United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

SUMMARY OF A GAO 

CONFERENCE 

Helping California 

Youths with 

Disabilities Transition 

to Work or 

Postsecondary 

Education 

June 2006 

 

GAO-06-759SP 
What Panelists Said

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Convened This 

Conference

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 2006

SUMMARY OF A GAO CONFERENCE

Helping California Youths with 

Disabilities Transition to Work or 

Postsecondary Education 

Highlights of GAO-06-759SP a report to 

congressional committees 

The federal government plays a 

significant role in supporting

youths with disabilities, many of 

whom research has shown are less 

likely than other students to

successfully transition from high 

school to postsecondary education 

or employment. Federal programs

make considerable investments in

providing transition services for 

youths with disabilities, often 

through state and local agencies. 

GAO has previously reported 

problems in how these programs 

support transition, such as 

difficulties youths with disabilities 

may experience in accessing

services. 

To better understand how federal 

programs interact at the state and 

local levels to support transitioning 

youths with disabilities, on 

November 15, 2005, GAO convened

a conference of professionals and 

state and local program experts 

who are directly involved with 

transitioning youths with

disabilities in California. While the 

perspectives offered were limited 

to one state’s experience, 

California has wide variation in 

population, industry, disability 

rates, and employment rates among 

its counties, and thus may offer 

lessons to other states about the 

challenges and successes in serving 

transitioning youths. This report

summarizes the views of panelists 

on challenges they experienced 

serving this population during 

critical transition years, and

identifies several practices that

they believe are helping to address

those challenges in California. 

Panelists offered a variety of perspectives on the challenges they faced 

serving youths with disabilities making the transition from high school to 

postsecondary education or employment. Participants reached general 

agreement in two broad areas. 

• Panelists generally agreed youths with disabilities in California do not 

receive sufficient training in vocational preparation, life skills, and 

transition planning. While acknowledging the recent emphasis on

learning academic skills and its importance for all youths with 

disabilities, panelists noted that for those who will not pursue 

postsecondary education, there are too few vocational programs in high 

school and inadequate time during school to study vocational and life 

skills. They suggested many ways to address these challenges, including 

beginning transition planning at a younger age, creating internship

programs during high school, and bringing in mentors from the working 

world. 

• Panelists generally agreed that limited coordination among programs 

and differences in program structure prevented the seamless provision 

of services. For example, several panelists noted that students are 

generally not able to retain school-provided assistive technology 

equipment that could help them with postsecondary school or 

employment, and often need to reacquire such technology through the 

support of another service provider after they graduate. Panelists also 

cited specific differences in the structure of programs—such as the use 

of different definitions of learning disabilities between high schools and 

community colleges—that they thought hindered the seamless provision 

of services. Panelists suggested ideas for improving coordination among 

programs, including designating days outside of the classroom for 

teachers to coordinate with other programs and adopting common 

assessment materials and, where feasible, common definitions of 

disability. 

Panelists also shared examples of programs currently available to a limited 

number of youths in California that had the potential to address some of the 

challenges they identified. For example, some programs provide work 

experience and career counseling. Other programs provide a case manager 

to work with students throughout their transition and help coordinate their 

services. Panelists suggested that expanding and replicating these practices 

could improve the transition outcomes of youths with disabilities. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-759SP.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robert E. 

Robertson, Director, (202) 512-7215, 

robertsonr@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Introduction 1

Appendix I Summary of the Conference Discussion 5 

Background 5

Panelists Discussed Need for Additional Vocational Training, Life 

Skills Development, and Transition Preparation among Youths 

with Disabilities in California 9 

Panelists Discussed How Limited Coordination among Programs 

and Differences in Program Structure Can Prevent the Seamless 

Provision of Transition Services 12 

Panelists Identified Several Promising Practices That May Address 

Challenges in California 15 

Appendix II List of Panel Participants and Observers 18 

Appendix III Agenda, General Themes, and Questions 19 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 21 

Related GAO Products 22 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page i GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

June 20, 2006 

The Honorable Michael B. Enzi 

Chairman Chairman 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Health, E Committee on Health, Education, L ducation, Labor, and Pen bor, and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon 

Chairman 

The Honorable George Miller 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable William M. Thomas 

Chairman Chairman 

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Ways and Means 

House of Representatives 

The federal government plays a significant role in supporting youths with 

disabilities, many of whom research has shown are less likely than other 

students to successfully make the transition into postsecondary education

or employment once they leave high school. Although the amount spent to

support transitioning youths with disabilities is not known, the federal

government has a considerable investment in various programs to help 

support these youths. For example, in 2005 the Department of Education 

(Education) allocated over $10.5 billion in federal grants to states for 

ensuring that 6.8 million youths with disabilities received a free and 

appropriate public education, as required by the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA)—a key piece of legislation 

pertaining to transition. 

