals with
disabilities who have limited prior employment experience (Arnold &
Ipsen, 2003). For example, in FY 2006, self-employment accounted for
less than 2 percent of all VR Status 26 closures. In recent years, both
RSA and the U.S. Department of Labor have begun to promote
self-employment as a viable alternative to wage employment for
individuals with very limited prior work histories (Arnold & Ipsen,
2003). Very recently, VR and special education programs have begun to
focus on self-employment as a potential transition outcome for youth
with disabilities.

Self-employment may offer several advantages for youth with
disabilities. First, self-employment alternatives may allow adolescents
and their families to pursue employment options that more clearly match
their skills, interests, and vocational goals. Second, it may enable
individuals to pursue meaningful employment in situations where lack of
job opportunities, lack of stable transportation, or other factors may
make it very difficult for an individual to access satisfying wage
employment. Third, a number of federal initiatives have been developed
to promote self-employment. The HHS Asset for Independence program, the
SSA Property Essential for Self-Support (PESS) work incentive, and the
Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) Small Business and
Self-Employment Services program all provide resources and support for
adolescents and young adults attempting to engage in entrepreneurial
activities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469587 .anchor}Veterans Services

An emerging issue in transition to employment and postsecondary
education is the increasing numbers of young men and women ages 18 to 24
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with disabilities. Because of the
nature of these conflicts, mental illness and traumatic brain injury
(TBI) are very common disabilities among these men and women.

Seal, Bertenthal, and Miner (2007) at the University of California, San
Francisco, and San Francisco Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center
examined data from a VA database, including 103,788 veterans of these
operations who were first seen at VA facilities between September 30,
2001, and September 30, 2005. About 13 percent were women, 54 percent
were younger than age 30, close to one-third were minorities, and almost
one-half were veterans of the National Guard or Reserves rather than
full-time military personnel.

A total of 32,010 (31 percent) received mental health and/or
psychosocial diagnoses, including 25,658 (25 percent) who received
mental health diagnoses (56 percent of whom had two or more diagnoses).
The most common such diagnosis was PTSD (post-traumatic stress
disorder); the 13,205 veterans with this disorder represented 52 percent
of those receiving mental health diagnoses and 13 percent of all the
veterans in the study. The study found that the youngest group of
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans (ages
18--24 years) were at greatest risk for receiving mental health or
post-traumatic stress disorder diagnoses.

Now and for the coming decades, larger proportions of veterans will be
more likely to return from Iraq and Afghanistan with a TBI due to the
use of improvised explosive devices as weapons of war and terror.
However, it is equally important to recognize that military personnel in
both combat and noncombat posts are at high risk for sustaining a TBI
(Ommaya et al., 1996; Okie, 2005). One study, for example, found that 23
percent of noncombat, active-duty soldiers at Fort Bragg (n=2,276)
sustained a TBI during their military service (Ivins et al., 2003).

A complex array of medical services, cash benefits, and other
specialized programs are available to serve and support veterans of the
U.S. armed forces who experience disabilities. The U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD) awards and administers some benefits provided to veterans,
while the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) governs others. In
addition, the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have involved
the deployment of an unprecedented number of men and women who are
members of the National Guard or military Reserves. These veterans have
significant past involvement in the civilian workforce and are often
eligible for a whole separate system of disability benefits provided by
the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Unlike Social Security disability programs, the DoD and VA benefits
systems do not include incentives for recipients to attempt employment
while receiving benefits. In fact, Wehman, Gentry, West, and
Arango-Lasprilla (in press) identify a number of significant
disincentives to employment within the two systems. For example, cash
disability benefits are reduced dollar for dollar with earned income. In
addition, an attempt at employment may trigger a reevaluation of the
veteran's disability status, which could result in loss or reduction of
benefits.

The DoD and VA disability benefit programs are appropriately intended to
provide compensation for lost earnings capacity caused by the injury or
illness the service member incurred while serving our country. The
veterans benefits are meant to replace the wages which otherwise would
have been earned if the disability had not been incurred. However, the
programs are based on a flawed premise that fails to distinguish between
the concept of disability in the context of military duty from the
potential of veterans to acquire and maintain employment in the civilian
workforce. In addition, the ratings system used by the military assumes
that it is possible to objectively quantify the economic impact that
various disabling conditions have upon individuals in the civilian
workforce. Neither of these assumptions is valid in light of what is
known about how to accommodate disability in the workplace and how to
structure benefit programs in order to promote employment.

Because of these flawed assumptions and employment disincentives within
the DoD and VA benefits systems, young transition-age veterans with
disabilities face significant obstacles to entering or returning to
civilian employment, perhaps more so than individuals with disabilities
who are receiving Social Security disability benefits. Any successful
community reintegration initiative focused on young veterans with
disabilities must include an intensive analysis of the impact of paid
employment or self-employment on DoD and VA disability benefits, as well
as any other public benefits veterans may receive based upon disability.
To the extent that earnings from employment may jeopardize a veteran's
program eligibility or cash benefit amount, it will make it far less
likely that an individual will choose to pursue employment. If veterans
with disabilities perceive employment as risky, in terms of its adverse
impact on essential cash benefits, rental assistance, health insurance,
or other special programs, they may elect to protect their benefits
instead of pursuing employment.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469588 .anchor}**Chapter 7:** Conclusions and
Recommendations

While the public sector VR program has been providing employment-related
services to young adults with disabilities for decades, and currently
serves more than 50,000 youth each year, the results of the study
confirm that relatively little is known about the extent and
effectiveness of VR transition services. As a result, state VR agencies
continue to devote substantial resources to this population without the
benefit of methodologically sound evaluation approaches that can be used
to assess the long-term impact of services on the employment status and
economic self-sufficiency, validated evidence-based service delivery
approaches that form the basis of program planning, or systematic
procedures for identifying new promising practices.