The federal government plays a significant role in supporting youths with 

disabilities, many of whom research has shown are less likely than other 

students to successfully make the transition into postsecondary education

or employment once they leave high school. Although the amount spent to

support transitioning youths with disabilities is not known, the federal

government has a considerable investment in various programs to help 

support these youths. For example, in 2005 the Department of Education 

(Education) allocated over $10.5 billion in federal grants to states for 

ensuring that 6.8 million youths with disabilities received a free and 

appropriate public education, as required by the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA)—a key piece of legislation 

pertaining to transition. 

A number of other federal programs—largely administered at the state and 

local levels—endeavor to help youths with disabilities achieve successful 

transitions. For example: 

A number of other federal programs—largely administered at the state and 

local levels—endeavor to help youths with disabilities achieve successful 

transitions. For example: 

Page 1 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
• Education’s vocational rehabilitation (VR) program provides transition 

services to youths with disabilities through state VR agencies and in 

coordination with public education officials. 

• The Department of Labor (Labor) helps eligible youths between 14 and 

21 years of age1

 prepare for work or postsecondary education through 

its one-stop center system—a federally funded workforce investment 

system that is managed by states and localities. 

• The Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Ticket to Work and SelfSufficiency program (Ticket) helps individuals who are receiving cash 

benefits from SSA’s Supplemental Security Income Program and are 

between the ages of 18 and 64 to obtain services—from providers such 

as VR agencies—that are necessary to find, enter, and retain 

employment. 

The success of these programs can play an important role in determining 

whether vulnerable youths transition successfully to become independent

adults or face a lifetime of reliance on public assistance. However, GAO 

has previously reported problems with how these programs support 

transition, such as difficulties youths may experience in accessing 

services.2

To better understand how federal programs support transitioning students 

with disabilities, GAO held a conference on November 15, 2005, that 

focused on such supports in one state—California.3

 We chose to focus on 

one state in order to better explore the complex interplay of the many and 

varied federal programs that are administered at the state and local levels 

and serve this population. California presents an interesting case study 

because of the wide variation in population, industry, rate of disability, 

and employment rates among its counties. As such, California’s 

experiences may provide a basis for identifying challenges and promising 

approaches to serving transitioning youths with disabilities that could 

apply to other states. 

 1

 Youths generally must have a low income in order to be eligible for one-stop services. 

However, some exceptions are made for a small percentage of youths with disabilities. 

2

 GAO, Special Education: Federal Actions Can Assist States in Improving Postsecondary

Outcomes for Youth, GAO-03-773 (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2003). 

3

 The conference took place in GAO’s San Francisco field office and via a video 

teleconference. 

Page 2 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
To identify discussion themes as well as panel participants for this 

conference, we interviewed officials from federal, state, and local 

disability programs; special education teachers and administrators; 

researchers in this area; and disability advocates. We also reviewed 

program guidance, published articles, and GAO reports relating to 

disability and transitioning youths.4

 In light of the many federal programs 

that provide similar services in support of transitioning youths, we invited

to the conference officials from Education, Labor, and SSA to observe the 

proceedings and engage in a direct dialogue with transition professionals. 

We also invited congressional staff from committees with jurisdiction over 

some of these federal agencies and programs to provide their perspectives 

on the topic.

Recognizing the importance of this topic for policy makers, we have 

summarized the conference proceedings in this report on behalf of 

interested committees from both the U.S. Senate and the House of 

Representatives. The discussion summarized in this report does not 

necessarily represent the views of any individual participant or GAO, may 

not be applicable to other parts of the country, and does not attempt to 

provide a comprehensive treatment of the topic. For example, although 

the topic of preparing for postsecondary education was included in the 

conference agenda, the panelists’ discussions focused primarily on 

workforce preparation. 

In summary, panelists generally agreed that challenges exist for 

transitioning California youths with disabilities in two key areas. First, 

they noted that the education system as they experience it in California 

does not provide adequate training in vocational and life skills or 

transition preparation for students with disabilities. While acknowledging 

the importance of academic studies, the panelists noted that for those 

youths who will not pursue postsecondary education, there are few 

vocational programs in high school and inadequate time during school to

study vocational and life skills. Second, panelists indicated that lack of

coordination and differences in program structure between organizations 

responsible for assisting these youths hinder the seamless provision of 

services. For each challenge area, panelists identified suggestions for 

improvement. Panelists also identified several ongoing practices that they

believe hold promise for addressing these challenges in California. 

 4

 Most notably, GAO-03-773. 

Page 3 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix I summarizes the collective discussion, as well as subsequent 

comments we received from panel participants on the draft summary of 

the conference proceedings. Appendix II lists our panel participants and 

observers from federal agencies. Appendix III contains our agenda—

including a list of congressional staff who provided Hill perspectives on 

this topic—as well as the general themes and questions posed to panelists. 

Major contributors are acknowledged in appendix IV. 

We are very grateful to all of the conference participants for taking the

time to share their knowledge, insights, and perspectives. The views 

expressed will be of value to the community of federal, state and local 

programs and professionals as they strive to improve employment and 

postsecondary educational outcomes for youths with disabilities at a 

critical juncture in their lives. In addition, the results of this discussion 

may help Congress ensure that federal programs serve this vulnerable 

population effectively and improve federal disability programs to meet the 

needs of the 21st century. 