The ever-increasing number of transition-age youth who will exit
secondary special education programs and attempt to enter the workforce
over the next decade will create tremendous challenges for VR agencies.
While many current service delivery approaches hold promise, little
empirical information is available that will allow VR agencies to
accurately predict the amount and type of services required to assist
transition-age youth to meet their employment goals, or the outcomes
that should be anticipated for individuals served through the program.

A lack of comprehensive evaluation methodologies makes it difficult for
VR agencies to identify programs and practices that may be associated
with superior employment outcomes, as well as the consumer
characteristics that mediate or moderate these outcomes. Despite decades
of focus on transition-age youth, agencies and other organizations have
conducted very few efficacy studies to determine whether specific
service delivery practices are successful with this population. In
addition, it should be recognized that in some areas the field even
lacks viable promising practices that can be scientifically validated
through experimental research. In these instances, research efforts
should focus on the development of potentially effective rehabilitation
interventions that can subsequently undergo rigorous testing.

The recommendations offered below are divided into two main categories.
Seven recommendations address changes to current service delivery
practices that are designed to improve transition outcomes for youth
with disabilities. These recommendations are derived directly from data
collected through the series of structured interviews and review of
promising practices and are consistent with the quantitative data
reported above. In addition, four recommendations are offered to guide
future research in a way that will lead to valid data that can be used
to assess the success of further services, validate evidence-based
practices, and create new service delivery approaches.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469589 .anchor}Recommendations to Improve VR
Transition Outcomes Through Changes in Current Service Delivery
Practices

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469590 .anchor}Recommendations for the U.S.
Congress

**1. Congress should change existing VR transition legislation and
policy to require that VR services be made available to eligible youth
no later than three years before an adolescent or young adult exits from
secondary education.** Many promising practices are based on the concept
that early intervention by VR will impact the educational and vocational
experiences of adolescents and help prevent early exit from school.
Additionally, interventions focused on adolescents three years before
exiting school are more likely to be of sufficient intensity and
duration to have significant impacts on the employment outcomes of these
individuals.

**2. Congress should authorize and allocate sufficient funds to support
the development of a multifunctional transition unit in each state VR
agency.** These units would be responsible for coordinating policy and
service delivery across all agencies involved in the transition process,
developing and delivering staff development to VR transition counselors,
monitoring and evaluating the efficacy of new and ongoing service
initiatives, and other related functions.

**3. Congress should authorize and mandate the development and
implementation of coordinated service delivery approaches, specifically
targeted to transitioning youth with disabilities, that are based on the
"blending" of funds from VR, special education, postsecondary education,
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), Veterans Administration, Social
Security Administration, and other appropriate funding agencies.** These
blended approaches, such as the WIA Shared Youth Vision Collaborative
Partnership, should be designed and delivered as formal demonstrations
that would rigorously test the effectiveness of these intervention
models. The programs should be developed with sufficient resources to
first validate their efficacy in local communities within areas of an
individual state, and then if successful, to expand to "full-scale"
statewide demonstrations that determine the effectiveness of the
interventions in multiple settings under varying conditions.

**4. Congress should mandate that RSA, NIDRR, and state VR agencies
conduct rigorous evaluation studies that identify the transition program
components that directly correlate with improved employment and
postsecondary educational outcomes for transition-age youth.** These
studies should focus specifically on the intensity and duration of VR
involvement in the transition process and specifically examine the
differential effects of the delivery of IPE documented services versus
other types of services. RSA's long-term reliance on program evaluation
based on descriptive information and short-term outcomes does not allow
a methodologically sound evaluation of the efficacy or
cost-effectiveness of the program. The approach will require these
agencies to conduct net impact analyses that compare the employment and
educational outcomes of participants in a specific transition
intervention with those of a statistically validated comparison group to
determine, over significant periods of time, the net impact of VR
service provision on young adults with disabilities.

**5. Congress should mandate and allocate funds to support the
implementation of rigorous evaluation studies designed to establish the
efficacy of fully developed transition programs, practices, and
policies.** RSA, NIDRR, OSEP, and state VR agencies should engage in
collaborative research activities that will lead to the development of
new evidence-based practices. While in a number of areas promising
practices exist, very few efficacy studies have been conducted to
determine whether these practices are successful with transition-age
young adults. As a result, it is difficult for VR agencies to identify
programs and practices that may be associated with superior employment
and education outcomes, as well as the individual student or program
characteristics that mediate or moderate these outcomes.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469591 .anchor}Recommendations for the U.S.
Department of Education: RSA, NIDRR, OSEP, and State VR Agencies

**6. RSA, NIDRR, and state VR agencies should develop, implement, and
evaluate new service unit policies under which the services provided by
VR counselors outside the individualized plan for employment (IPE), such
as time spent in collaboration with other agencies, secondary and
postsecondary schools, families, etc., are recognized as service units
comparable to IPE services.** VR transition services often lead to
improved academic performance, dropout reduction, and increased work
experience. However, these outcomes are often not included in VR
performance reporting. Therefore, in some instances, counselors may be
reluctant to provide these services.

**7. RSA, NIDRR, and state VR agencies should design, implement, and
evaluate a tiered structure for services delivered by VR counselors
working with transition-age youth.** Identification and recognition that
transition outcomes and time frames are different than adult VR outcomes
will lead to the development of differing outcome levels for services
provided to those 14--15 years old than those 16 and above, with the
last tier being the final year of high school when traditional VR
transition services are usually provided.