Robert E. Robertson 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

and Income Security Issues 

Page 4 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
A

Discussion 

ppendix I: Summary of the Conference 

Page 5 GAO-06-759SP 

Appendix I: Summary of the Conference 

Discussion 

Conference panelists offered a variety of perspectives on the challenges 

they faced serving youths with disabilities transition from high school to 

postsecondary education or employment. This appendix provides 

background on the issues discussed by the panelists and a summary of 

their discussion. 

In 2003, we designated modernizing federal disability programs as a highrisk area—one that requires urgent attention and organizational 

transformation to ensure that programs function in the most economical, 

efficient, and effective manner possible to meet the needs of individuals in 

the 21st century. Federal disability programs were placed on the list 

because many of these programs have yet to incorporate scientific 

advances and economic and social changes that have redefined the 

relationship between impairments and the ability to work.1

 In addition, 

these programs have faced long-standing challenges in ensuring the 

timeliness and consistency of decisions related to benefits and services for 

people with disabilities. As part of our work in this area, in 2005, we 

identified more than 20 federal agencies and almost 200 programs that 

serve people with disabilities, many of which play some role in serving 

transitioning youths with disabilities.2

Background 

The array of programs supporting transitioning youths with disabilities, in

some ways, reflects the wide diversity of this population. For example, 

youths with disabilities can have a wide range of physical and cognitive 

disabilities that can affect their ability to learn. In addition, they may 

demonstrate varying levels of academic aptitude and achievement in 

different areas. Consequently, youths with disabilities may require 

different strategies for transitioning from school to postsecondary 

education or the workforce that address their unique needs. 

One key piece of legislation pertaining to transitioning youths with 

disabilities is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 

(IDEA).

3

 In 2005, under IDEA, states received over $10.5 billion for 

ensuring that 6.8 million youths identified as having a learning disability or 

 1

 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003). 

2

 GAO, Federal Disability Assistance: Wide Array of Programs Needs to Be Examined in

Light of 21st Century Challenges, GAO-05-626 (Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2005). 

3

 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq. 

Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix I: Summary of the Conference 

Discussion 

a disability such as mental retardation or autism received a free and 

appropriate public education. Among other requirements, IDEA requires 

all children with disabilities to be included in all general state and 

districtwide assessments,

4

 including annual assessments under the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001.5

 IDEA also charges public education 

authorities to develop an individualized education program6

 (IEP) for each

eligible student that spells out the specific special education and 

supplementary aids and services to be provided based on the student’s 

needs. Beginning no later than when a student is 16, the IEP must also 

contain transition plans that include measurable postsecondary goals and 

specify the transition services needed to assist the child in reaching those

goals. 

In addition, the federal government funds many other services that may 

assist youths with disabilities during their transition period through 

programs administered by agencies such as the Department of 

Education(Education), the Department of Labor (Labor), and the Social 

Security Administration (SSA). For example, the vocational rehabilitation 

(VR) program, Workforce Investment Act youth program (WIA), and the 

Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency program (Ticket) all provide services 

that can ease youth transition from high school to postsecondary 

education and employment. Youths who are eligible for special education 

services under IDEA, however, are not automatically eligible for these 

education, employment, and support services. 

Education’s Rehabilitation Services Administration provides significant 

funds to state VR agencies in the form of a matching grant to help persons 

with disabilities prepare for and engage in gainful employment. The 

vocational rehabilitation services that state-run VR programs provide 

include a variety of vocational services, including job training,

postsecondary education, and career counseling. Under the VR program, 

all people with a physical or mental impairment are potentially eligible for

 4

 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(16). 

5

 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires school systems to establish annual 

assessments in order to demonstrate that all students, including those with disabilities, 

make academic progress. Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 1111(b) (2002). 

6

 The term “individualized education program” refers to a written statement that is 

developed for each student that specifies, among other components, the services that the 

student will receive, the extent to which the student will participate in the regular 

education setting with peers without disabilities, and how the student will participate in 

statewide assessments. 

Page 6 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix I: Summary of the Conference 

Discussion 

services, but states must serve those with the most significant disabilities 

first in times of funding constraint.7

 This means that sometimes VR 

agencies are not able to serve all youths with disabilities, including those 

eligible for special education services. However, federal regulations under 

the Rehabilitation Act require state VR agencies to coordinate with public 

education officials to facilitate the transition of students with disabilities 

from school to work.8

Labor oversees the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act of 

1998. WIA requires states and localities to bring together most federally 

funded employment and training services into a single system, called the 

one-stop center system. WIA requires one-stop centers to offer services to

all eligible youths between 14 and 21 years of age that prepare them for 

work or postsecondary education. To be eligible for services under WIA, a 

youth must have a low income and also meet at least one of six specific 

barriers to employment, one of which is having a disability. Exceptions to 

the income requirement, however, are available for a small percentage of

youths, including those with disabilities.9

SSA implements the nation’s two largest cash benefit programs for 

individuals with disabilities, one of which covers youths under 18. 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a means-tested income assistance 

program that provides monthly payments to adults or children who are 

blind or have other disabilities and whose income and assets fall below a 

 7

 As in the case with California, state VR agencies that are not able to serve all eligible 

individuals applying for services are required to develop criteria for ensuring that 

individuals with the most significant disabilities will be selected first for services. Federal 

regulations do not stipulate, however, the definition of “most significant disability,” leading

states to define the term in a variety of ways. 