**8. RSA and state VR agencies should allocate additional staff
development resources for the preparation of current and future
rehabilitation counselors to meet the needs of transition-age youth, and
target recruitment and professional development activities to attract
qualified people with disabilities to the field.** Current personnel
preparation efforts are not able to fully equip all VR transition
counselors and adult counselors with the knowledge and skills necessary
to address the complex support needs of the young adults with
disabilities exiting school. These staff-development efforts should be
based on comprehensive needs assessment and competency-based training
programs that empirically identify the professional characteristics and
qualifications needed for success as a VR transition counselor or adult
counselor working with transition-age youth.

**9. RSA should coordinate its secondary transition efforts with those
of other federal and state agencies implementing dropout prevention
programs.** Dropout rates for students with disabilities remain high,
ultimately restricting the economic self-sufficiency of millions of
young adults and promoting lifelong dependence on federal and state
benefit programs. VR involvement with transition-age youth should be
viewed as a potential key component of dropout prevention efforts. RSA
should coordinate its transition efforts with those of other agencies in
the Department of Education attempting to implement successful dropout
prevention programs for all secondary students, including those with
disabilities.

**10. RSA, NIDRR, OSEP, and state VR agencies should collaborate to
conduct a comprehensive review of existing VR transition programs,
practices, and policies being implemented in each individual state.**
Current RSA monitoring activities should increase their focus on state
VR services targeted toward transition-age youth. Effective policies and
practices identified through this monitoring and evaluation process
should be disseminated across state VR agencies to promote improved
service delivery.

**11. RSA, NIDRR, OSEP, and state VR agencies should conduct a
systematic program of future research to identify the characteristics
and service needs of transition-age youth with disabilities currently
unserved or underserved by VR.** These underserved groups may include
individuals with autism, people from diverse cultural or linguistic
backgrounds, veterans with disabilities, and many other groups. Research
should focus on determining eligibility and providing appropriate
services and supports. Testing the validity of the efficacy of any
interventions delivered through rigorous evaluation studies that
adequately sample all relevant populations will be extremely important.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469592 .anchor}Endnotes

^i^ Information taken from state-specific reports prepared by RSA on the
results of monitoring reviews. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from
<http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/107-reports/2007/index.html>.

^ii^ "Promising Practices for Basic VR Agencies Helping Transitioning
Youth" can be viewed at
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/promising-practices/transition-age/index.html.

^iii^ Performance indicator 1.5 concerns the average earnings of all the
individuals who exit the VR program and enter into competitive, self-,
or Business Enterprise Program (BEP) employment with earnings equivalent
to at least the minimum wage as a ratio of the state's average hourly
earnings for all individuals in the state who are employed (as derived
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics report, State Average Annual Pay,
for the most recent available year.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469593 .anchor}References

Alabama Department of Rehabilitation Services. (2000). Together,
success! Annual report. Retrieved May 31, 2008, from
[http://www.rehab.state.al.us/Home/\
ADRS%20News/Annual%20Reports/2000%20Annual%20Report.pdf](http://www.rehab.state.al.us/Home/ADRS News/Annual Reports/2000 Annual Report.pdf)

Arnold, N., & Ipsen, C. (2003). State self-employment policies: A decade
of change: Final report. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, RTC on
Disability in Rural Communities.

Bader, B.A. (2003). Identification of best practices in One Stop Career
Centers that facilitate use by people with disabilities seeking
employment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth
University.

*Barnett v. Memphis City Schools*, 113 Fed. Appx. 124 (6th Cir. 2004).

Benz, M.R., Lindstrom, L., & Latta, T. (1999). Improving collaboration
between schools and vocational rehabilitation: The youth transition
program model. *Journal of Rehabilitation, 13*, 55--63.

Beveridge, S., & Fabian, E. (2007). Vocational rehabilitation outcomes:
relationship between individualized plan for employment goals and
employment outcomes. *Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50*(4),
238--239.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007a). Employment and unemployment among
youth summary. Retrieved December 13, 2007, from
[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/\
youth.nr0.htm](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm)

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007b). Table 3. Employed persons 16--24
years of age by industry, class of worker, race, and Hispanic or Latino
ethnicity. Retrieved December 13, 2007, from
<http://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.t03.htm>

Burgstahler, S., & Doe, T. (2006). Improving postsecondary outcomes for
students with disabilities: Designing professional development for
faculty. *Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18*(2),
135--147.

California Department of Education, California Postsecondary Education
Commission. (2008). Accountability system: Enrollment graphs:
Distribution of students with disabilities. Retrieved May 31, 2008, from
[http://www.cpec.ca.gov/Accountability/\
EnrollGraphPct.ASP](http://www.cpec.ca.gov/Accountability/EnrollGraphPct.ASP)

Cameto, R. (2005). The transition planning process. *National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2, 4*(1). Minneapolis: National Center on
Secondary Education and Transition, University of Minnesota.

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006
(P.L. 109-270).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2006). Limitation of
activity, all ages (US, 2000--2005). Retrieved December 13, 2007, from
[http://209.217.72.34/\
HDAA/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=200](http://209.217.72.34/HDAA/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=200)

Chambers, C.R., Hughes, C., & Carter, E.W. (2004). Parent and sibling
perspectives on the transition to adulthood. *Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 39*(2), 79--94.

Cimera, R., & Rusch, F. (2000). Transition and youth with mental
retardation: Past, present and future. In M. Wehmeyer & J. Patton
(Eds.), *Mental retardation in the 21st century* (pp. 59--89). Austin,
TX: PRO-ED.

Cocci, W. (1997). The community college choice. Retrieved May 31, 2008,
from <http://www.ldonline.org/article/6128>

Committee on Education and the Workforce (1997). Individuals with
Disabilities Act Amendments of 1997: Report on H.R. 5 together with
additional and dissenting views. Washington, DC: U.S. House of
Representatives.