8

 Specifically, federal regulations require state VR programs to develop an individualized 

plan for employment for all clients accepted into the VR program. For VR clients who are 

also students receiving special education services, VR is required to have this plan in place 

before they leave school, and to develop VR goals, objectives, and services that are

consistent with those stipulated in their IEP. 

9

 Under WIA, youths are eligible for services if they have a low income and they fall within 

one or more of the following categories: deficient in basic skills; school dropout, homeless, 

runaway, or foster child; pregnant or parenting; offender; or individual (including a youth

with a disability) who requires additional assistance to obtain employment. Income 

qualification can be waived for up to 5 percent of youths in a local area. A 2003 GAO report

found that about 29 percent of IDEA youths meet WIA’s low-income requirement. See

GAO-03-773. 

Page 7 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix I: Summary of the Conference 

Discussion 

certain level.

10 Eligibility for SSI, in many states, entitles beneficiaries to 

Medicaid insurance coverage. In addition to providing cash benefits that 

may assist SSI-eligible youths in transition, SSA implements the Ticket 

program, established under the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives 

Improvement Act of 1999. The goal of the Ticket program is to enable 

individuals with disabilities who are receiving cash benefits from SSA and 

are between 18 and 64 years of age to obtain the services necessary to 

find, enter, and retain employment. 

A number of nonfederal agencies play a role in providing many of these 

federally funded services as well as additional transition services to youths

with disabilities. For example, California Departments of Education, 

Rehabilitation, Employment Development, Developmental Services, 

Mental Health, and Social Services provide a wide range of federally 

supported transition services including education, vocational skills 

training, and supported employment and independent living services. In 

addition, local education authorities and other local and nongovernmental

organizations obtain funding from a variety of sources to provide 

transition services, including vocational training, assisting with job 

searches, and making referrals for services. 

 10 The other SSA program is the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program, which 

provides monthly payments to workers with disabilities (and their dependents or 

survivors) under the age of 65 who have enough work experience to qualify for disability 

benefits. 

Page 8 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix I: Summary of the Conference 

Discussion 

Panelists raised concerns that California’s education system does not 

provide students with disabilities with adequate training in vocational and 

life skills or in transition preparation. While acknowledging the 

importance of academic studies, they noted that for those youths who will 

not pursue postsecondary education, there are few vocational programs in 

high school and inadequate time during school to study vocational and life 

skills.11 They also suggested several ways that schools and service 

providers could improve the provision of these services. 

According to the panelists, the education system in California does not 

adequately emphasize vocational skills, leaving many youths unprepared 

for the workforce. While some students with disabilities continue on to 

postsecondary education, this is not a realistic option for many others who 

either transition into the workforce immediately after high school or 

remain at home pursuing neither postsecondary education nor work. 

These youths might want to enter the workforce but might not be 

prepared for work because they may not have received adequate 

vocational instruction during high school, such as supervised work 

experience or training in skills for a specific career, like the culinary arts.

12

Panelists noted that while most students with disabilities entering the 

workforce will need the academic skills emphasized in schools, vocational 

skills and training that these students may also need currently receive little 

attention in the education system. For example, vocational training is 

mostly offered through adult education providers, such as community 

colleges, and vocational high school diplomas are not widely available. 

Consequently, youths desiring vocational instruction might drop out of 

high school. Federal policy emphasizes accountability for academic 

achievement for all students, including those with disabilities.13 Most 

students with disabilities are expected to meet the same academic 

standards as those without disabilities. Panelists noted that since some 

students with disabilities require more instruction time to meet those 

standards, there is less time for teachers and students to spend on 

Panelists Discussed 

Need for Additional 

Vocational Training, 

Life Skills 

Development, and 

Transition 

Preparation among 

Youths with 

Disabilities in 

California 

 11 The panelists’ discussion was limited to youths with disabilities, although it may be true 

that vocational programs are not widely available and could be beneficial for all high

schools students, not just those with disabilities. 

12 A 2003 GAO report also found that while vocational training and experience in high

school lead to more successful transitions for some youths with disabilities, many do not 

receive these services. See GAO-03-773. 

13 Over the past decade, Congress has passed laws that emphasize greater state and local 

accountability for improving graduation rates and postsecondary results for youths, 

including the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 

Page 9 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix I: Summary of the Conference 

Discussion 

vocational coursework. In some cases, this has led schools to offer fewer 

vocational courses. 

In addition to discussing vocational skills, panelists said that students with 

disabilities need more training in life skills, such as self-advocacy and 

interpersonal communication, to help them pursue postsecondary 

education, secure employment, or obtain necessary services as adults. For 

example, panelists noted that without self-advocacy training, youths with 

disabilities might fail to seek out the support services they need after high 

school, either because they do not understand the programs and eligibility 

rules or are hesitant to come forward about their disabilities. Another 

panelist said that youths with disabilities are sometimes reluctant to speak 

up in groups or initiate conversations. This might lead them to miss out on

job opportunities if they are unable to effectively communicate with 

employers to alleviate any concerns about their abilities or discuss needed 

accommodations. Further, the panelists said that employers sought out 

employees with life skills or soft skills, such as willingness to learn and to 

work hard and appropriate behavior. However, panelists found that 

learning life skills, similar to vocational skills, were often de-emphasized 

in favor of learning academic content. One panelist said that students in 

his school must study life skills either before or after the regular school 

day because there was no other time left in their schedules for such study. 

Panelists also said that in a variety of ways, the education system does not 

provide many students with disabilities with adequate preparation for their 

transition into the workplace or postsecondary education. For example, 

California credential programs for teachers, including special educators, 

do not require training in transition preparation, such as how to teach 

students to connect with employment services or how to integrate career 

preparation into an academic curriculum. Panelists also said that teachers 

have few professional development days available to take training in 

transition preparation. Another problem that many panelists brought up 

was that recent federal legislation increased the age—from 14 to 16—that

students are required to begin planning for their transitions in their IEP 

meetings. Several panelists stated that increasing the minimum age sent a

message to administrators, teachers, and parents that transition planning

is unimportant. Two panelists noted that while schools can begin planning

for transition at an earlier age, scarce monetary and time resources make 

it unlikely that transition services would be offered earlier than required. 

Others suggested that birth or kindergarten was not too early to start 

thinking about a student’s transition period, noting that many students 

with disabilities are in danger of dropping out before age 16. Further, one 

panelist pointed out that students with disabilities, especially younger 

Page 10 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix I: Summary of the Conference 

Discussion 

students, often do not attend their IEP meetings. Others said that the IEP 

process, including transition planning, could be more successful if 

students were given more opportunities to advocate for their own needs in 

their IEP meetings and to work toward long-term goals linked to adult 

outcomes from an early age. 

Panelists suggested several ways that schools could improve the 

vocational, life skills, and transition preparation that students received.

Some panelists said that students should be taught the basic skills that 

employers value and that correlate with essential job duties. Others 

suggested that students needed more vocational training and interaction 

with the working world while in high school. They noted that mentors 

from the business world get students interested in careers, serve as 

successful role models, and help students succeed in transitioning to 

work.14 They also praised the value of internships and other schoolsponsored workplace learning opportunities and suggested that students 

with disabilities needed more of these opportunities before they finished 

high school.15 Panelists suggested that students could learn self-advocacy 

skills by educating other youths about their disabilities, as well as by 

becoming more involved in their IEPs. Regarding transition preparation, 

panelists recommended that transition training should be incorporated 

into the first level of credential requirements for teachers, and that federal 

agencies could recommend that states add this requirement to their 

credentials. Finally, panelists agreed that transition planning should begin 

before age 16. 

 14 For more information on mentoring programs, see GAO, At-Risk Youth: Student 

Mentoring Programs: Education’s Monitoring and Information Sharing Could Be

Improved, GAO-04-581 (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2004). 

15 For more information on school-community collaboration, see GAO, At-Risk Youth:

School-Community Collaborations Focus on Improving Student Outcomes, GAO-01-66 

(Washington, D.C.: Oct 10, 2000). 

Page 11 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix I: Summary of the Conference 

Discussion 

Panelists indicated that the lack of coordination and differences in 

program structure among organizations that assist transitioning youths 

with disabilities prevent the seamless provision of services. They had 

several ideas for improving coordination among these organizations. 

The panelists noted that limited coordination among the multiple 

organizations involved in providing services to youths with disabilities 

hinders the transition process for youths in California. Many thought that

collaboration between school districts and outside organizations needs to

be improved.16 One panelist noted, for example, that schools do not always

involve government agencies or community-based organizations in the 

development of a student’s IEP, thereby missing an opportunity to educate 

youths and outside programs on issues related to transition. Other 

panelists noted that students generally are not able to retain schoolprovided assistive technology equipment, such as voice-to-text software, 

after they leave school; as a result, the support of other service providers

may be required to help these students reacquire technology to assist them 

with postsecondary education or employment. Panelists said that after 

youths leave school, no single agency is in charge of providing services to 

all youths. Instead, one panelist said, youths are expected to manage the 

services they receive on their own, but might not have adequate 

information on the availability of benefits or program eligibility 

requirements.17 Further, the panelist said, organizations that provide 

services to youths with disabilities after they leave school are often 

responsible for assisting a broader population and might lack the expertise 

and sensitivity for serving individuals with disabilities. 