Cortiella, C. (2008). IDEA 2004: Improving transition planning and
results. National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved June 20,
2008, from <http://www.ncld.org/content/view/665/456084>

deFur, S. (2005). Transition from school to adulthood. In P. Wehman,
P.J. McLaughlin, & T. Wehman (Eds.), *Intellectual and developmental
disabilities* (3rd ed.) (pp. 123--148). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

deFur, S., & Reiff, H. (1994). Transition of youth with learning
disabilities to adulthood: The secondary education foundation. In P.
Gerber & H. Reiff (Eds.), *Adults with learning disabilities*. pp.
99-110. Andover, MA: Andover Medical Press.

Dowrick, P., Anderson, J., Heyer, K., & Acosta, J. (2005). Postsecondary
education across the USA: Experiences of adults with disabilities.
*Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22*(1), 41--47. Retrieved
December 2, 2007, from
<http://www.metapress.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/content/tv5m77d2u1k5ufba/fulltext.pdf>

Flannery, K.B., Slovic, R., Treasure, T., Ackley, D., & Lucas, F.
(2002). Collaboration and partnership to improve employment outcomes.
*Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 17*, 207--215.

Florida Department of Rehabilitative Services. (2007). Handbook of
services. Retrieved May 31, 2008, from
[http://www.rehabworks.org/Files/DocumentsLinks/\
2007%20Handbook%20of%20Services%20English.pdf](http://www.rehabworks.org/Files/DocumentsLinks/2007 Handbook of Services English.pdf)

Fraser, R., Vandergoot, D., Thomas, D., & Wagner, C. (2004). Employment
outcomes research in vocational rehabilitation: Implications for
rehabilitation counselor (RC) training. *Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 20*, 135--142.

Garcia-Iriate, E., Blacazar, F., & Taylor-Ritzler, T. (2007). Analysis
of case managers' support of youth with disabilities transitioning from
school to work. *Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 26*, 129--140.

Getzel, E.E., & McManus, S. (2005). Expanding support services on
campus. In E.E. Getzel & P. Wehman (Eds.), *Going to college: Expanding
opportunities for people with disabilities* (pp. 139--154). Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes.

Goldberg, M.F. (2004). The high-stakes test mess. *Education Digest:
Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 69*(8), 8--15*.*

Gould, M.S., & Bellamy, G.T. (1985). Transition of youth from school to
work and adult life: Reports from the Consortium for Youth with
Disability (Monograph no. 1). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

*Guckenberger v. Boston University*, Civ. A. No. 96-11426-PBS (D. Mass.
Aug. 15, 1997) at 12-13, 21 MPDLR 653.

Hart, D., Grigal, M., Sax, C., Martinez, D., & Will, M. (2006).
Postsecondary education options for students with intellectual
disabilities. *Research to Practice, 45*, 1--4. Retrieved January 10,
2008, from [http://www.communityinclusion.org/\
article.php?article_id=178&staff_id=19](http://www.communityinclusion.org/article.php?article_id=178&staff_id=19)

Hart, D., Zafft, C., & Zimbrich, K. (2003). Community college: A pathway
to success for youth with intellectual disabilities in secondary
settings. *Students with Disabilities and Postsecondary Education
Institute: Discussion of Developments in Practice and Policy.*
Unpublished document. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Center on
Disabilities Studies.

Holcomb, P.A., & Barnow, B.S. (2004). Serving people with disabilities
through the Workforce Investment Act's One Stop Career Centers.
Retrieved June 24, 2008, from
<http://www.urban.org/publications/411132.html>

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), P.L. 101-476, 104
Stat. 1142 (1990).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, P.L.
105-17, 11 Stat. 37 (1997).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA),
P.L. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647, 20 USC 1400 *et seq.* (2004).

Inge, K. (2006). Guest editorial: Assistive technology as a workplace
support. *Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 24*, 67--71. Retrieved
December 4, 2007, from
<http://www.metapress.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/content/4kpaqlxepwqc7ey6/fulltext.pdf>

Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI). (n.d.). *StateData.info*.
Retrieved December 13, 2007, and March 28, 2008, from
[http://www.statedata.info](http://www.statedata.info/)

Institute on Rehabilitative Issues. (2002). Investing in the transition
of youth with disabilities to productive careers. Retrieved January 29,
2008, from <http://www.rcep6.org/IRI/IRI/28th_IRI_Transition/chap1.pdf>

Ivins, B.J., Schwab, K.A., Warden, D., Harvey, L.T., Hoilien, M.A.,
Powell, C.O., Johnson, C.S., & Salazar, A.M. (2003). Traumatic brain
injury in U.S. Army paratroopers: Prevalence and character. *Journal of
Trauma, 55*(4), 617--621.

Kemp, S. E. (2006). Dropout policies and trends for students with and
without disabilities. Retrieved May 31, 2008, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/\
mi_m2248/is_162_41/ai_n26976654.

Lehr, C.A., Hansen, A., Sinclair, M.F., & Christenson, S.L. (2003).
Moving beyond dropout towards school completion: An integrative review
of data-based interventions. *School Psychology Review, 32*(3),
342--364.

Lovelace, E., Somers, B., & Steveson, J. (2006). *Vocational
rehabilitation process for transition and referral services.* Richmond:
Virginia Department of Rehabilitative Services.

Maryland Division of Rehabilitation Services. (2007). 2008 State plan
for Title I vocational rehabilitation services: Plans, policies and
coordination with educational officials. Retrieved December 2, 2007,
from [http://www.dors.state.md.us/NR/rdonlyres/\
802B8C6F-3F1F-4FAF-B5F0-](http://www.dors.state.md.us/NR/rdonlyres/802B8C6F-3F1F-4FAF-B5F0-)DA910AB1F15F/0/48b2_2008.pdf

McMahon, B., Shaw, L., Chan, F., & Danczyk-Hawley, C. (2004). "Common
factors" in rehabilitation counseling: Expectancies and the working
alliance. *Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. 20*, 101--105.