Panelists Discussed 

How Limited 

Coordination among 

Programs and 

Differences in 

Program Structure 

Can Prevent the 

Seamless Provision of 

Transition Services 

The panelists indicated that differences in the structure of programs—

including their eligibility criteria, disability definitions, and performance 

measures—hinder the provision of seamless service to youths with 

disabilities. For example, according to panelists, differences in eligibility 

 16 A 2003 GAO report found that students, parents and teachers also thought schools 

needed to improve coordination with outside service providers. See GAO-03-773. More

generally, other GAO reports have highlighted the need for improved coordination among 

all federal disability programs. See, for example, GAO-05-626 and GAO, People with

Disabilities: Federal Programs Could Work Together More Efficiently to Promote 

Employment, GAO/HEHS-96-126 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 3, 1996). 

17 A 2005 GAO report found that 38 percent of federal programs assisting individuals with 

disabilities reported that making clients aware of their programs’ services and benefits was 

a challenge. Similarly, 30 percent of these programs reported that interpreting complex

eligibility requirements was a challenge. See GAO-05-626. 

Page 12 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix I: Summary of the Conference 

Discussion 

criteria can create conflicting incentives for youth who participate in more 

than one program and can create gaps in service provision. One panelist 

noted that the eligibility criteria for SSA’s Supplemental Security Income 

program, which require youths to maintain low income and asset levels in 

order to continue receiving cash benefits and medical insurance, deter 

youths from fully utilizing employment assistance programs.18 Another 

panelist mentioned that not all youths with disabilities meet the income 

eligibility criteria to receive services from WIA one-stops.19

Other panelists noted that differences in the definitions of disability lead 

to gaps in service provision. For example, one panelist said that California 

high schools and community colleges use different definitions of learning 

disabilities. Similarly, another panelist said that many youths eligible for

IDEA are not eligible to receive services from California’s Department of 

Rehabilitation because the department, constrained for funding, generally 

restricts its caseload to individuals that meet its definition for “significant” 

or “most significant” disability. These differences in eligibility criteria and 

definitions, at best, might result in youths having to be reevaluated or not

knowing whether they are eligible to continue receiving services after high

school. At worst, they could prevent youths from receiving needed 

services from postsecondary education institutions, VR, or WIA one-stops. 

Another panelist added that some program performance measures deter 

programs assisting broader populations from serving youths with 

disabilities. For example, the performance measures for WIA, including 

measures of the number of clients finding employment, do not distinguish 

between individuals with and without disabilities. Since assisting 

individuals with disabilities generally requires more effort and resources 

than assisting those without disabilities, program staff may choose not to 

 18 Similarly, a 2003 GAO report also found that some SSA officials, school administrators, 

teachers, advocacy groups, and others involved in the transition process said that fear of 

losing federal and state benefits is a common reason why individuals are hesitant to 

participate in federal work incentive programs such as the Ticket program. See

GAO-03-773. 

19 However, up to 5 percent of youth served in a local area do not have to meet the income 

criteria so long as they fall within certain other categories, such as having a disability. 

Page 13 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix I: Summary of the Conference 

Discussion 

serve individuals with disabilities in order to more easily meet or exceed 

their performance goals.

20

The panelists offered several ideas on ways to improve coordination 

among organizations involved in serving youths with disabilities. One 

panelist suggested that primary service providers convene a regional 

conference to identify roles and responsibilities of different agencies and 

to develop a comprehensive plan for assisting youths with disabilities. 

Others thought that school systems could enhance cooperation by 

designating professional development days for teachers to coordinate with 

public and private providers and family members. They also thought that 

schools needed to make a more concerted effort to include provider staff 

and family members in IEP meetings. Other panelists proposed the 

designation of a single agency or person to coordinate the provision of 

services for all youths with disabilities, both in school as well as after 

students have left high school. Another suggestion, currently implemented 

at one school district, was to set up agreements between the local 

education authority and other service providers to reimburse the school 

system for allowing students to retain their assistive technology. 

The panelists also suggested improvements to the ways that programs are 

structured that may lead to seamless service provision. For example, one 

panelist suggested that programs be encouraged to provide 

comprehensive services to youths over a broader age range so that youths

could receive many services from a single place. Another panelist 

proposed that programs use common assessment materials and, whenever 

possible, common definitions of disability to improve coordination among 

programs and make it easier for youths to receive needed services. For 

example, youth should not have to be subjected to different tests in order 

to establish their eligibility for services being provided by different 

agencies. Finally, one panelist thought that the federal government, in 

choosing which programs to fund, should reward programs that have 

collaborative structures. 

 20 A 2004 GAO report similarly found that WIA performance measures can create 

disincentives for one-stops to serve clients with disabilities. See GAO, Workforce

Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate Access to One-Stops for

Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient, GAO-05-54 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 14, 2004). We also recommended that WIA performance measures

be changed to take different populations into account. See GAO, Workforce Investment

Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor 

Could Do More to Help, GAO-04-657 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004). 

Page 14 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix I: Summary of the Conference 

Discussion 

Panelists shared examples of programs—available to a limited number of 

youths—that have the potential to address some of the challenges they

identified. Most of these programs operate only in California, but one 

operates nationwide. These programs are administered either by 

government entities or nonprofits, and are supported by both public and 

private funds. They provide such services as vocational training, job 

placement, case management to help coordinate with different service 

providers, and leadership opportunities for youths with disabilities. 

Panelists suggested that if resources were available, expanding and 

replicating these practices could improve the transition outcomes for 

youths with disabilities. 

Panelists Identified 

Several Promising 

Practices That May 

Address Challenges in 

California 

• WorkAbility I: WorkAbility I is a California program for special 

education students aged 16 to 22 that is designed to promote career 

awareness and exploration while students complete their secondary 

education program. While it is not available in many schools, the 

program has grown to over 300 sites in all 58 counties in California 

since its inception in 1981. WorkAbility I provides students with 

opportunities for job shadowing, paid and nonpaid work experience, 

and ongoing support and guidance from vocational personnel, as well 

as coordination of state and local services. The program is funded and 

administered by the California Department of Education, Special 

Education Department. Panelists considered WorkAbility I to be a 

successful vehicle for career preparation and for helping to train 

special educators in transition planning. One panelist said that this 

program has increased graduation rates and decreased dropout rates 

for students with disabilities. Panelists agreed that this program should 

be expanded so that it is more available to California students with 

disabilities and that many of its practices should be incorporated into 

the education system rather than restricted to a separate program. 

• Marriott Foundation Bridges from School to Work: Bridges works 

with youths exiting special education to develop job placement with 

local employers. Operating primarily in major urban centers

nationwide, the program serves more than 1,000 people annually. Since 

its inception in 1990, Bridges has placed more than 7,800 youths in 

competitive employment nationwide with over 1,500 different

employers, and 89 percent of those who successfully complete the 

program receive offers of ongoing employment. One panelist

considered Marriott Bridges to be an excellent example of a transition 

service provider that collaborates with other programs to help students 

get good jobs that fit their interests. Another noted that this program 

helps some youths with visual impairments obtain assistive technology. 

Page 15 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix I: Summary of the Conference 

Discussion 

• Jewish Vocational Services (JVS): JVS’s Youth Programs help 

youths with disabilities in the San Francisco area aged 14 to 24 prepare 

for employment through vocational assessment, internships, case 

management, educational and career counseling, computer and life 

skills classes, and job placement services. JVS also partners with 

schools to provide vocational education classes and with other 

government and nonprofit entities to coordinate services. In 2004, JVS 

worked with 700 youths, including 400 still in school, and helped 346 

youths find jobs. Founded in 1973, JVS’s nonprofit programs are funded 

through multiple revenue streams, including federal, state, and local 

government funds, among other sources. One panelist described JVS 

programs as providing case management and help with obtaining and 

coordinating services throughout the youth’s entire transition, 

including after leaving school. 

• Transition Partnership Project (TPP): The TPP, created by the 

California Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) in 1987, encourages 

partnerships between schools and the department to work toward a 

seamless transition from school to work or postsecondary education. 

Most students whom the department classifies as having a significant 

disability are eligible for the TPP and can begin receiving guidance 

from department vocational counselors in their junior year of high 

school. In 2005, there were 85 TPP programs statewide. In 2005, the 

TPP served 17,524 of the 38,917 DOR consumers who are 24 years of 

age or younger. (Because of budgetary constraints, DOR cannot serve 

all 200,000 special education students enrolled in California’s high 

schools.) Panelists said that the TPP is involved in the bulk of

successful job placements for youths with disabilities in California, and 

that its strengths included providing a case manager who works with 

students from high school until they finish their education and enter 

the workforce. 

• Youth Leadership Forum for Students with Disabilities: The 

Youth Leadership Forum for Students with Disabilities is an annual 

career leadership training program for approximately 60 high school 

juniors and seniors with disabilities in California, who serve as 

delegates from their communities at a 4-day event in their state capital. 

Delegates create a personal leadership plan and gain access to

resources related to assistive technology, community support, and 

employment opportunities, with successful adults with disabilities 

serving as role models. The program is funded and organized by the 

California’s Governor’s Committee on Employment of People with 

Disabilities, Department of Rehabilitation, Employment Development 

Department, California State Independent Living Council, California 

Page 16 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix I: Summary of the Conference 

Discussion 

Department of Education, Sonoma State University, California 

Workforce Investment Board, State Council on Developmental 

Disabilities, California Foundation for Independent Living Centers and 

Friends of the California Governor’s Committee on Employment of 

People with Disabilities, Inc. This program is being replicated across 

the nation by the U.S. Department of Labor. One panelist suggested 

that the model set forth by the Youth Leadership Forum be followed at 

the county and city levels to provide students with disabilities more 

opportunities to learn self-advocacy through leadership. 