Moore, A.S. (2006, November 5). A dream not denied: Students on the
spectrum. *The New York Times.* Retrieved November 13, 2007, from
[http://www.nytimes.com](http://www.nytimes.com/)

Morgan, R., & Ellerd, D. (2005). Development and evaluation of a video
CD-ROM program for individuals with developmental disabilities to
determine job preferences. *Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 23,*
1--10.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). 1999--2000 National
postsecondary aid study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Table 106. Number of
students with disabilities exiting special education by basis of exit,
age, and type of disability: United States and other jurisdictions,
2003--04 and 2004--05. Retrieved January 31, 2008, from
<http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06_106.asp>

National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports
(NCSPES). (2000). Technical report. Postsecondary education and
employment for students with disabilities: Focus group discussion on
supports and barriers to lifelong learning. Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawaii.

National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. (2004). Dropout
and graduation: Frequently asked questions*.* Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. Retrieved
March 14, 2008, from www.ncset.org/topics/dropout/faqs.asp?topic=36

National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. (2007). Key
provisions on transition: IDEA 1997 compared to H.R. 1350 (IDEIA 2004).
Retrieved June 19, 2008, from
<http://www.ncset.org/publications/related/ideatransition.asp>

National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability (NCWD/Youth). (2003).
Personal assistance services on the job. *Issue Brief* (6). Retrieved
December 4, 2007, from
http://www.NCWD-youth.info/resources\_&\_Publications/\
information_Briefs/issue6.html

National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability (NCWD/Youth). (2006).
Blending and braiding funds and resources: The intermediary as
facilitator. Info Brief (18). Retrieved December 3, 2007, from
[http://www.NCWD-youth.info/\
resources\_&\_Publications/](http://www.ncwd-youth.info/resources_&_Publications/)information_Briefs/issue18.html

National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability (NCWD/Youth). (2008).
Parts of the workforce development system: A sampling of educational,
workforce, and support services organizations serving youth ages 14 to
25. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from
http://www.NCWD-youth.info/resources\_&\_Publications/\
making_connections.html

National Council on Disability (NCD). (2000). Transition and post-school
outcomes for youth with disabilities: The gaps to postsecondary
education and employment. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/\
2000/transition_11-01-00.htm

National Council on Disability (NCD). (2003). National disability
policy: A progress report December 2001--December 2002. Retrieved
October 24, 2007, from
<http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/progressreport_final.htm>

National Council on Disability (NCD). (2004a). National disability
policy: A progress report December 2002--December 2003. Retrieved
October 24, 2007, from
<http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/ProgressReport2004.htm>

National Council on Disability (NCD). (2004b). Improving educational
outcomes for students with disabilities. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from
[http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/\
ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/ac/b4.pdf](http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/ac/b4.pdf)

National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). (2004). Transition
planning for students with disabilities: A special topic report from the
National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from
[http://www.nlts2.org/\
reports/2004_11/nlts2_report_2004_11_complete.pdf](http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2004_11/nlts2_report_2004_11_complete.pdf)

National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). (2005). A first look
at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. Retrieved May
24, 2008, from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2005_04/index.html

National Organization on Disability. (2001). The N.O.D./Harris 2000
survey of Americans with disabilities. Washington, DC: N.O.D.

Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. (2005). *Accessing the general curriculum:
Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform* (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Okie, S. (2005, May 19). Traumatic brain injury in the war zone. *The
New England Journal of Medicine, 352*(20), 2043--2047.

O'Leary, E. (2007). IDEA transition training*.* Presentation at the
Virginia Transition Outcomes Project (VTOP) meeting.

Ommaya, A.K., Salazar, A., Dannenberg, A., Ommaya, A.K., Chervinsky, A.,
& Schwab, K. (1996). Outcome after traumatic brain injury in the U.S.
military medical system. *The Journal of Trauma, 41*, 972--975.

Pennsylvania Office of Vocational Rehabilitation. (2006). 2007 Combined
agency state plan. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from
[http://www.dli.state.pa.us/landi/lib/\
landi/ovr/publications](http://www.dli.state.pa.us/landi/lib/landi/ovr/publications)ffy_2007_ovr_combined_agency_state_plan.pdf

Price-Ellingstad, D., & Berry, H. (1999). Postsecondary education,
vocational rehabilitation and students with disabilities: Gaining access
to promising futures. *American Rehabilitation, 25*(3), 2.

*Reaves v. Missouri Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Educ.* (2005). 422
F. 3d 675 (C.A. 8 Mo.).

Research Triangle Institute (RTI). (2000). Characteristics and outcomes
of transitional youth in VR. Retrieved October 24, 2007, from
http://www.rti.org/pubs/interim4.pdf

Resources for Welfare Decisions. (2002). Youth services under the
Workforce Investment Act. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from
http://www.financeproject.org/\
Publications/youthservicesRN.htm

Riccomini, L., Bost, W., Katsiyannis, A., & Zhang, D. (2005). Cognitive
behavioral intervention: An effective approach to help students with
disabilities stay in school. Retrieved May 31, 2008, from
[http://www.ndpc-sd.org/documents/\
Practice_Guides/CBI_Practice_Brief.pdf](http://www.ndpc-sd.org/documents/Practice_Guides/CBI_Practice_Brief.pdf)

Rioux-Bailey, C. (2004). Students with disabilities and access to
community college: Continuing issues and new directions. GW Heath
Resource Center. Retrieved May 31, 2008, from
[http://www.heath.gwu.edu/files/active/0/\
2004_community_college_access.pdf](http://www.heath.gwu.edu/files/active/0/2004_community_college_access.pdf)

Rutkowski, S., Daston, M., Van Kuiken**,** D., & Riehle, E. (2006).
Project SEARCH: A demand-side model of high school transition. *Journal
of Vocational Rehabilitation, 25*(2), 85--96.

Scanlon, D., & Mellard, D.F. (2002). Academic and participation profiles
of school-age dropouts with and without disabilities. *Exceptional
Children, 68*(2), 239--258.

Scott, S.S. (1996). Understanding colleges: An overview of college
support services and programs available from transition planning through
graduation. *Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 6*, 217--230.

Seal, K.H., Bertenthal, D., & Miner, C.R. (2007). Bringing the war back
home: Mental health disorders among 103,788 US veterans returning from
Iraq and Afghanistan seen at Department of Veterans Affairs facilities.
*Arch Intern Med. 2007, 167*, 476-482.

Sinclair, M.F., Christenson, S.L., & Thurlow, M. (2005). Promoting
school completion of urban secondary youth with emotional or behavioral
disabilities. *Exceptional Children, 71*(4), 465--482.

*Stevenson v. Com. Dept. of Labor and Industry*, 648 A.2d 244 (1994).

Stodden, R.A., & Jones, M.A. (2002). Supporting youth with disabilities
to access and succeed in postsecondary education: Essentials for
educators in secondary schools. *NCSET Issue Brief 1*(5). Minneapolis:
National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, University of
Minnesota.

Stodden, R.A., & Roberts, K.D. (2008). Transition legislation and
policy: Past and present. In F. R. Rusch (Ed.), *Beyond high school:
Preparing adolescents for tomorrow's challenges* (pp. 24--53). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Stodden, R., Roberts, K., Picklesimer, T., Jackson, D., & Chang, C.
(2006). An analysis of assistive technology supports and services
offered in postsecondary educational institutions. *Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 24*, 111--120.

The Study Group. (2007). An assessment of transition policies and
practices in state vocational rehabilitation agencies. Retrieved May 23,
2008, from http://www.vrtransitionstudy.org/docs/VR_Report_9.06.07.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Table A: Selected disability measures 2002.
Retrieved December 13, 2007, from
[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/\
sipp/disab02/ds02ta.pdf](http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/sipp/disab02/ds02ta.pdf)

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences (ED
Institute of Educational Sciences). (2004a). NLTS2 Wave 1 parent survey.
School enrollment table: Reasons for leaving school of those who dropped
out or left. Retrieved May 31, 2008, from
[http://www.nlts2.org/data_tables/tables/\
1/Np1D1m_2f_5dfrm.html](http://www.nlts2.org/data_tables/tables/1/Np1D1m_2f_5dfrm.html)

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences (ED
Institute of Educational Sciences). (2004b). NLTS2 Wave 1 parent survey.
School enrollment table 67: Why youth is not currently in school:
Overall and by primary disability category. Retrieved May 31, 2008, from
[http://www.nlts2.org/\
data_tables/tables/1/Np1D1k_2d_5bfrm.html](http://www.nlts2.org/data_tables/tables/1/Np1D1k_2d_5bfrm.html)

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational
Statistics. (1995). Table 103. Students with disabilities exiting the
educational system, by age, type of disability, and basis of exit:
United States and outlying areas, 1991--92. Retrieved March 3, 2008,
from <http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d95/dtab103.asp>

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Services
(OSEP). (2005). Twenty-seventh annual report to Congress on the
implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Retrieved March 4, 2008, from
<http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2005/parts-b-c/27th-vol-1.pdf>

U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA). (2004). *Reporting manual for the case service report (RSA 911):
State-federal program for vocational rehabilitation*. Retrieved May 31,
2008, from [http://www.ed.gov/\
policy/speced/guid/rsa/pd-04-04.pdf](http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/rsa/pd-04-04.pdf)

U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA). (2007). Promising practices for basic VR agencies helping
transition-age youth. Retrieved November 3, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/rschat/eval/\
rehab/promising-practices/transition-age/index.html

U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA-AL). (2007). FY 2007 monitoring reports on the vocational
rehabilitation and independent living programs in the state of Alabama.
Retrieved November 3, 2007, from
<http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/107-reports/2007/index.html>

U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA-MD). (2007). FY 2007 monitoring reports on the vocational
rehabilitation and independent living programs in the state of Maryland.
Retrieved November 3, 2007, from
<http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/107-reports/2007/index.html>

U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA-NE). (2007). FY 2007 monitoring reports on the vocational
rehabilitation and independent living programs in the state of Nebraska.
Retrieved November 3, 2007, from
<http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/107-reports/2007/index.html>

U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration
(RSA-PA). (2007). FY 2007 monitoring reports on the vocational
rehabilitation and independent living programs in the state of
Pennsylvania. Retrieved November 3, 2007, from
<http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rehab/107-reports/2007/index.html>

U.S. Department of Labor. (2007). Table A-4. Employment status of the
civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment.
Retrieved December 13, 2007, from
<http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm>

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration
(DOLETA). (2007). Shared Youth Vision, mission and objectives. Retrieved
May 31, 2008, from <http://www.doleta.gov/ryf/WhiteHouseReport/VMO.cfm>

U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP).
(2003). *Program manual for the high school/high tech program: Providing
careers in technology for youth with disabilities.* Retrieved May 30,
2008, from
[http://www.NCWD-youth.info/assets/hsht/manual_full.pdf](http://www.ncwd-youth.info/assets/hsht/manual_full.pdf)

U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP).
(2005). Evaluation of disability employment policy demonstration
programs: Task 10: Interim report on ODEP demonstration programs:
Accomplishments and issues identified by the independent evaluation.
Retrieved May 30, 2008, from
<http://www.dol.gov/odep/categories/research/DemoPrograms.pdf>

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2003). Special education:
Federal actions can assist states in improving postsecondary outcomes
for youth (GAO-03-773). Retrieved May 31, 2008, at
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03773.pdf>

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2005). Vocational
rehabilitation: Better measures and monitoring could improve the
performance of the VR program. Retrieved October 24, 2007, from
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=
gao&docid=f:d05865.pdf](http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=gao&docid=f:d05865.pdf)

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2007). Federal disability
assistance: Stronger federal oversight could help assure multiple
programs' accountability. Retrieved May 31, 2008, from
[http://www.vaaccses.org/documents/\
GAO%20Report%202007.pdf](http://www.vaaccses.org/documents/GAO Report 2007.pdf)

Virginia Commonwealth University (1993). PL 102-569: The Rehabilitation
Act Amendments of 1992. Retrieved May 31, 2008, at
http://www.mncdd.org/parallels2/\
pdf/93-TRA-VCU.pdf

Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Rehabilitation Counseling
(n.d.). At a glance: Rehabilitation counseling field. Retrieved May 31,
2008, from http://www.rehab.vcu.edu/ataglance/field.html

Virginia Department of Education, Division of Special Education and
Student Services (n.d.).Transition services for students with
disabilities. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from
<http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/sped/transition/vocass.shtml>

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., & Marder, C . (2007).
*Perceptions and expectations of youth with disabilities. A special
topic report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition
Study-2 (NLTS2).* Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wehman, P. (2006). Transition: The bridge from youth to adulthood. In P.
Wehman (Ed.), *Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for
young people with disabilities* (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Co.

Wehman, P., Gentry, T., West, M., Arango-Lasprilla, J.C. (in press).
Community integration: Current issues in cognitive and vocational
rehabilitation for individuals with TBI. *Journal of Rehabilitation
Research and Development*.

Wehman, P., & Kregel, J. (2004). *Functional curriculum for elementary,
middle, secondary age students with special needs* (2nd ed.). Austin,
TX: PRO-ED.

Wehman, P., & Yasuda, S. (2005). The need and the challenges associated
with going to college. In E. Getzel & P. Wehman (Eds.), *Going to
college* (pp. 3--24). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). (2007). WWC topic report: Dropout
prevention. United States Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences. Retrieved March 6, 2008, from
[http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/\
DO_TR_07_30_07.pdf](http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/DO_TR_07_30_07.pdf)

Whelley, T., Hart, D., & Zaft, C. (2002). Coordination and management of
services for individuals with disabilities in the transition from
secondary to participation in postsecondary education and employment.
Paper presented at the Capacity Building Institute, Honolulu, HI.

Wilson, J. (2003). Mentors: paving the transition from school to
adulthood for students with disabilities. *American Rehabilitation,
27*(1).

Wittenburg, D., and Maag, E. (2002). School to where? A literature
review on economic outcomes of youth with disabilities. *Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 17*(4), 265--280.

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, P.L. 105-220, 29 USC 2801 *et
seq*.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469594 .anchor}Appendix A

Comparison of the Organization of Rehabilitation Act of 1973\
and Title IV of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998

+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Rehabilitation Act of 1973      | Wia: Title Iv---Rehabilitation Act |
|                                 | Amendments of 1998                 |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|                                 | > Sec. 401. Short title            |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|                                 | > Sec. 402. Title                  |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|                                 | > Sec. 403. General provisions     |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Title I -- VR Services          | > Sec. 404. Vocational             |
|                                 | > rehabilitation services          |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Title II -- Research and        | > Sec. 405. Research and training  |
| Training                        |                                    |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Title III -- Professional       | > Sec. 406. Professional           |
| Development and Special         | > development and special projects |
| Projects and Demonstrations     | > and demonstrations               |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Title IV -- National Council on | > Sec. 407. National Council on    |
| Disability                      | > Disability                       |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Title V -- Rights and Advocacy  | > Sec. 408. Rights and advocacy    |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Title VI -- Employment          | > Sec. 409. Employment             |
| Opportunities for Individuals   | > opportunities for individuals    |
| with Disabilities               | > with disabilities                |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Title VII -- Independent Living | > Sec. 410. Independent living     |
| Services and Centers for        | > services and centers for         |
| Independent Living              | > independent living               |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|                                 | > Sec. 411. Repeal                 |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|                                 | > Sec. 412. Helen Keller National  |
|                                 | > Center Act                       |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Mentioned throughout (e.g.,     | > Sec. 413. President\'s Committee |
| Sec. 501)                       | > on Employment of People With     |
|                                 | > Disabilities                     |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|                                 | > Sec. 414. Conforming amendments  |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Source:                         |  Source:                           |
| [http:/                         | <http://www.dole                   |
| /www.ed.gov/policy/speced/reg/\ | ta.gov/regs/statutes/wialaw.txt>;\ |
| narr                            | <http://www.dole                   |
| ative.htm](http://www.ed.gov/po | ta.gov/USWORKFORCE/WIA/wialaw.txt> |
| licy/speced/reg/narrative.htm)l |                                    |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469595 .anchor}Appendix B

Titles and Sections of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 that Address
Programs and Services Applicable to Transition-Age Youth

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Title/Section           Program                 Additional Information

  Title I                 One Stop Career Centers Youth ages 18--21 may
                                                  be co-enrolled as both
                                                  youth and adults to
                                                  receive job search and
                                                  more intensive
                                                  services, including
                                                  training.

  Title I, B, and Title   Youth Service Programs  Eligible youth ages
  IV, Subtitle D                                  14--21 who require
                                                  assistance to complete
                                                  an educational program
                                                  or to secure and hold
                                                  employment.

  Title I, C              Residential             There is no upper age
                          Training---Job Corps    limit for eligible
                                                  youth with disabilities
                                                  (service eligibility
                                                  usually range from ages
                                                  14 to 24). In 2008
                                                  there are 118 Job Corps
                                                  Centers nationwide.

  Title II                Adult Literacy Programs Youth over the age of
                                                  16 who are not
                                                  currently enrolled in
                                                  school and who lack a
                                                  high school diploma or
                                                  the basic skills to
                                                  function effectively
                                                  can receive basic
                                                  education
                                                  opportunities.
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Source: NCWD/Youth, 2008

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469596 .anchor}Appendix C

Panel of Experts

U.S. Department of Education, Office of\
Special Education and Rehabilitation Services

Jennifer Sheehy---NIDRR

Hugh Berry---OSERS

Leslie Caplan---NIDRR

Marlene Simon-Burroughs---OSEP

Edward Anthony---RSA

U.S. Department of Labor

Gregg Weltz---ETA Youth Services

Rhonda Basha---ODEP

Social Security Administration

Jamie Kendall---OPDR

State Vocational Rehabilitation Agency

Erica Lovelace---VA DRS

Business Community

Debra Ruh -- TECACCESS (also Parent Advocate)

Disability-Related Organizations

Paul Seifert---CSAVR

Theresa Boyd---PVA

Curtis Richards---EL

Parent Advocates

Cathy Healy---PEATC

Transition-Age Youth

Ryan Easterly

Sara Ruh

Michael Smith

Researchers in Transition Issues

David Wittenburg---MPR

Nanette Goodman---Private Consultant

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210469597 .anchor}Appendix D

Mission of the National Council on Disability

Overview and Purpose

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent federal
agency with 15 members appointed by the President of the United States
and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The purpose of NCD is to promote
policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal
opportunity for all individuals with disabilities regardless of the
nature or significance of the disability and to empower individuals with
disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living,
and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society.

Specific Duties

The current statutory mandate of NCD includes the following:

-   Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, policies, programs,
    practices, and procedures concerning individuals with disabilities
    conducted or assisted by federal departments and agencies, including
    programs established or assisted under the Rehabilitation Act of
    1973, as amended, or under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance
    and Bill of Rights Act, as well as all statutes and regulations
    pertaining to federal programs that assist such individuals with
    disabilities, to assess the effectiveness of such policies,
    programs, practices, procedures, statutes, and regulations in
    meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities.

-   Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, new and emerging
    disability policy issues affecting individuals with disabilities in
    the Federal Government, at the state and local government levels,
    and in the private sector, including the need for and coordination
    of adult services, access to personal assistance services, school
    reform efforts and the impact of such efforts on individuals with
    disabilities, access to health care, and policies that act as
    disincentives for individuals to seek and retain employment.

-   Making recommendations to the President, Congress, the Secretary of
    Education, the director of the National Institute on Disability and
    Rehabilitation Research, and other officials of federal agencies
    about ways to better promote equal opportunity, economic
    self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration
    into all aspects of society for Americans with disabilities.

-   Providing Congress, on a continuing basis, with advice,
    recommendations, legislative proposals, and any additional
    information that NCD or Congress deems appropriate.

-   Gathering information about the implementation, effectiveness, and
    impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42
    U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.).

-   Advising the President, Congress, the commissioner of the
    Rehabilitation Services Administration, the assistant secretary for
    Special Education and Rehabilitative Services within the Department
    of Education, and the director of the National Institute on
    Disability and Rehabilitation Research on the development of the
    programs to be carried out under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
    amended.

-   Providing advice to the commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services
    Administration with respect to the policies and conduct of the
    administration.

-   Making recommendations to the director of the National Institute on
    Disability and Rehabilitation Research on ways to improve research,
    service, administration, and the collection, dissemination, and
    implementation of research findings affecting people with
    disabilities.

-   Providing advice regarding priorities for the activities of the
    Interagency Disability Coordinating Council and reviewing the
    recommendations of this council for legislative and administrative
    changes to ensure that such recommendations are consistent with
    NCD's purpose of promoting the full integration, independence, and
    productivity of individuals with disabilities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Preparing and submitting to the President and Congress an annual
    report titled *National Disability Policy: A Progress Report*.

International

In 1995, NCD was designated by the Department of State to be the U.S.
government's official contact point for disability issues. Specifically,
NCD interacts with the special rapporteur of the United Nations
Commission for Social Development on disability matters.

Consumers Served and Current Activities

Although many government agencies deal with issues and programs
affecting people with disabilities, NCD is the only federal agency
charged with addressing, analyzing, and making recommendations on issues
of public policy that affect people with disabilities regardless of age,
disability type, perceived employment potential, economic need, specific
functional ability, veteran status, or other individual circumstance.
NCD recognizes its unique opportunity to facilitate independent living,
community integration, and employment opportunities for people with
disabilities by ensuring an informed and coordinated approach to
addressing the concerns of people with disabilities and eliminating
barriers to their active participation in community and family life.

NCD plays a major role in developing disability policy in America. In
fact, NCD originally proposed what eventually became ADA. NCD's present
list of key issues includes education, transportation, emergency
preparedness, international disability rights, employment, vocational
rehabilitation, livable communities, and crime victims with
disabilities.

Statutory History

NCD was established in 1978 as an advisory board within the Department
of Education (P.L. 95-602). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984
(P.L. 98-221) transformed NCD into an independent agency.