Page 17 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix II: List of 

Observers 

Panel Participants and 

Page 18 GAO-06-759SP 

Appendix II: List of Panel Participants and 

Observers 

• Pauline Aughe, NOVA One Stop 

• Dr. Diana Blackmon, Director, Special Services, Washington Unified 

School District 

• Lana Fraser, Assistant Deputy Director, Department of Rehabilitation, 

CA 

• Paul Gibson, Director, Youth Department, Jewish Vocational Services 

• Dr. Phyllis Harris, Executive Director, Special Education, Oakland 

Unified School District 

• Dr. Angela Hawkins, Commissioner, California Advisory Commission 

on Special Education 

• Dr. Dennis Kelleher, Transition Coordinator, Department of Education, 

CA 

• Chris Leroy, Program Specialist, San Bernadino City Unified School 

District 

• Fran Lopez, Associate Dean, Disability Resource Center, Gavelin 

College 

• Jodee Mensik, Transition Specialist, Los Angeles Unified School 

District 

• Jeff Riel, Chief, Transition Programs, Department of Rehabilitation, CA 

• Richard Rosenberg, Vocational & Training Coordinator, Whittier Union 

High School District 

• Caren Sax, Professor, Interwork Institute at San Diego State University

• Vicki Shadd, Director, Vocation & Transitional Services, Glenn County 

School District 

• Zoey Todd, Children and Family Services Policy Unit, Department of 

Mental Health, CA 

• John Weber, ITOP Coordinator, Support for Families 

• Marcia Yamamoto, Manager, Workforce Inclusion Section,

Employment Development Department, CA 

• Rhonda Basha, Department of Labor

• Sandra Beckley, Social Security Administration 

• Chris Button, Department of Labor 

• Joyanne Cobb, Social Security Administration 

• Rachel Dorman, Department of Labor 

List of Panel 

Participants 

List of Observers from 

Federal and Other 

Agencies 

• Melodie Johnson, Department of Education 

• Jamie Kendall, Social Security Administration 

• Margaret Mack, California Workforce Investment Board 

• Laurel Nishi, Department of Labor 

• Linda Rogaski, California Department of Education 

• Jennifer Sheehy, Department of Education 

• Marlene Simon-Burroughs, Department of Education 

Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix III: Agenda, General Themes, and Appendix III: Agenda, General Themes, and Questions 

Questions 

Page 19 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix III: Agenda, General Themes, and 

Questions 

Page 20 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Appendix IV: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

 Page 21 GAO-06-759SP 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Robert E. Robertson, Director, (202) 512-7215 or robertsonr@gao.gov. GAO Contact 

In addition to the contact above, Director Marnie S. Shaul; Assistant 

Directors Harriet Ganson and Michele Grgich; and team members Erin 

Godtland, Arthur T. Merriam, and Brittni Milam made major contributions 

to this report. In addition, Laurie Latuda and Jonathan McMurray advised

on report preparation. Jessica Botsford and Richard Burkard provided 

legal advice. Danielle Bosquet, Ramona Burton, Shannon Groff, Robert 

Marek, and Elizabeth Sirois also made important contributions to 

organizing the conference held November 15, 2005, in San Francisco. 

Acknowledgments 

Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Vocational Rehabilitation: Better Measures and Monitoring Could 

Improve the Performance of the VR Program. GAO-05-865. Washington,

D.C.: September 23, 2005. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Could Do More to Help States Better 

Define Graduation Rates and Improve Knowledge about Intervention 

Strategies. GAO-05-879. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2005. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated 

in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved. 

GAO-05-618. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005. 

Federal Disability Assistance: Wide Array of Programs Needs to Be 

Examined in Light of 21st Century Challenges. GAO-05-626. Washington, 

D.C.: June 2, 2005. 

Social Security Administration: Better Planning Could Make the Ticket 

Program More Effective. GAO-05-248. Washington, D.C.: March 2, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate

Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts May 

Not Be Sufficient. GAO-05-54. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2004. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education’s Process 

for Tracking States’ Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734. 

Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004. 

Student Mentoring Programs: Education’s Monitoring and Information 

Sharing Could Be Improved. GAO-04-581. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2004. 

Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination 

Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher 

Requirements. GAO-04-659. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 

Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. 

GAO-04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004. 

Special Education: Federal Actions Can Assist States in Improving 

Postsecondary Outcomes for Youth. GAO-03-773. Washington, D.C.: July 

31, 2003. 

 Page 22 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
Related GAO Products 

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to 

Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and 

Information Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18,

2003. 

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-03-119. Washington, D.C.: January 

2003. 

Business Tax Incentives: Incentives to Employ Workers with Disabilities 

Receive Limited Use and Have an Uncertain Impact. GAO-03-39. 

Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2002. 

At-Risk Youth: School-Community Collaborations Focus on Improving 

Student Outcomes. GAO-01-66. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2000. 

(130564) Page 23 GAO-06-759SP Transitioning Youths with Disabilities
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER