Report to the Ranking Minority 

Member, Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

July 2003 SPECIAL 

EDUCATION 

Federal Actions Can 

Assist States in 

Improving 

Postsecondary 

Outcomes for Youth 

GAO-03-773 
Of all IDEA youth who left high school during the 2000-01 school year, 57 

percent received a standard diploma and an additional 11 percent received 

an alternative credential. High school completion patterns of IDEA youth 

have remained stable over recent years despite concerns that states’ 

increasing use of exit examinations would result in higher dropout rates. 

Students with some types of disabilities were much less likely, however, to 

complete high school with a standard diploma, receiving an alternative 

credential or dropping out instead. IDEA youth without a diploma have some 

options for entering employment or postsecondary education, but national 

data on their post-school status are over a decade old. Twenty-one states 

routinely track students’ post-school status, but these data have some 

limitations. While most states used post-school data for program 

improvement purposes such as monitoring service delivery, some officials 

indicated that guidance was needed on how to best collect and use these 

data. 

A variety of transition problems, such as lack of vocational training and poor 

linkages between schools and service providers, have been consistently 

reported by students, parents, and others. While state and local educational 

agencies have taken actions to address some of the problems, other 

problems such as lack of transportation are less likely to be addressed at the 

state level. While state Directors of Special Education reported being 

generally satisfied with assistance provided to them by the Department of 

Education in addressing transition issues, some expressed concerns about 

the timeliness of the federal feedback on their state improvement plans and 

inconsistency in the quality of technical assistance provided by the six 

federal Regional Resource Centers. 

The vocational rehabilitation (VR) program, the Workforce Investment Act 

youth program (WIA), and the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency (Ticket) 

program all offer an array of employment and education-related services that 

can aid some IDEA youth. However, several factors may impede 

participation by the IDEA populations that are eligible for services. The lack 

of participation may be explained in part by the insufficient capacity of the 

VR and WIA programs to serve eligible populations requesting services, and 

potential concerns of Ticket participants about losing public assistance 

because of employment income. A general lack of awareness by youth and 

families of these programs may also limit participation. 

States receive federal funds under 

the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) to help 

students with disabilities reach 

their postsecondary goals, and 

various federal programs offer 

services that can assist these youth. 

However, research has 

documented that youth with 

disabilities are less likely to 

transition into postsecondary 

education and employment. 

Congress requested that GAO 

provide information on (1) the 

proportion of IDEA students 

completing high school with a 

diploma or alternative credentials, 

and their postsecondary status; 

(2) the transition problems being 

reported and state and local 

actions to address them; and 

(3) the types of transition services 

provided by the vocational 

rehabilitation, the Workforce 

Investment Act youth, and the 

Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency 

programs, and the factors affecting 

participation of IDEA youth. 

GAO recommends that the 

Department of Education 

(1) gather and provide states with 

information on sound strategies to 

collect and use postsecondary data, 

(2) develop a plan to provide states 

with timely feedback and 

consistent quality of technical 

assistance, and (3) coordinate with 

other federal agencies to provide 

IDEA students and their families 

with information on federally 

funded transition services. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-773.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact David Bellis at 

(415) 904-2272 or bellisd@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-773, a report to the 

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate 

July 2003 

SPECIAL EDUCATION 

Federal Actions Can Assist States in 

Improving Postsecondary Outcomes for 

Youth 
Page i GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

A Majority of IDEA Youth Complete High School, but Data on 

Transitions Are Limited 8

Problems Impeding Transition of IDEA Youth into Postsecondary 

Education and Employment Remain Partially Addressed 17

The VR, WIA, and Ticket Programs Provide Transition Services, but 

Several Factors May Limit the Number of IDEA Youth Who Use 

Them 25

Conclusions 32

Recommendations for Executive Action 33

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 33

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 36 

Survey 36

State Telephone Interviews and Analysis of State Data 36

Site Visits 37

Review of National Studies on Transition 38

Analysis of Existing Data 38

Appendix II State Data Collection Efforts 40 

Appendix III State Waiting Lists for Vocational Rehabilitation 

Services in Fiscal Year 2001 49 

Appendix IV Youth Eligible to Participate in the Ticket Program 

as of June 2003 50 

Appendix V Availability of Medicaid Buy-In to Working People 

with Disabilities as of May 2003 52 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Education 53 

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Labor 55 

Appendix VIII Comments from the Social Security Administration 58 

Appendix IX GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 60 

GAO Contacts 60

Staff Acknowledgments 60

Tables 

Table 1: High School Completion and Dropout Rates by Disability 

Type, 2000-01 School Year 9

Table 2: Problems Reported by Stakeholders in the Transition 

Process 18

Table 3: Education’s Response Time as of March 26, 2003, to States 

Submitting Improvement Plans in 2002 23

Table 4: All Youth Ages 14 to 21 Served by Selected Federal 

Programs 27

Table 5: Selected Services Provided to Youth through the VR 

Program in Fiscal Year 2001 28

Table 6: Selected Services Provided through WIA in Program Year 

2001 28

Table 7: Site Visit States and Local School Systems 37

Table 8: State Approaches to Collecting Data on Postsecondary 

Employment and Education Status of IDEA Youth 40

Table 9: State Methods of Collecting Data on Postsecondary 

Employment and Education Status of IDEA Youth 43

Table 10: State Examples of Using Postsecondary Employment and 

Education Status Data 47
Page iii GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Figures 

Figure 1: Disability Characteristics of IDEA Youth Leaving High 

School in School Year 2000-01 6

Figure 2: Completion and Dropout Rates for IDEA Students from 

1997-98 to 2000-01 School Years 11

Figure 3: States That Collect Data on IDEA Youth Leaving High 

School 14

Figure 4: Types of Postsecondary Employment and Education Data 

Available in States 46

Abbreviations 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

IEP individualized education program 

NCES National Center for Education Statistics 

NLTS National Longitudinal Transition Study 

NLTS2 National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 

OSEP Office of Special Education Programs 

RSA Rehabilitation Services Administration 

SIG State Improvement Grant 

SLIDEA Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the 

 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

SPeNSE the Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education 

SSA Social Security Administration 

SSDI Social Security Disability Insurance 

SSI Supplemental Security Income 

VR vocational rehabilitation 

WIA Workforce Investment Act youth program 

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. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product. 
Page 1 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

July 31, 2003 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Health, Education, 

 Labor and Pensions 

United States Senate 

Dear Senator Kennedy: 

In 2003, states received nearly $9 billion for assuring that over 6 million 

children and youth identified as having a disability received a free 

appropriate public education, as required by the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).1

 Most youth had been identified as 

having learning disabilities such as dyslexia, with a smaller number having 

some type of emotional, mental, or physical impairment. Research has 

documented that youth with disabilities—especially those with some types 

of disabilities such as emotional disturbances—are less likely to transition 

into postsecondary education and employment once they leave high 

school. In the 1997 Amendments to IDEA, Congress required greater state 

and local accountability for improving graduation rates and postsecondary 

results for youth with disabilities. The law directed state education 

agencies to include youth with disabilities in statewide achievement 

assessments, and to begin including a statement of the transition service 

needs in students’ individualized education program (IEP) at age 14, in 

addition to age 16. The Department of Education (Education) monitors 

states’ compliance with these requirements, as well as provides technical 

assistance to enhance state and local capacity to improve graduation rates 

and the postsecondary employment and education status for youth with 

disabilities. In addition, other federal agencies fund programs that can 

assist youth with disabilities during their transition into the adult world. 

In an effort to better ensure that all students have the necessary academic 

preparation to successfully pursue postsecondary education or 

employment, many states are now requiring that students pass exit 

examinations to graduate from high school with a diploma. However, 

 1

The data on the number of children covered under IDEA are for the 2001-02 school year, 

the latest year for which data are available. 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

concerns have been raised that states’ use of exit examinations will result 

in higher dropout rates for youth with disabilities or issuing alternative 

credentials2

 in lieu of diplomas that may limit youths’ options for 

postsecondary education and employment. While federally funded 

transition services are available to help youth with disabilities pursue 

postsecondary options, there are also concerns that many may not be 

using these services. To address these concerns, you asked that we 

provide information on: (1) the proportion of IDEA students completing 

high school with a diploma or alternative credentials, and what is known 

about their postsecondary education and employment outcomes; (2) the 

types of transition problems that have been reported and actions taken by 

state and local education agencies to address them; and (3) the types of 

transition services provided by the vocational rehabilitation (VR) program, 

the Workforce Investment Act youth program (WIA), and the Ticket to 

Work and Self-Sufficiency (Ticket) program, and the factors affecting the 

number of IDEA youth using them. 

To provide this information, we administered and analyzed results from a 

survey to 50 state Directors of Special Education, as well as conducted 

phone interviews with state officials in the 21 states that reported 

routinely collecting data on IDEA students’ postsecondary outcomes. We 

also visited 3 states and 6 school districts where we met with state and 

local officials, school administrators, teachers, parents, IDEA students, 

and service providers.3

 In addition, we synthesized the findings of 

nationally available studies on IDEA students’ transition experiences, 

interviewed federal officials responsible for programs that can assist 

students during transition, and analyzed program data from federal 

agencies administering these programs. Appendix I explains our 

methodology in more detail. 

We performed our work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards between June 2002 and June 2003. 

 2

Alternative credentials may be issued based on various criteria, including completion of an 

IEP, attendance, or occupational skill attainment. 

3

We conducted fieldwork in New York, Alabama, and California. We selected these states 

to obtain a mix based on differences in geographic location, the size of the IDEA 

population in the state, high school completion patterns, exit examination policies for 

IDEA youth, postsecondary data collection efforts, and state monitoring processes, as well 

as recommendations of experts in transition. 
Page 3 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

State data reported by Education show that in the 2000-01 school year, 

about 70 percent of IDEA students completed high school with either a 

standard diploma or an alternative credential. However, completion rates 

ranged from 45 percent to 83 percent depending on disability type. The 

high school completion rate was the lowest for youth with emotional 

disturbances and the highest for youth with impairments affecting hearing 

or eyesight. Despite concerns that states’ increasing use of exit 

examinations would result in more IDEA youth dropping out of high 

school, high school completion patterns have remained fairly stable, 

perhaps in part, because states have generally offered alternative routes to 

high school completion for youth with disabilities. However, what happens 

to IDEA youth after they leave high school is difficult to determine. Less 

than half of the states routinely collect data on students’ employment or 

education status after graduation, and existing data collection efforts have 

limitations. Despite limitations of individual states’ efforts, state studies 

taken together show that IDEA youth were much more likely to enter 

employment than postsecondary education or training programs. In 

Wisconsin, for example, 80 percent of IDEA youth reported being 

employed and 47 percent reported attending some type of postsecondary 

education institution 1 year out of high school.4

 While most state officials 

reported using data on IDEA youth postsecondary status for purposes 

such as monitoring service delivery or targeting schools for technical 

assistance, some officials indicated that guidance was needed on how to 

best collect and use these data. Education officials in 2 states, for 

example, were unsure whether their survey questions were appropriate to 

obtain the best information on outcomes, while another state official had 

concerns that local school systems did not have the expertise to use such 

data to improve transition outcomes for IDEA youth. 

During our site visits, students, parents, teachers, and others consistently 

reported a variety of problems that impede youth transition to 

postsecondary education and employment, including poor linkages 

between schools and youth service providers and a lack of community 

work experience while in high school. States and local education agencies 

have taken various steps to address some of the problems, including hiring 

transition coordinators and offering work preparation experiences, such 

as job shadowing opportunities. Some schools, however, have not yet 

benefited from these efforts and continue to experience problems. For 

 4

Percentages do not add to 100 since some youth were both employed and in 

postsecondary school. 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

example, a number of schools still rely on special education teachers to 

develop linkages with community service providers according to the Study 

of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (SLIIDEA), although teachers indicated during 

our site visits that they often do not have the time or training to do so. 

Further, while research has shown work experience and vocational 

education to be a significant factor in obtaining postsecondary 

employment with higher earnings, findings from the National Longitudinal 

Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) show that 60 percent of IDEA youth had paid 

work experience and about 24 percent received vocational services. Our 

survey of state Directors of Special Education shows that states have 

developed action plans to increase services such as vocational training, 

and community work experience for IDEA youth. Other significant 

problems, however, are less likely to be addressed because they are not 

considered by state officials to be within the purview of the education 

system. For example, the 3 states we visited did not include transportation 

problems for IDEA youth in their state improvement plans, although it was 

one of the most cited problems by parents and school and state officials. 

Education provides some assistance to states in their efforts to address 

transition problems, and most state Directors of Special Education found 

this assistance useful. For example, states can use Education’s Continuous 

Improvement Monitoring Process to obtain feedback on state 

improvement plans for addressing transition problems, and obtain related 

technical assistance from Education’s Regional Resource Centers for 

Special Education (Regional Resource Centers). State officials expressed 

some concerns, however, about the timeliness of Education’s feedback on 

their state plans and some inconsistency in the quality of assistance 

provided by the Regional Resource Centers. 

The VR, WIA, and Ticket programs all provide similar and complementary 

services that can ease youth transition from high school to postsecondary 

education and employment, but several factors may affect how many 

IDEA youth use them. Services include tutoring and study skills training, 

job coaching and placement, as well as necessary support services such as 

transportation and counseling. However, IDEA youth are not 

automatically eligible for these services. For example, available data 

suggest that about 29 percent of IDEA youth meet Workforce Investment 

Act’s low-income requirement, and about 13 percent of IDEA youth meet 

Ticket’s age and benefit requirements. While not all IDEA youth eligible 

for VR, WIA, or Ticket services may need or want to use them, several 

factors may impede those that do. For example, WIA officials from states 

we visited said that workforce centers often do not have the expertise to 

serve youth with disabilities, and may refer these youth to VR; Education 
Page 5 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

officials report that a number of states currently have waiting lists for VR 

services. The most recent data available from fiscal year 2001 show that 

VR agencies in 25 states had waiting lists for its services that may defer 

access for transitioning youth. Further, youth may not access services 

because they are concerned about losing access to public assistance, or 

are unaware that these federal resources exist. For example, while all 

youth aged 18 or older that qualify for Social Security disability benefits 

are eligible for transition services under the Ticket program, less than 

1 percent participate, in part, due to concerns that employment income 

may jeopardize their eligibility for other federal and state services such as 

health insurance and subsidized housing according to parents and service 

providers we spoke with. Finally, students, parents, and teachers who are 

responsible for identifying transition service needs were generally 

unaware of the universe of available federal transition services and how to 

access them in the states we visited. While most people we talked with 

were aware of VR services, many were unaware of the Ticket program, 

and knowledge of the Workforce Investment Act assistance centers varied 

widely, even though these programs all serve overlapping populations. 

We are making recommendations to Education to help state and local 

education agencies improve transition outcomes for IDEA youth by 

disseminating information on best practices for collecting and using data 

on their postsecondary status, providing more timely and consistent 

services to states seeking assistance, and identifying strategies for 

informing students and families about federal transition resources. 

States that receive IDEA funding must comply with certain requirements 

for special education and related services. These requirements include the 

development of an IEP that spells out the specific special education, 

related services, and supplementary aids and services to be provided to 

each student based on the student’s needs, including transition services 

designed to help the student obtain the skills and experiences to reach 

desired postsecondary goals. 

During the 2000-01 school year, over 300,000 IDEA youth left high school.5

Most youth had been identified as having learning disabilities such as 

 5

This includes those students that graduated with a diploma or alternative credential, 

dropped out, died, or aged out. 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

dyslexia, with a smaller number having some type of emotional, mental, or 

physical impairment, as shown in figure 1. 

Figure 1: Disability Characteristics of IDEA Youth Leaving High School in School 

Year 2000-01 

Note: Disability types included in the “other” category are speech or language impairments, multiple 

disabilities, hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, visual impairments, autism, deaf-blindness, 

traumatic brain injury, and other health impairments. They have been combined into a single category 

because each of these disability groups represents less than 10 percent of IDEA youth population 

leaving high school. 

In an effort to raise expectations for IDEA youth and to make school 

systems accountable for their performance, IDEA Amendments of 1997 

required that these students be included in state and district assessments, 

to the extent possible. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 also required 

school systems to establish annual assessments in order to demonstrate 

that all students, including those with disabilities, made academic 

progress. Although federal law does not mandate that school systems tie 

assessment results to graduation with a standard diploma, current law 

does provide states with the flexibility to implement exit examination 

policies that would require students to pass an exit examination in order 

to graduate with a diploma. 

Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) provides a 

number of resources to assist state and local education agencies in serving 

12%

13%

14%

61% Learning disabilities

Mental retardation

Emotional disturbances

Other

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
Page 7 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

children and youth with disabilities. One such resource is OSEP’s 

Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process, whereby OSEP provides 

feedback to state education officials on state improvement plans they 

develop to address problems providing education and transition services 

to IDEA youth at the state and local level. Another resource is Education’s 

six Regional Resource Centers for Special Education through which OSEP 

facilitates networking and information sharing among states, and helps 

state and local areas improve education programs by providing technical 

assistance, consultation, and training. 

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

assistance to IDEA youth during their transition from high school into 

postsecondary education or employment through programs administered 

by agencies such as Education, the Department of Labor (Labor), and the 

Social Security Administration (SSA). 

The Department of Education. Education’s Rehabilitation Services 

Administration provides funds to state VR agencies to help persons with 

disabilities prepare for and engage in gainful employment. The regulations 

implementing the Rehabilitation Act require state VR programs to develop 

an individualized plan for employment for students eligible for vocational 

rehabilitation services before they leave school. Furthermore, for a 

student with a disability who is receiving special education services, this 

plan must be coordinated with the student’s IEP in terms of goals, 

objectives, and services. 

The Department of Labor. Labor’s Employment and Training 

Administration oversees the implementation of the Workforce Investment 

Act of 1998. The Workforce Investment Act promotes partnerships among 

diverse programs and community representatives, including educational 

institutions. For all youth, who are between 14 and 21 years of age, WIA 

includes provisions for preparing them for the transition from high school 

to employment and postsecondary education that may interrelate to the 

transition requirements under IDEA. 

The Social Security Administration. 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 

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries and disabled or 

blind Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries, who are between 
Page 8 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

18 and 64 years of age, to obtain the services necessary to find, enter, and 

retain employment.6

During the 2000-01 school year, almost 70 percent of IDEA youth 

completed high school with a standard diploma or an alternative 

credential.7

 Completion rates for IDEA youth remained stable over recent 

years despite concerns that states’ increasing use of high school exit 

examinations would result in higher dropout rates. IDEA youth who leave 

high school without a standard diploma have some options for entering 

employment or postsecondary education, but national data on their 

postsecondary status are over a decade old. Nearly half of the states 

routinely collect such data, but states’ data collection systems are subject 

to a number of limitations. Most states used these data for purposes such 

as monitoring or improving programs that serve IDEA youth, but several 

officials involved with state data collection efforts had concerns about 

whether states were employing the best approaches to collecting and 

using these data. 

During the 2000-01 school year, 57 percent of IDEA youth completed high 

school with a standard diploma and an additional 11 percent completed 

high school with an alternative credential. Students with some types of 

disabilities were much less likely to complete high school with a standard 

diploma, receiving alternative credentials or dropping out instead. (See 

table 1.) For example, in 2000-01, about 28 percent of high school 

graduates with mental retardation received an alternative credential 

instead of a diploma, compared with about 11 percent for the overall 

population of IDEA youth. Dropout rates for youth with emotional 

disturbances were generally more than twice as high as for youth with 

other disabilities; more than half of these students dropped out during the 

2000-01 school year compared with about one-fourth or less of their peers 

with other disability types. 

 6

SSDI is provided to workers who become disabled for as long as they cannot work due to 

their medical condition, and the amount of the benefit is based on past earnings. SSI is 

provided to individuals who can demonstrate financial need and have a disability affecting 

their ability to participate in any substantial gainful activity, whether or not they have 

worked in the past. 

7

An OSEP official said that students leaving high school without a standard diploma are 

still eligible to receive special education services until they receive a diploma or age out. 

A Majority of IDEA 

Youth Complete High 

School, but Data on 

Transitions Are 

Limited 

A Majority of IDEA Youth 

Complete High School 

with a Diploma, but 

Differences Exist among 

Disability Types 
Page 9 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Table 1: High School Completion and Dropout Rates by Disability Type, 2000-01 

School Year 

Completion rate 

Disability Diploma 

Alternative 

credential 

Total 

completion 

rate Dropout rate 

All IDEA students 57 11 68 29 

Emotional 

disturbances 39 6 45 53 

Learning disabilities 64 8 71 27 

Mental retardation 40 28 68 25 

Other cognitive 

disabilities 57 20 77 13 

Speech/language 

impairments 64 8 72 26 

Orthopedic 

impairments 64 11 76 18 

Sensory impairments 69 14 83 14 

Other health 

impairments 68 7 75 23 

Multiple disabilities 48 20 68 17 

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. 

Notes: Total completion rate may not equal the sum of diploma and alternative credential rates 

because of rounding errors. 

Total completion and dropout rates do not add to 100 because a small percentage of students aged 

out of high school or died. 

We found no data source that could be used to compare high school 

completion rates for IDEA and general education students. The National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) had data from 33 states on all 

youth who completed high school during the 1999-2000 school year, as 

well as data from 36 states and the District of Columbia on all youth who 

dropped out during that year. These data show that among the 33 states, 

high school completion rates for all youth ranged from about 63 percent to 
Page 10 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

89 percent. Among 37 states, dropout rates ranged from about 3 percent to 

9 percent.8

Completion and dropout rates for IDEA youth remained stable between 

the 1997-98 and 2000-01 school years. As figure 2 illustrates, the rate of 

IDEA students graduating from high school over that time period with a 

standard diploma or completing high school with an alternative credential 

fluctuated between 67 percent and 69 percent, while the dropout rate 

remained at 29 percent in the latter 3 school years. 

 8

Officials from OSEP and NCES cautioned that there are large differences in the 

methodologies used by the two entities to calculate students’ completion and dropout 

rates. For example, OSEP’s rate is based on the total number of students who left high 

school in a given year, while NCES’ s rate is based on the total number of students enrolled 

in grades 9 through 12 in a given year. In addition, NCES did not provide national totals for 

completion or dropout rates because not all states reported the number of dropouts to 

NCES. 

Graduation Rates 

Remained Stable Despite 

States’ Use of High School 

Exit Examinations 
Page 11 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Figure 2: Completion and Dropout Rates for IDEA Students from 1997-98 to 2000-01 

School Years 

Completion and dropout rates among IDEA youth remained stable despite 

states’ increasing use of exit examinations for students to graduate from 

high school with a standard diploma. While states’ use of exit 

examinations addressed concerns over whether students obtaining a 

diploma are able to demonstrate evidence of academic achievement, it 

also generated concerns that dropout rates will rise among youth unable 

to pass such examinations, particularly among youth with disabilities. A 

study of 1998-99 completion and dropout rates sponsored by Education 

did not show higher dropout rates in states with exit examinations, or 

among the various disability groups.9

 We updated that analysis using 

 9

Berry, Hugh and William Halloran, Graduation Exam Requirements and Students with 

Disabilities: A Correlational Study of Disability, Race, and Outcomes (Washington, D.C: 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 

February 2003). 

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001

School year

56

11

31

58

11

29

56

11

29

57

11

29

Diploma rate

Certificate rate

Dropout rate

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
Page 12 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

states’ completion and dropout rates from the 2000-01 school year, and 

found similar results.10

Despite these study results, the effect of exit examinations on IDEA 

graduation rates has not been fully tested because most states have been 

providing IDEA youth with different options, such as exempting them 

from the examinations, modifying the examinations to various extents, or 

offering alternative exit credentials that do not require students to pass the 

exit examinations.11 For example, IDEA students in Georgia can petition 

for an exemption from the state’s exit examination and still receive a 

diploma. New York allows students with disabilities who are unable to 

pass state’s exit examinations to take a modified and less rigorous version. 

Other modifications available to IDEA youth in some states include using 

different scoring criteria or allowing IDEA students to retake the 

examination. In addition, more than half of the states with exit 

examinations also offered alternative credentials. For example, Alabama 

allows IDEA students to obtain an occupational diploma based on 

completion of courses incorporating certain career and technical 

education standards, such as Consumer Mathematics and Employment 

English in lieu of traditional Mathematics and English. A state official from 

Alabama stated that offering such alternative credentials assists the state 

in raising academic standards for all students without increasing IDEA 

youth’s dropout rate. 

IDEA youth completing high school with alternative credentials or 

dropping out do have some opportunities to immediately enter 

employment. State and local officials, as well as employer representatives 

in states we visited, indicated that some employers place higher value on 

the prospective applicant’s job skills, such as willingness to learn and 

ability to interact with others, than on a specific graduation document. For 

example, New York officials from the State Workforce Investment Board 

 10We updated Education’s analysis for all IDEA students, but not for individual disability 

groups. 

11Education’s analysis of 1998-99 completion rates showed that the percentage of IDEA 

youth receiving a certificate in states with exit examination requirements was 

approximately 16 percent, compared with about 6 percent for states without such 

requirements. We updated that analysis for the 2000-01 school year and found that about 

14 percent of IDEA youth in states that have implemented the exit examination 

requirement received a certificate compared with about 9 percent of IDEA youth in states 

that did not have such requirement or have not fully implemented it. 

IDEA Youth Transitioning 

from High School without 

Standard Diplomas Have 

Some Options for Entering 

Employment or 

Postsecondary Education 
Page 13 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

and a local Employment and Training Center said that employers would be 

willing to hire youth with disabilities without a standard diploma and 

provide job related training as long as they had the necessary 

communication skills and basic work ethic. 

Options for pursuing postsecondary education include programs focusing 

on vocational education and skills training, as well as academic programs. 

In California, for example, IDEA youth can enter Regional Occupational 

Programs that lead to vocational certificates in a wide range of fields. 

While high school diplomas may not be necessary for such programs, 

other prerequisites, such as entrance examinations, may be required. 

Community colleges are another option for youth wishing to pursue a 

college degree. In many states, community colleges have an open 

enrollment policy, admitting students regardless of high school diploma 

status. Some community colleges, however, may require youth to pass an 

entrance examination to determine if they have the ability to benefit from 

the college’s academic programs. Youth who do not pass the entrance 

examination may enroll in remedial adult education courses to prepare for 

the examination or obtain a high school equivalency degree. 

Data from Education’s National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS), 

showing the proportion of IDEA youth who obtain jobs or pursue 

postsecondary education after high school, are over a decade old.12

Education is currently funding NLTS2, but information on the long-term 

transition outcomes of students included in the study is not yet available 

since they are only now beginning to complete high school.13 These 

national studies are not representative at the state level. However, 

according to our national survey of state Directors of Special Education, 

nearly half of the states routinely collect data on students’ transition for 

their own use.14 (See fig. 3.) 

 12Education funded NLTS in the late 1980s and early 1990s, providing information on a 

nationally representative sample of students ages 13 to 21 enrolled in special education 

programs in the 1985-86 school year. 

13Education plans to conduct the study until 2010 and release reports annually. The study 

involves a nationally representative sample of special education students who were 13 to 

16 years old as of December 2000. 

14In addition, state education officials from Kansas, Maine, and Minnesota reported to us 

that they are in the process of developing and implementing a routine data collection 

system. 

State Data Showing 

Transition of IDEA Youth 

into Employment and 

Postsecondary Education 

Have Limitations 
Page 14 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Figure 3: States That Collect Data on IDEA Youth Leaving High School 

Costs and funding sources for the data collection efforts varied among 

states. (See app. II, table 8.) To fund their data collection efforts, most 

states used federal funds such as those provided under IDEA, and some 

Source: GAO survey data.

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

Alaska

Hawaii

Vt.

Ala.

Ariz.

Ark.

Calif. Colo.

Ga.

Idaho

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Maine

Mich.

Minn.

Mo.

Mont.

Nebr. Nev.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak.

Okla.

Oreg.

Pa.

S.C.

S.Dak.

Tenn.

Tex.

Utah

Va.

Wash.

W.Va.

Wisc.

Wyo.

Fla.

Miss.

N.C.

Ohio

Ky.

States without routine data collection efforts

States with routine data collection efforts
Page 15 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

states also used state funding.15 For example, New York is using IDEA 

discretionary funds for a $2.75 million 7-year follow-up study, while 

Florida is spending approximately $400,000 for the state fiscal year 

2002-03 effort, using primarily general state revenues. 

Despite state efforts to collect information on the postsecondary 

employment and education status of IDEA youth, state methodologies 

have limitations that preclude using the data to represent the status of 

IDEA youth in the state, or decrease the usefulness of the data in other 

ways. (See app. II, table 9 and fig. 4 for information on state methodologies 

and type of data states have available.) 

• Selection of students. Ten states did not design their follow-up efforts to 

include a representative sample of IDEA youth. For example, Alabama and 

California collected data only on students in those school districts 

participating in the states’ model transition initiatives. In addition, 

approximately half of the states collecting data did not include IDEA youth 

who had dropped out of high school. 

• Adjusting for nonresponse bias. At least 8 states had a response rate of 

less than 50 percent. For example, Texas had a response rate of less than 

12 percent. Moreover, none of the states reported that they conducted 

analyses comparing the characteristics of respondents and 

nonrespondents to identify possible sources of bias in the results. 

• Ability to disaggregate data. Six states did not collect information on 

IDEA students’ disability type. In addition, 2 states collected information 

on the outcomes of all students without the ability to differentiate between 

outcomes for IDEA youth and their peers. 

• Timing and number of student follow-ups. All but 1 state followed up 

within 2 years of students leaving high school to obtain information on 

their immediate transition outcomes. For example, Delaware conducted 

its follow-up after 6 months, while Alabama collected information 1 year 

 15IDEA funds included state discretionary grants and State Improvement Grants (SIG). 

Discretionary funds are awarded to states on the basis of a competitive review process. 

SIGs are provided by Education to assist state education agencies and their partners in 

reforming and improving systems for providing educational, early intervention, and 

transitional services, including systems for professional development, technical assistance, 

and dissemination of knowledge about best practices to improve results for children with 

disabilities. 
Page 16 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

after graduation. However, only 8 states collected data at more than one 

point in time to examine students’ long-term transition outcomes. 

• Type of data available. Only 6 states had data on how many students 

were both employed and attending postsecondary school. These data are 

necessary to determine the overall proportion of IDEA youth transitioning 

to these activities after high school. Only 11 states collected information 

on reasons why some students failed to successfully transition into 

employment or postsecondary education. 

While studies from most of the states with routine data collection efforts, 

by themselves, are of insufficient methodological quality to be cited alone, 

together they show that the majority of IDEA youth were working or going 

to school within a year of leaving high school, and that they were more 

likely to be employed than to be enrolled in postsecondary education 

programs. For example, in Wisconsin, a state with one of the more sound 

approaches to data collection and analysis, 88 percent of IDEA youth who 

left high school between December 1999 and 2000 participated in an 

employment or educational activity 1 year later. Of these youth, 80 percent 

reported being employed and 47 percent reported attending some type of 

postsecondary education institution.16 These results are consistent with 

the national survey findings from the early 1990s. 

Most states that collected data have been using them for purposes such as 

monitoring school districts or targeting schools for technical assistance. 

(See app. II, table 10 for examples of state uses of data.) For example, 

Idaho looked at the transition outcomes of students in order to select 

school districts for focused monitoring, and New York prioritized its 

technical assistance to school districts that appeared to be struggling with 

transition. Nearly one-third of these states, however, did not regularly 

share the results with local school systems. 

Finally, while more than half of the states do not routinely collect data on 

postsecondary employment and education status of IDEA youth, most 

expressed interest in doing so. However, officials familiar with state data 

collection efforts indicated that state and local school systems did not 

always have appropriate guidance on how data could be collected, 

analyzed, and used to improve programs and outcomes for youth with 

 16Percentages do not add to 100 since some youth may have been both employed and in 

school; the results are unweighted. 
Page 17 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

disabilities. For example, officials in 2 states reported that they were not 

certain whether their surveys included appropriate questions related to 

students’ postsecondary status. In another state, an official reported that 

local school systems did not have the necessary expertise to use data 

available to them for purposes such as improving programs for IDEA 

youth. 

A variety of problems that impede IDEA youth transition to postsecondary 

education and employment have been consistently reported by youth, 

parents, teachers, and others. States and local education agencies are 

addressing some of the reported problems related to education and work 

experiences youth receive while in school; however, transportation 

problems are less likely to be addressed at the state and local level. State 

Directors of Special Education are generally satisfied with assistance 

provided to them by Education in addressing transition issues at the state 

and local level, but some expressed concerns about the timeliness of 

federal feedback on their state improvement plans and inconsistency in 

the quality of technical assistance provided by federal Regional Resource 

Centers. 

Discussions with students, parents, teachers, and others during our site 

visits revealed that a variety of transition problems still remain that have 

been consistently reported by these groups in past surveys and published 

studies. Transition problems affecting IDEA youth include those related to 

self-advocacy training and insufficient information about the transition 

process. For example, youth responding to a national survey by a youth 

association,17 reported problems identifying and learning how to ask for 

specific accommodations they need to succeed in school and the 

workplace. In addition, parents we interviewed said they did not have 

information about the spectrum of education and employment service 

providers that were available. Other problems included an absence of 

linkages to adult service providers, insufficient vocational education and 

work-related experiences obtained during high school, and lack of 

 17The survey was conducted by the National Youth Leadership Network during 2001-02 and 

included responses from 202 youth with disabilities between the ages of 16 and 24. Survey 

respondents came from 34 states and the District of Columbia but were not randomly 

selected and survey results cannot be generalized to the national population of youth with 

disabilities. 

Problems Impeding 

Transition of IDEA 

Youth into 

Postsecondary 

Education and 

Employment Remain 

Partially Addressed 

Poor Linkages between 

Schools and Youth Service 

Providers and Other 

Problems Impeding IDEA 

Youth Transition Have 

Been Partially Addressed 

at the State and Local 

Level 
Page 18 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

transportation after high school to the job site or postsecondary school. 

(See table 2.) 

Table 2: Problems Reported by Stakeholders in the Transition Process 

Transition problem Stakeholders 

Lack of self-advocacy training Youth 

Insufficient information about transition process Parents 

Absence of linkages between school systems and service 

providers 

Teachers 

Lack of vocational education and community work experience Researchers 

Lack of transportation Federal, state, and local 

officials 

Source: National Youth Leadership Network 2001-02 Youth Survey, site visits, Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education 

(SPeNSE), NLTS2, and our interviews. 

Self-advocacy training. Youth with disabilities responding to a national 

survey by a youth association, reported problems obtaining knowledge 

about their rights under laws like IDEA and the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990,18 and identifying and learning how to ask 

for specific accommodations they need to succeed in school and the 

workplace. Research shows that many youth with disabilities have 

difficulties developing the necessary attitudes and skills to prepare for 

their lives after graduation, but suggest that youth who obtain selfdetermination skills are more likely to achieve positive education and 

employment outcomes. State Directors of Special Education in 24 states 

reported that less than half of IDEA students received self-advocacy 

training while in high school. 

Many states and local education agencies have taken various actions to 

provide and promote self-advocacy training. For example, 3 states passed 

legislation or developed regulations mandating self-advocacy curriculum 

in schools according to our survey of state Directors of Special Education, 

and 44 percent of local education agencies include self-advocacy training 

for IDEA youth in their curriculum according to a national survey by 

Education.19 While a national survey of personnel serving students with 

 18The ADA prohibits discrimination in employment, public services, and public 

accommodations against qualified individuals with disabilities. 

19SLIIDEA collected transition data in 1999-2000 from the 50 states and a nationally 

representative sample of districts and schools that serve children with disabilities. 
Page 19 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

disabilities20 shows that less than two thirds of special education teachers 

frequently teach self-determination skills, Directors of Special Education 

in about half of the 50 states we surveyed reported introducing programs 

to train teachers on how to teach self-advocacy skills. 

Transition process. Parents interviewed during our site visits reported 

problems helping their child navigate the transition process as students 

prepare to leave high school for the adult world. Research shows that 

when parents participate in their child’s education, their child improves 

academically and has higher aspirations for school and career 

development. However, parents from our site visits and family support 

groups said that they did not have the necessary information to adequately 

participate in their child’s transition from high school. Parents we 

interviewed said they did not have information about where to go for 

assistance after high school, the spectrum of education and employment 

service providers that were available, and the type and level of support 

that may be offered by providers. Moreover, they were unaware of the 

ADA or other laws protecting their children’s rights, and family support 

resources available to them in the community such as Parent Training and 

Information Centers.21

States have taken some actions to provide this knowledge to parents. 

Eight states indicated in our survey that they have passed legislation or 

regulations to include parents or advocacy groups in transition planning 

while youth are in high school.22 In addition, at least three-fourths of the 

states are funding parent centers or other family advocacy groups, 

establishing task forces and workgroups, and providing technical 

assistance to local school systems. Ongoing efforts also exist in over half 

 20SPeNSE surveyed personnel from a nationally representative sample of districts, 

intermediate education agencies, and state schools for students with vision and hearing 

impairments. 

21Parent centers are funded by Education and serve families of children and young adults 

with disabilities. The centers provide training and information to parents and connect 

children with disabilities to community resources that address their needs. Each state has 

at least one parent center, and states with large populations may have more. There are 

approximately 100 parent centers in the United States. 

22IDEA also requires that parents be given the opportunity to attend meetings discussing 

the child’s individualized education program, provide consent to any provision of services 

to the child when given the first time, and be informed of the child’s progress toward 

annual goals. 
Page 20 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

of the states to increase parent participation through developing culturally 

diverse transition materials. 

Linkages between schools and service providers. Teachers 

responding to a national survey by Education23 reported that in the area of 

IDEA youth transition, more than half rarely, if ever, coordinate referrals 

to adult service providers. National data from NLTS show that more than 

85 percent of IDEA youth received services that were sought after high 

school, and IDEA legislation requires that a student’s IEP include a 

statement of interagency responsibilities or any needed linkages, if 

appropriate, to ensure that IDEA youth will receive the services needed to 

achieve their postsecondary education or career goals. Twenty-one state 

Directors of Special Education reported in our survey that many local 

school systems do not have designated intermediaries to establish such 

linkages, and 18 Directors of Special Education said that their agency also 

had difficulty coordinating with other state agencies outside of the school 

system. Teachers from our site visits cited lack of time and knowledge 

about available service providers as part of the problem. 

All states are taking some action to provide direction and resources for 

improving linkages between schools and service providers. Ten states 

reported in our survey that they passed legislation or regulations providing 

for greater coordination between schools and service providers. In 

addition, according to Education’s survey of state and local education 

areas, while less than half of school districts reported having a transition 

coordinator at each high school, all but 3 states reported hiring state 

transition coordinators who can assist teachers in their efforts to link 

students with providers after high school. All states reported providing 

technical assistance or training to local education agencies on interagency 

coordination, with Connecticut also developing policies and procedures 

for students to access adult services, and Utah providing training to other 

state agencies on IDEA transition requirements. 

Vocational education and community work experience. Findings 

based on parent interviews from NLTS2 show that 24 percent of youth 

received vocational services and 60 percent had paid work experiences 

while in high school, despite findings from the SLIIDEA study that about 

90 percent of high schools reported offering prevocational training and 

work experience to IDEA students. Past research has shown that IDEA 

 23SPeNSE. 
Page 21 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

youth who received these services experienced higher rates of successful 

transition. For example, NLTS researchers reported that youth with 

disabilities obtaining vocational education and community work 

experience had been less likely to drop out of school, and achieved greater 

success in obtaining employment with higher earnings.24 Those conducting 

more recent state and local studies reported similar results. State and local 

education officials from 3 states we visited indicated that school districts 

have difficulties offering an appropriate mix of vocational programs that 

reflect the job market demands as well as meet the students’ career 

interests. 

States and local education agencies have taken various actions to provide 

and promote vocational education and career preparation opportunities 

for IDEA youth. Nine Directors of Special Education in our state survey 

said that their state had passed legislation or regulations requiring 

vocational education and career preparation for IDEA students, and most 

Directors of Special Education said that they disseminated best practices 

in the area of vocational education and career preparation. Other actions 

taken by half of the states included funding outreach and collaboration 

efforts of local education agencies to create vocational education and 

work opportunities. 

Transportation. Federal, state, and local officials in 3 states we visited all 

said that many youth may not have access to transportation they need to 

pursue employment and postsecondary education. In rural areas, public 

transportation may be very limited, or may not be available during the time 

needed to get to their job site or college. Availability of transportation is 

not always the only issue. One parent told us that using public 

transportation was not feasible because her child suffered from seizures. 

While private providers may be better prepared to serve youth with 

disabilities, parents and advocacy groups said that private providers were 

often unreliable and their services were not coordinated with public 

transportation systems. An advocacy official indicated that one reason 

why these providers are unreliable is because they generally operate on a 

priority system that gives medical needs a higher priority than employment 

needs. 

 24NLTS showed that vocational education has a positive impact on both education and 

employment outcomes for the majority of students, while work experience has a positive 

impact on education for all students with disabilities and on employment for students with 

orthopedic or health impairments. 
Page 22 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

The 3 states we visited had not addressed transition issues related to the 

lack of reliable transportation in their state improvement plans.25 State 

education officials said these types of problems are outside their area of 

responsibility. In New York and California, however, some local areas are 

taking initiative to address this problem. In western New York, a 

collaborative endeavor involving 30 agencies provides transportation, as 

well as other services, to youth with disabilities to help them in career 

preparation activities. In California, youth workforce development centers 

work with the Sacramento Regional Transit District to provide 

complementary transit tickets to youth with disabilities so they can come 

to the centers for educational and employment services. 

Over half of state Directors of Special Education reported that federal 

assistance was very helpful in assisting states address transition problems, 

but some stated that the timeliness or consistency of assistance could be 

improved. One of the ways Education provides assistance to states is by 

providing feedback on state improvement plans that states develop and 

use to show how they plan to address areas of weakness in implementing 

IDEA, including transition requirements.26 While 39 state Directors of 

Special Education found this feedback useful, some expressed 

dissatisfaction over Education’s timeliness in providing the feedback. For 

example, of 21 state plans submitted to Education in 2002, only one-fourth 

received feedback within 6 months, and at least another one-fifth did not 

receive formal written feedback for a year or more. (See table 3.) 

 25We previously reported on federal, state and local actions needed to coordinate 

transportation services, U.S. General Accounting Office, Transportation - Disadvantaged 

Populations: Some Coordination Efforts Among Programs Providing Transportation 

Services, but Obstacles Persist, GAO-03-697 (Washington D.C.: June 30, 2003). 

26For more information on Education’s oversight process, see U.S. General Accounting 

Office, Special Education: Clearer Guidance Would Enhance Implementation of Federal 

Disciplinary Provisions, GAO-03-550 (Washington D.C.: May 20, 2003). 

Education Provides Some 

Assistance to States in 

Addressing Transition 

Problems, but Concerns 

Remain about Timeliness 

and Consistency of 

Assistance 
Page 23 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Table 3: Education’s Response Time as of March 26, 2003, to States Submitting 

Improvement Plans in 2002 

State 

State 

submission date 

Federal 

response date 

Elapsed time 

in months 

Response received 

Minnesota February-02 March-03 14

Illinois January-02 February-03 14

Connecticut February-02 December-02 10

Delaware February-02 October-02 8

Idaho April-02 December-02 8

Nevada July-02 January-03 7

Oklahoma July-02 January-03 6

Wyoming May-02 October-02 4

Virginia October-02 February-03 4

Michigan July-02 October-02 3

New Hampshire August-02 October-02 2

Response pending 

South Carolina February-02 Pending 14+

Texas March-02 Pending 13+

Oregon June-02 Pending 9+

North Carolina June-02 Pending 9+

Tennessee July-02 Pending 9+

Rhode Island July-02 Pending 9+

Kentucky July-02 Pending 9+

Indiana July-02 Pending 9+

Georgia September-02 Pending 7+

Iowa October-02 Pending 6+

Source: Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. 

Education does not have a standard response period and has not set a 

performance goal for providing feedback to states on their improvement 

plans. While Education officials stated that they provide extensive 

informal feedback to states prior to issuing a formal written response, they 

also stated that they are taking action to try and expedite the agency’s 

formal written responses. To preclude delays on the formal written 

feedback resulting from the agency’s internal review process, Education 

has developed standard language and written review procedures to be 

used in preparing feedback. According to Education officials, having 

standard language and review procedures will decrease the time necessary 
Page 24 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

to write and review the feedback report. They also hope these actions will 

reduce the response time to states. 

Another way Education provides assistance to states is by funding 

6 Regional Resource Centers that states can use to obtain technical 

assistance for addressing transition issues.27 Services provided to states by 

the centers include guidance, training, information dissemination, 

assistance with state development of training materials, and facilitation of 

meetings states convene to address problems. Directors of Special 

Education in 29 states reported in our survey that assistance obtained 

from the centers was very helpful, but there are some concerns that the 

quality of services was sometimes inconsistent among the centers. One 

center, for example, consistently received high marks from the states in 

that region, while the remaining 5 centers received mixed reviews. 

State and center officials attributed the inconsistent quality of services to 

variation in the expertise available at each center, an observation also 

reported in a previous performance evaluation of the centers.28 This 

evaluation recommended that Education provide training to alleviate the 

disparity in staff expertise, particularly with regard to transition issues. In 

response to this issue, Education officials said that the agency offers 

periodic professional development opportunities and encourages the 

centers to operate as a network by sharing knowledge and expertise. 

Despite these efforts, however, some states still have concerns about 

service quality and are turning to private consultants to obtain help with 

transition issues. 

 27Education also funds the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition to 

coordinate national resources, offer technical assistance, and disseminate information 

related to secondary education and transition for youth with disabilities in order to create 

opportunities for youth to achieve successful futures. 

28The performance evaluation of the Regional Resource Centers was conducted by 

Education’s Federal Resource Center of Special Education—June 2001. 
Page 25 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

The VR, WIA, and Ticket programs all offer services that can aid some 

IDEA youth in their transition to postsecondary education or employment. 

While the federal agencies administering these programs are not required 

to track how many IDEA youth use them, several factors may impede 

participation by the IDEA populations that are eligible for services. One 

factor limiting services under VR and WIA is insufficient program capacity 

to serve all eligible populations requesting services. Another factor 

affecting participation under the Ticket program is family concerns about 

whether finding employment would result in youth losing public 

assistance. A factor that may affect IDEA youth participation in all 

programs to various extents is a general lack of awareness by youth and 

families that these federal resources are available for transition assistance. 

The VR, WIA, and Ticket programs all offer an array of similar and 

complementary education, employment, and support services for certain 

population groups. 

Education services. These services can support youth who are trying to 

complete their high school education as well as those youth furthering 

their education in postsecondary institutions, such as community colleges. 

Services for youth at all education levels can include those that prepare 

them for learning by providing tutoring and study skills training as well as 

providing access to educational programs through tuition support. 

Education services support both out of school youth, as well as those at 

risk of dropping out. We observed a tutoring program in an Alabama 

school district, for example, that used WIA funds to assist high school 

youth who are struggling academically. 

Employment services. These services can assist IDEA youth that are 

trying to obtain a job or obtain job skills necessary to increase potential 

wages. Services for youth in either situation can include those that prepare 

them for employment by providing job coaching and training, as well as 

direct placement with an employer. A service provider under the Ticket 

program in New York, for example, said that in addition to employment 

preparation services, they help find jobs for enrollees. 

Support services. These services can assist IDEA youth pursue their 

education and employment goals as well as achieve goals for independent 

living. These services can include mentoring and counseling, childcare, 

and transportation, as well as any other services that might be needed. In 

California, for example, the VR agency has cooperative agreements with 

education agencies to provide support services to youth with disabilities, 

The VR, WIA, and 

Ticket Programs 

Provide Transition 

Services, but Several 

Factors May Limit the 

Number of IDEA 

Youth Who Use Them 

The VR, WIA, and Ticket 

Programs Provide a Variety 

of Education and 

Employment Transition 

Services 
Page 26 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

including financial assistance for assistive technology, such as wheelchairs 

and adapted computers, conducting vocational assessments for students, 

and providing information on options for both independent and supported 

living facilities. 

IDEA youth are not automatically eligible for these education, 

employment, and support services, and the VR, WIA, and Ticket programs 

serve populations that are both different and overlapping. Of the 

approximately 2 million IDEA youth ages 14 to 21, only some of these 

youth are eligible for these federally funded services. 

• Under the VR program, all people with a physical or mental impairment 

are potentially eligible for services, but states may only serve those with 

the most significant disabilities in times of funding constraint. The former 

administrator of Oregon’s VR program said that in the past the state was 

unable to serve some youth with psychiatric disorders due to funding 

constraints. 

• WIA primarily limits services to low-income youth that have some type of 

barrier to employment.29 While disabilities under IDEA may qualify as 

barriers for WIA purposes, available data suggest that only about 29 

percent of IDEA youth meet WIA’s low-income requirement.30

• To qualify for the Ticket program, individuals must be at least 18 years old, 

and qualify for disability benefits from SSA.31 Available data suggest that 

about 13 percent of the IDEA youth population meets Ticket’s age and 

benefit requirements.32

Education, Labor, and SSA are not required to track the number of IDEA 

youth who are enrolled and obtaining transition services provided through 

 29Under WIA, youth are eligible for services if they fall within one or more of the following 

categories: deficit in basic skills, school dropout, homeless, runaway, or foster child, 

pregnant or parent, has disability, offender, or requires additional assistance to obtain 

employment. Income qualification can be waived for up to 5 percent of youth in a local 

area. 

30To estimate the percentage of IDEA youth eligible for WIA programs, we used data 

reported in the NLTS2 survey on income of IDEA youth’s families. 

31Benefits are provided under the SSI program and the SSDI program. 

32We determined the percentage of IDEA youth eligible for the Ticket program by using 

data provided by SSA on the number of youth ages 18 to 21 receiving Social Security and 

SSI disability benefits. 
Page 27 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

the VR, WIA, and Ticket programs.33 However, available data for all youth 

show that over 550,000 were enrolled and received services during the 

time frames outlined in table 4. 

Table 4: All Youth Ages 14 to 21 Served by Selected Federal Programs 

Program Time frame Youth served

VR 10/1/01-9/30/02 175,000a

WIA 7/1/01-6/31/02 376,014

Ticket 2/02-11/02b 496

Total 551,510

Source: The Department of Education’s Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Council for State Administrators of Vocational 

Rehabilitation, the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration, and the Social Security Administration. 

a

The estimate of the number of youth served is based on the proportion of youth (ages 14-21) who 

exited the VR program in fiscal year 2001. 

b

This time period reflects the first 9 months that Ticket was implemented in 13 states. 

While federal agencies are not required to collect data on the type of 

education, employment, and support services actually provided to IDEA 

youth under the VR, WIA, and Ticket programs, Education and Labor do 

collect information on services provided to all youth ages 14 to 21.34

Education data on the approximately 94,000 youth who received services 

and exited the VR program in fiscal year 2001 show that three-fourths of 

youth obtained vocational, medical, and social counseling, and more youth 

obtained employment services than services to further their education or 

training. (See table 5.) 

 33In fiscal year 2002, Education began collecting data on IDEA youth. 

34SSA does not collect data on services provided to participants in the Ticket program. 
Page 28 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Table 5: Selected Services Provided to Youth through the VR Program in Fiscal 

Year 2001 

Type of service 

Percent of youth 

ages 14 to 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 guidancea 74

Transportation services 23

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration. 

a

Counseling and guidance includes personal adjustment counseling, counseling that addresses 

medical, family, or social issues, vocational counseling, and any other form of counseling necessary 

for an individual to achieve an employment outcome. 

Labor data on the approximately 80,000 youth who received services and 

exited the WIA program in fiscal year 2001 show that about 40 percent of 

youth obtained employment and education services, but less than onefourth received support services. (See table 6.)35

Table 6: Selected Services Provided through WIA in Program Year 2001 

Type of service 

Percent of youth 

ages14 to 21 served 

Employment services 41 

Summer employment opportunities 50 

Educational services 38 

Support services 18 

Leadership development opportunities 15 

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Department of Labor. 

 35These data may be incomplete as the data set had a number of missing records. 
Page 29 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

While IDEA youth vary in their need and desire to use federal transition 

services, there are several factors that may impede their access to them. 

Three factors that may limit IDEA youth participation include 

(1) limitations in program capacity to serve the eligible population seeking 

services, (2) youth and family fears that employment income may 

jeopardize access to other public assistance, and (3) a lack of awareness 

about the availability of the transition resources. 

Program capacity. In regard to program capacity, the VR, WIA, and 

Ticket programs face different issues in serving IDEA youth eligible for 

their services. These problems include a lack of expertise to serve youth 

with disabilities, a lack of resources to serve all those seeking services, 

and unavailability of services in some states. For example: 

• Under the VR program, IDEA youth compete with all adults and youth 

with disabilities for services. Education officials report that a number of 

states have waiting lists for VR services. At the end of fiscal year 2001, for 

example, VR agencies had more people seeking services than resources to 

serve them, and about 30,000 people in 25 states were on waiting lists for 

services. (See app. III.)36 Of this total, Education reported that about 

20 percent, or about 6,000 individuals, were on a waiting list for VR 

services in Washington state. 

• Under WIA, IDEA youth compete with all youth facing some type of 

barrier to employment, and older youth also compete with adults for 

services under the WIA adult program.37 WIA officials told us that WIA 

providers generally do not have the expertise to serve youth with 

disabilities,38 and in some cases facilities do not have the appropriate 

physical accommodations. In light of these deficiencies, WIA officials told 

us that this population is often referred to VR agencies for assessment and 

services. 

• The Ticket program has resources to serve all eligible youth seeking 

services; however, this new program has not yet been implemented in all 

 36Moreover, Education officials informed us that the presence of waiting lists might keep 

additional individuals from seeking VR services. 

37WIA does allow local areas to waive income qualification criteria for up to 5 percent of 

youth served. 

38SSA has partnered with Labor to place disability navigators at all WIA assistance facilities. 

The navigators will have expertise in Social Security disability programs, disability law, and 

other relevant issues. 

Lack of Awareness and 

Other Factors May Impede 

IDEA Youth Participation 

in Federally Funded 

Transition Services 
Page 30 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

states. SSA plans to complete its rollout of the program to the final 

17 states and the U.S. territories by 2004, which will increase access to the 

program for over half of the approximately 257,000 youth receiving 

assistance from SSA.39 (See app. IV.) 

Fear of losing public assistance. A second contributing factor may be 

that some youth and families that receive public assistance are afraid that 

employment income will jeopardize their access to other federal and state 

public assistance benefits such as health insurance and subsidized 

housing. SSA reports that less than 1 percent of eligible youth had signed 

up for the Ticket program to increase self-sufficiency. In the 3 states we 

visited, 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. While some of these fears may be unfounded, others are not, and 

working and receiving income can affect youth’s ability to retain services 

such as health insurance benefits through Medicaid.40 For example, while 

SSA has encouraged states to offer beneficiaries the opportunity to retain 

Medicaid benefits while earning wages, only about half of the states have 

established such policies. (See app. V.) While some programs allow youth 

to earn a certain amount of income and retain benefits, amounts allowed 

under the various assistance programs can differ, and many families are 

not aware of the contingencies. Although youth unable to sustain 

employment can re-enroll in public assistance programs, parents we spoke 

with stated that enrollment in the various programs is a lengthy and 

difficult process that they do not want to repeat. 

Lack of awareness of available federal services. Finally, a third factor 

that may limit IDEA youth participation in federal programs is that many 

youth and families are unaware that they exist. While IDEA legislation 

requires schools to provide youth with transition services and information 

about available transition resources, students, parents, and teachers we 

spoke with in the 3 states visited were generally uninformed about the 

continuum of available federal transition services and how to access them. 

Most of those we talked with were familiar with the VR program and the 

 39As of December 2002, about 244,000 youth between ages 18 to 21 were SSI recipients and 

about 13,000 youth 21 and under were SSDI recipients. 

40Medicaid is a jointly funded, federal-state entitlement program that finances health care 

coverage for low-income individuals. 
Page 31 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

types of services it provides.41 However, many were unfamiliar with the 

Ticket program, and familiarity with the services provided through the 

Workforce Investment Act assistance centers varied dramatically within 

and among states. In one California suburban community, a high school 

we visited had a close working relationship with the local assistance 

center, and school administrators, teachers, and students were aware of 

the services available there. However, teachers, parents, and students we 

talked to at an urban New York school were unfamiliar with the assistance 

centers that provide WIA services, even though a center was located only a 

few miles away. 

Education, Labor, and SSA recognize that action is needed to reach out to 

youth and families and tell them about federal resources such as the VR, 

WIA, and Ticket programs. While these agencies have several efforts 

underway to publicize or increase awareness of available resources, these 

efforts may not include information on all federal transition resources, or 

reach youth, families, and teachers involved in developing transition plans 

for youth leaving high school. For example: 

• Education’s Regional Resource Center in the Southeast developed a guide 

to inform students and families about available resources, but this guide 

does not include information about WIA services. The guide is available on 

the Web, but there is no consistent distribution process to provide the 

guide to all youth and families in all states served by the center. 

• Labor partnered with SSA and other federal agencies to identify more than 

200 federal programs among 12 federal agencies that serve persons with 

disabilities. A Labor official said that once the report is finalized, it will be 

available to the public, including IDEA youth and families; however, this 

report is primarily targeted to policymakers and program officials. 

• SSA has several efforts underway to increase awareness of the Ticket 

program among other federal and state agencies, service providers, and 

advocacy groups. While the agency is conducting local outreach using 

benefits planning, assistance, and outreach centers as well as protection 

 41VR agencies are required by law to conduct outreach to special education students while 

they are in high school. 
Page 32 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

and advocacy partners, these efforts do not consistently target youth and 

families through high schools.42

Youth served under IDEA are not a homogeneous population, and 

graduation patterns and postsecondary education and employment status 

can differ significantly among those with physical, sensory, emotional, or 

cognitive disabilities. IDEA requires individualized education programs 

that address needed transition services that recognize the unique 

challenges each youth with a disability must face. These programs can 

best be developed when states and schools have the necessary information 

to evaluate how well existing programs are working to assist youth during 

and after graduation. State education officials increasingly show interest 

in collecting data on what happens to IDEA youth after they leave high 

school, and nearly half of the states voluntarily collect such data. Many 

states, however, are still searching for ways to develop cost-effective and 

sound data collection systems and there is no central information point to 

share alternative methodologies that may be most useful for identifying 

which groups of IDEA youth are behind their peers and whether 

programmatic changes are needed to eliminate performance gaps. In the 

absence of guidance and information on how to collect and use 

postsecondary data, state and local education agencies and schools will 

continue to experience difficulties in evaluating the effectiveness of 

existing programs for students with disabilities, initiating program 

improvements, and targeting resources to areas or groups that need them 

most. 

Although state and local education agencies are taking steps to minimize 

transition problems for youth with disabilities, challenges such as 

developing linkages between schools and community youth service 

providers still remain that need to be addressed both inside and outside of 

the education system. While Education provides some federal resources to 

help state and local education agencies address these problems, the 

usefulness of the assistance may be compromised because of delays and 

inconsistent quality of some services. Some transition challenges are likely 

to remain unless federal assistance is strengthened and used to help states 

take a more holistic approach to dealing with transition issues. 

 42Under the Benefits Planning, Assistance, and Outreach Program, SSA has established 

cooperative agreements with entities across the nation to provide benefits counseling and 

assistance, and conduct ongoing outreach efforts to inform beneficiaries of available work 

incentives. SSA also established the Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social 

Security Program to serve SSI and SSDI beneficiaries who want to work. 

Conclusions 
Page 33 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Federal assistance provided under the VR, WIA, and Ticket programs can 

help augment transition services provided by state and local education 

agencies, or fund transportation or other services that are otherwise 

unavailable. While these services are intended to help youth overcome 

barriers to a successful transition, this assistance cannot be provided if 

youth, parents, and education officials are unaware that these services 

exist. In the absence of improved coordination among federal agencies to 

provide these customers with information on the array of available federal 

resources, youth eligible for such services will not be able to use them in 

their efforts to achieve a successful education or employment outcome. 

To expand the availability and use of data on the postsecondary 

employment and education status of IDEA youth, we are recommending 

that Education collect and disseminate information to states on sound 

strategies for collecting these data and appropriately using these data for 

program improvement. 

To enhance federal assistance provided to states to help them address 

existing transition problems, we are recommending that Education 

develop an action plan with specific time frames to 

• provide states with feedback on state improvement plans to address 

education and transition problems of IDEA youth and 

• ensure consistency in the quality of technical assistance provided to states 

by its regional resource centers. 

Finally, to increase awareness of available federal transition services, we 

are recommending that Education take the lead in working with other 

federal agencies to develop strategies for using the federally mandated 

high school transition planning process to provide IDEA youth and their 

families with information about the full complement of federally funded 

transition services. 

We provided a draft of this report to Education, Labor, and SSA officials 

for their review and comment. Agency comments are reprinted in 

appendixes VI, VII, and VIII, respectively. While we made specific 

recommendations to the Department of Education, all agencies agreed 

with the recommendations for executive action and discussed their plans 

to address them. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 34 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Education plans to take steps to implement our recommendations to 

provide information to states on sound data collection strategies, improve 

feedback and technical assistance to states, and work with other federal 

agencies to provide IDEA youth with information about federal transition 

services. Education noted that its plans and actions will depend on 

legislative changes made to the IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act, and that 

action to implement our recommendations will be taken after 

reauthorization of these laws is completed. Education also cautioned that 

because of variations in the collection and reporting of state data on 

student graduation, dropouts, and exit examination policies, it is difficult 

to draw valid conclusions about high school completion outcomes and the 

effect of exit examinations. 

Labor stated that our findings and recommendations substantiated the 

issues and concerns that it has with regard to transition challenges for 

youth with disabilities. Labor also described the steps it has taken to 

address WIA youth program concerns related to program capacity, lack of 

awareness, and eligibility. 

SSA noted that it would continue to work with Education to provide IDEA 

youth and their families with information about SSA programs, work 

incentives, and employment supports. SSA also cited its planning efforts 

that are aimed at promoting employment and economic self-sufficiency 

involving youth with disabilities. 

Education and SSA also provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated where appropriate. 

We will send copies of this report to the Secretaries of Education and 

Labor, SSA, relevant congressional committees, and other interested 

parties. Copies will be made available to others upon request. In addition, 

the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 
Page 35 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Please contact me at (415) 904-2272 if you or your staff has any questions 

about this report. Other major contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix IX. 

Sincerely yours, 

David D. Bellis 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 36 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

In conducting our work, we administered a mail survey to state Directors 

of Special Education in all states, conducted telephone interviews with 

state officials, and visited 3 states. We also reviewed the findings of 

nationally available studies on transition experiences of students covered 

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), interviewed 

officials from the U.S. Department of Education (Education), U.S. 

Department of Labor (Labor), and the Social Security Administration 

(SSA), who are responsible for programs that can assist students during 

transition, and analyzed data from these programs. In addition, we 

interviewed disability advocates and national experts from organizations 

such as the National Organization on Disability, Parent Advocacy Coalition 

for Educational Rights, and Council for Exceptional Children, National 

Center on Secondary Education and Transition, and National Association 

of State Directors of Special Education. We performed our work in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards 

between June 2002 and June 2003. 

To document state graduation and examination policies pertaining to 

IDEA youth, challenges experienced by these youth during transition, 

actions taken by the states to address these challenges, states’ 

assessments of federal resources, as well as to obtain information on state 

efforts to routinely collect data on these students’ postsecondary status, 

we conducted a mail survey, sending questionnaires to state Directors of 

Special Education in 50 states. All 50 states responded to our survey. In 

many states, Directors of Special Education forwarded the survey to other 

individuals, such as state transition coordinators or education specialists, 

that they believed to be most knowledgeable about the issues covered in 

the survey. We analyzed the survey data by calculating descriptive 

statistics, as well as performing content analysis of the responses to openended survey questions. 

To obtain information on states’ efforts to collect data on postsecondary 

employment and education status of IDEA students, we conducted 

telephone interviews with state officials from 21 states who indicated on 

our survey that their states routinely collected these data. We contacted 

individuals in those states that the survey respondents identified as being 

most knowledgeable about data collection efforts in their states, such as 

state education officials or university researchers responsible for data 

collection in the state. To obtain additional information on the data 

collection methodologies used by the states, as well as to learn about 

postsecondary status of IDEA students in those states, we also requested 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Survey 

State Telephone 

Interviews and 

Analysis of State Data 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 37 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

all states participating in the telephone interviews provide their survey 

instruments and any published materials or other available information 

reporting students’ outcomes. 

To obtain information on states’ utilization and assessment of federal 

resources available to assist them in addressing transition problems 

experienced by IDEA youth, we conducted telephone interviews with state 

officials in 11 states. We used our survey results to select states that had 

opposing views on how helpful they believed federal resources were in 

providing assistance to address transition problems. 

To obtain in-depth information on transition experiences of IDEA youth, 

the challenges they are facing in the course of their transition, the extent 

to which federal and other programs are available to serve them, and 

actions taken at the state and local level to address existing transition 

challenges, we made site visits to 3 states—Alabama, California, and New 

York. We selected these states to obtain a mix based on differences in 

geographic location, the size of the IDEA population in the state, high 

school completion patterns, exit examination policies for IDEA youth in 

the state, postsecondary data collection efforts, and state monitoring 

processes, as well as recommendations of experts in transition. We visited 

2 local school systems in each state, representing a combination of urban, 

suburban, and rural areas. (See table 7.) In addition, we consulted with 

state officials in helping us select local school systems with exemplary 

transition practices, as well as those that appeared to be struggling in the 

transition area. 

Table 7: Site Visit States and Local School Systems 

State Local school systems 

Alabama Jefferson 

Auburn 

California Elk GroveSan 

Francisco Unified 

New York Gowanda 

Buffalo City 

Source: GAO data. 

On each visit, we interviewed various stakeholders in the transition 

process at the state and local levels. At the state level, we typically 

interviewed Special Education, vocational rehabilitation (VR), and Labor 

officials, as well as members of the state Steering Committees established 

Site Visits 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 38 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

as part of the federal Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process.1 At the 

local level, we interviewed school district officials responsible for special 

education services, school administrators and special education teachers, 

transition-age IDEA students and parents, community service providers 

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

and SSA officials responsible for local-level implementation of the VR 

program, WIA, and the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency (Ticket) 

program, respectively. 

To obtain information on transition problems as well as state and local 

efforts to address them, we reviewed and summarized the findings of 

nationally available studies that addressed these issues, including the 

Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the IDEA, the 

Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE), the National 

Longitudinal Transition Study-2, and the National Youth Leadership 

Network 2001-02 Youth Survey. We used a statistician to evaluate these 

studies for methodological rigor, as well as to determine the extent to 

which these data could be used to offer a nationwide perspective on 

transition problems experienced by IDEA youth and on the actions taken 

by state and local education agencies to address these problems. We 

determined that the results from SPeNSE might be subject to bias since 

the nonresponse evaluation for this study was not available at the time of 

our request. The results of the youth survey presented the views of over 

200 youth but did not reflect a nationally representative perspective 

because respondents were not randomly selected. We included the youth 

survey in our review because it was reported as the only data collection 

effort in the country designed and implemented by youth with disabilities. 

To determine high school completion rates for IDEA students, we 

obtained data collected from the states by the Office of Special Education 

Programs (OSEP) and summarized in Education’s Annual Reports to 

Congress. We used the 22nd and 23rd Annual Reports to obtain data for 

1997-98 and 1998-99 school years. We used OSEP-administered Web site 

(http://www.ideadata.org) to obtain data for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 school 

years. In calculating graduation and dropout rates for IDEA youth, we 

relied on the method in use by OSEP. Specifically, OSEP reports what 

 1

We did not interview Steering Committee representatives in California because California 

did not fully participate in the federal monitoring process. 

Review of National 

Studies on Transition 

Analysis of Existing 

Data 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 39 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

percentage of IDEA students leave high school with a standard diploma or 

drop out during a given school year out of the total number of IDEA 

students who leave high school with a standard diploma or a certificate, 

drop out, age out, or die during that year. OSEP does not report the 

certificate rate, but using OSEP’s data, we calculated the rate of youth 

completing with a certificate in the same manner. 

To determine high school completion and dropout rates for all students, 

we looked at an August 2002 published report from the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), presenting rates of students completing 

public school with a standard diploma or an alternative credential and 

dropping out (among states that reported dropouts) for school year 1999-

2000. These data were collected by NCES for public school completers 

and dropouts through its Common Core of Data system. 

We obtained information on states’ exit examination policies from the 

National Center on Secondary Education and Transition and the National 

Center on Education Outcomes. We used that information to update 

Education’s analysis of completion and dropout rates for IDEA students in 

states with and without exit examinations. Education’s analysis did not 

differentiate between states that had exit examination policies in general 

and those that had fully implemented those policies by requiring all 

graduating seniors to participate in the examination in order to graduate. 

When we repeated Education’s analysis, we defined exit examination 

states only as those that had required all graduating seniors to fully 

participate in the exit examination by 2000-01. These states were: 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, and 

Texas. 

To determine how many youth participated in the VR, WIA, and Ticket 

programs, we analyzed data provided by Education’s Rehabilitation 

Services Administration (RSA), Labor’s Employment and Training 

Administration, and SSA. Because VR participation data only reflected the 

number of youth exited, we obtained from RSA and the Council for State 

Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation an estimated number of youth 

enrolled for services. We also analyzed data from RSA on types of services 

provided to youth. 
Appendix II: State Data Collection Efforts 

Page 40 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Table 8 shows various entities responsible for collecting data, costs of data 

collection efforts, and funding sources used by 21 states that routinely 

collected data on postsecondary employment and education status of 

IDEA youth. 

Table 8: State Approaches to Collecting Data on Postsecondary Employment and Education Status of IDEA Youth 

 Data collectors Cost of effort 

State 

State or 

local 

school 

systems 

Regional 

Resource 

Center 

University 

partner 

Nonprofit 

agency 

Private 

contractor 

Cost of data 

collection and 

analysis Funding source 

Alabama • • Respondent did not 

know 

Federal State 

Improvement Grant 

(SIG) funding until 

2002; state and Auburn 

University funds 

California • Respondent did not 

know 

IDEA and state funds 

Delaware • $5 per student 

follow-up survey 

sent (approx. 

$4,020 total cost 

for following up 

with the class of 

1999) 

SIG funds initially; state 

funds beginning in 2003

Florida • Approximately 

$400,000 for the 

2002-03 effort to 

track about 

6 million individuals

State funds 

Georgia • Respondent did not 

know 

Local school system 

funds used for data 

collection; IDEA funds 

used for state-level data 

analysis 

Idaho • Less than $10 per 

student for 5 years 

of follow-up 

($7,900 total for 

following up with 

the class of 2002) 

IDEA funds 

Indiana • Approximately 

$75,000 annually 

for state and 

district efforts 

IDEA funds 

Kentucky • Planned Respondent did not 

know 

State funds 

Appendix II: State Data Collection Efforts 
Appendix II: State Data Collection Efforts 

Page 41 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

 Data collectors Cost of effort 

State 

State or 

local 

school 

systems 

Regional 

Resource 

Center 

University 

partner 

Nonprofit 

agency 

Private 

contractor 

Cost of data 

collection and 

analysis Funding source 

Maryland • Respondent did not 

know 

Future funding source 

not yet determined 

Michigan • • Estimated $35,000 

for one-time followup with students 

graduating 

between December 

2000 and 

November 2001 

SIG funds 

Missouri • Respondent did not 

know 

State and federal 

(IDEA, Vocational, and 

Title I) funds 

Nebraska • Districts receive 

$40 per student 

from the state for 

follow-up 

IDEA funds 

New York • • Approximately 

$75 per student for 

each follow-up 

cycle ($2.75 million 

for a 7-year 

contract) 

IDEA funds 

North Dakota • $30,000 annually IDEA funds 

Ohio • • • Estimated 

$150,000 annually 

if the effort is 

extended to the 

entire state 

Federal and state 

funds, and in-kind 

university contributions 

Texas • $220,000 annually 

for 4-year study 

IDEA funds 

Utah • $80,000 for followup with the classes 

of 1997 and 2000 

IDEA funds 

Vermont • Respondent did not 

know 

IDEA and state funds 

Virginia • $93,000 for onetime follow-up with 

the class of 1999 

SIG funds 

Washington • • Approximately 

$71,000 per year 

IDEA funds 
Appendix II: State Data Collection Efforts 

Page 42 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

 Data collectors Cost of effort 

State 

State or 

local 

school 

systems 

Regional 

Resource 

Center 

University 

partner 

Nonprofit 

agency 

Private 

contractor 

Cost of data 

collection and 

analysis Funding source 

Wisconsin • • First year of the 

5-year contract: 

$50,000 (for followup with one group 

of students) 

3rd year: $82,000 

(for follow-up with 

two groups of 

students). The 5th

year will also 

include two groups 

of students. 

IDEA funds for followup during 1st, 3rd, and 5th

year of the contract. 

State funds provided to 

districts for one 

additional follow-up 

during “off years.” 

Districts must use their 

own funds for any 

additional follow-ups. 

Source: Information provided by state officials, December 2002 through April 2003. 

Table 9 presents various methods used by 21 states to routinely collect 

data on postsecondary employment and education status of IDEA youth. 

The table provides information on characteristics of students and school 

systems that states included in their data collection efforts and the time 

periods at which data were collected. 
Appendix II: State Data Collection Efforts 

Page 43 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Table 9: State Methods of Collecting Data on Postsecondary Employment and Education Status of IDEA Youth 

 Students included Data collection times 

State 

All 

students 

IDEA 

youth 

Includes 

dropouts 

Includes 

information 

on students’ 

disability type 

School system 

or district 

participation 

In-school 

information 

Number 

of posthigh 

school 

followups 

Points in time 

when information 

on students’ 

postsecondary 

status is collected 

Alabama • • • 

(Selfidentification) 

Local school 

systems 

participating in 

state transition 

program 

(approximately 

38 percent of 

school systems) 

Information 

from 11th

grade 

student 

survey 

One 1 year 

California • • Some districts in 

Workability 

Program 

(covering 

approximately 

75 percent of 

special 

education 

students) 

Information 

from student 

survey 

Two 1 year 

2 years 

Delaware • • • Full district 

participation 

 One 6 months 

Floridaa • • • Participation of 

all students who 

remain in state 

after they leave 

school 

 N/A Annually 

Georgia • • Full district 

participation 

 One February/March 

after exit 

Idaho • Full district 

participation 

Information 

from student 

exit survey 

Three 1 years 

3 years 

5 years 

Indiana • • • Voluntary district 

participation 

(approximately 

72 percent of 

planning 

districts) 

Information 

from student 

exit survey 

One 4 years 

Kentucky • Planned 

after 

2004 

 Full district 

participation 

Information 

from student 

exit survey 

One October/November 

after exit 

Marylandb • 

(Until 

2003) 

• Voluntary district 

participation 

Information 

from student 

exit survey 

One 1 year 
Appendix II: State Data Collection Efforts 

Page 44 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

 Students included Data collection times 

State 

All 

students 

IDEA 

youth 

Includes 

dropouts 

Includes 

information 

on students’ 

disability type 

School system 

or district 

participation 

In-school 

information 

Number 

of posthigh 

school 

followups 

Points in time 

when information 

on students’ 

postsecondary 

status is collected 

Michigan • • • Full district 

participation 

 One 1 to 2 years 

Missouric • • Full district 

participation 

 One 6 months 

Nebraska • • • Voluntary district 

participation 

 One 1 to 1.5 years 

New Yorkd • • • Stratified cluster 

sample; 2000 

sample from 74 

school districts, 

2001 sample 

from 141 school 

districts 

Information 

from student 

exit survey 

Three 1 year 

3 years 

5 years 

North 

Dakotae

 • • • Voluntary district 

participation; full 

participation 

beginning in 

2003 

Information 

from student 

exit survey 

Three 1 year 

3 years 

5 years 

Ohiof • • 6 samples in 

districts served 

by 1 of the 

state’s 16 

Special 

Education 

Regional 

Resource 

Centers 

Information 

from student 

records 

One for 

each 

student 

sample 

(6 

samples 

total) 

1st study year: 

1 and 3 years 

2nd study year: 

3 and 5 years 

3rd study year: 

1 and 3 years 

Texasg • • Voluntary district 

participation 

 One For class of 1999 

(3 years) 

For class of 2001 

(1 year) 

Utah • • • 3 representative 

samples of 

students drawn 

from districts 

across the state 

 One or 

two, 

depending 

on study 

1st study: class of 

1991 at 1 year 

2nd study: class of 

1997 at 1 year 

3rd study: class of 

1997 at 5 years and 

class of 2001 at 

1 year 
Appendix II: State Data Collection Efforts 

Page 45 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

 Students included Data collection times 

State 

All 

students 

IDEA 

youth 

Includes 

dropouts 

Includes 

information 

on students’ 

disability type 

School system 

or district 

participation 

In-school 

information 

Number 

of posthigh 

school 

followups 

Points in time 

when information 

on students’ 

postsecondary 

status is collected 

Vermont • Full district 

participation 

Information 

from student 

exit survey 

One 1 year 

Virginia • • • Weighted 

stratified random 

sample from 

participating 

schools 

(29 percent of 

schools 

participate) 

 One Class of 1999 at 

2 years 

Washingtonh • • Voluntary district 

participation 

(approximately 

90 percent of 

districts) 

Exit 

information 

from student 

records 

One 6 months 

Wisconsin • • Representative 

sample of 

students 

(20 percent of 

IDEA students) 

Exit 

information 

from student 

records 

Two 

(studies 

conducted 

every 

other 

year) 

1 year 

3 years 

Source: Information provided by state officials, December 2002 through April 2003. 

a

Florida does not collect data through surveying. Data are matched across several administrative 

databases, including: state departments of Education, Corrections, Children and Families; state 

Agency for Workforce Innovation; and the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management, and U.S. Postal Service. The follow-up effort does not include students who leave the 

state. 

b

Maryland collects data on all students, not specifically on students with disabilities, although it was 

possible to identify students with disabilities for the class of 2002. Beginning with the class of 2003, 

only IDEA students will be included in the follow-up effort. In addition, an Anticipated Services Survey 

is administered to all special education students when they leave high school. 

c Missouri adds the total numbers of students who are working and who are attending postsecondary 

school without accounting for those who may be participating in both activities, potentially 

overestimating the successful transition rate. In addition, nonresponses are often put into the "other" 

category, thus boosting the response rate. 

d

New York Post School Indicators study is scheduled to last for 7 years. Thereafter, some aspects of 

the effort may continue. 

e

North Dakota is planning to drop the 5th year of data collection because of a low response rate. 

f

Ohio’s current effort is seen as a pilot project. The Ohio Board of Education has called for statewide 

surveying of IDEA students beginning in 2004. 

g

Texas’s follow-up survey effort in 2002 included both the class of 1999 and 2001. The state used 

three different survey versions to shorten the length of each and encourage student participation. 
Appendix II: State Data Collection Efforts 

Page 46 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

h

Washington encourages districts to participate by requiring them to submit information on students’ 

postsecondary status in order to quality for Local Education Area grants. 

Figure 4 presents the types of data on IDEA youth’s postsecondary 

employment and education status available in 21 states with routine data 

collection efforts. 

Figure 4: Types of Postsecondary Employment and Education Data Available in States 

Other areas

4-year college/university

Adult services

Quality of life

Sheltered workshop

Adult education

Employ

Living situation

ed part-time

Employ

Military

ed

Employed full-time

Transition planning experience 

High school work experience 

High school experience 

Why not employed or not in 

postsecondary education 

Employed and enrolled in

postsecondary education

Other postsecondary education 

Vocational or technical training 

2-year college/community college 

Enrolled in college or university 

Enrolled in postsecondary education

Employment Education Overall

New York

Source: Information provided by state officials, December 2002 through April 2003.

State

Alabama

California

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Indiana

Kentucky

Maryland

Michigan

Missouri

Nebraska

Texas

Ohio

North Dakota

Vermont

Utah

Wisconsin

Washington

Virginia

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Completed postsecondary 

education program

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●
Appendix II: State Data Collection Efforts 

Page 47 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Table 10 identifies possible uses of data on IDEA students’ postsecondary 

employment and education status, and provides examples from state 

education officials on how data are being used at the state and local levels 

for each data use category identified. 

Table 10: State Examples of Using Postsecondary Employment and Education Status Data 

Type of data use State example 

Providing regular reports on students’ 

outcomes to school systems 

 Washington’s postsecondary outcome survey is conducted by a university contractor 

who sends 2 page outcome summaries to each school district participating in the student 

follow-up effort. The summaries include comparisons between student outcomes in the 

district and in the state, as well as results disaggregated by gender, race, and disability 

type. 

Providing feedback to school 

systems on their performance 

 Florida produces annual reports of students’ outcomes that are then used to provide 

feedback to school districts and schools on the success of their programs. The reports 

are also used by parents and students in helping them choose local programs that show 

the greatest success. 

Setting baseline for future transition 

efforts 

 Missouri’s improvement plan places a priority on improving postsecondary outcomes for 

students with disabilities. As a consequence, the state will use current postsecondary 

data to set a baseline to measure future progress. 

Monitoring compliance with IDEA 

requirements and delivery of special 

education services in the state 

 Alabama uses postsecondary outcome data for conducing self-assessment and 

developing self-improvement plan as part of the state’s monitoring effort. A statewide task 

force of transition experts and transition stakeholders was created to use the outcome 

data for identifying areas for further improvement and implementing the improvement 

plan. 

Conducting program planning or 

budgeting at the state level 

 Indiana’s Director of the Division of Exceptional Learners uses postsecondary outcome 

data when negotiating the state budget and determining state appropriations. 

Rewarding local school systems Kentucky holds schools accountable for students’ transition from high school, and 

schools with high rates of students experiencing a successful transition outcome may 

receive financial rewards. 

Targeting technical assistance to 

school districts or schools 

 New York redesigned the technical assistance provided by its seven Transition 

Coordination Sites, based in part on data from its postsecondary outcome survey. As a 

result, technical assistance activities were shifted from training conferences to more 

individualized strategic planning with teams from individual schools. Data are used to 

identify struggling school districts in order to direct assistance to them. 

Assessing or improving transition 

programs 

 Virginia has incorporated postsecondary outcome data into a study aimed at assessing 

transition services across the state. When completed, the study will include responses 

from consumers of transition services (both parents and students), transition specialists, 

and adult service providers. Outcome data will also be used in a statewide evaluation of 

middle and secondary education programs for students with disabilities with the goal of 

improving their academic achievement and postsecondary outcomes. 

Conducting monitoring or program 

planning at the local school system 

level 

 Wisconsin began collecting postsecondary outcome data in response to a state statute 

requiring the reporting of student outcomes. By collecting data, school districts not only 

are able to fulfill this requirement, but also identify specific needs and develop their 

special education plans to address those needs. 
Appendix II: State Data Collection Efforts 

Page 48 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Type of data use State example 

Adding, sustaining, or improving 

programs at the local school system 

level 

 Maryland’s postsecondary follow-up study helps local school systems develop more 

effective transition services that are targeted to addressing students’ needs. For example, 

one county found that few students were connected with postsecondary education 

institutions. In response, county officials established a transition program that emphasizes 

linkages with community colleges for students while they are still in high school. As a 

result, students ages 18 to 21 who are still attending high school are able to attend 

community college computer and physical education courses to help prepare for 

employment. 

Establishing linkages with adult 

service providers 

 California’s transition program staff are able to reconnect with former students while 

following-up to collect data on their postsecondary status. Students who are not 

participating in productive work or learning activities or who report other problems are 

provided with information on potentially beneficial services in the course of the follow-up 

process. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from interviews with state officials, December 2002 through April 2003. 
Appendix III: State Waiting Lists for 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services in Fiscal 

Year 2001 

Page 49 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

The table below lists the states that, at the end of fiscal year 2001, had 

waiting lists for vocational rehabilitation services because the state did not 

have sufficient funds to serve all individuals who were determined eligible 

for the program. 

State Number of individuals 

Washington 6,245

Wisconsin 5,098

California 3,602

Tennessee 3,166

Pennsylvania 2,949

Kansas 2,855

Louisiana 2,127

Ohio 1,578

New Jersey 1,498

Oklahoma 298

Maine 276

Nebraska 135

Kentucky 132

Illinois 51

Maryland 43

Rhode Island 41

Minnesota 39

Oregon 34

Arkansas 33

Connecticut 16

Georgia 4

Delaware 4

Michigan 3

Mississippi 1

Idaho 1

Total 30,229

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration. 

Appendix III: State Waiting Lists for 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services in Fiscal 

Year 2001 
Appendix IV: Youth Eligible to Participate in 

the Ticket Program as of June 2003 

Page 50 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

The table below shows the number of youth ages 18 to 21 eligible to 

participate in the first two phases of the Ticket program’s implementation. 

State Number 

Phase one states: February 2002 

Arizona 3,480

Colorado 1,837

Delaware 541

Florida 11,265

Illinois 10,096

Iowa 2,261

Massachusetts 4,427

New York 12,184

Oklahoma 2,868

Oregon 2,240

South Carolina 2,951

Vermont 516

Wisconsin 3,999

Phase one total 58,665

Phase two states: November 2002 

Alaska 417

Arkansas 2,499

Connecticut 1,949

Georgia 5,612

Indiana 4,017

Kansas 1,847

Kentucky 4,540

Louisiana 5,179

Michigan 7,505

Mississippi 3,143

Missouri 4,346

Montana 602

Nevada 1,023

New Hampshire 719

New Jersey 4,187

New Mexico 1,466

North Dakota 341

South Dakota 569

Appendix IV: Youth Eligible to Participate in 

the Ticket Program as of June 2003 
Appendix IV: Youth Eligible to Participate in 

the Ticket Program as of June 2003 

Page 51 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

State Number 

Tennessee 4,290

Virginia 4,382

District of Columbia 519

Phase two total 59,152

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Social Security Administration. 

Note: The Social Security Administration plans to implement the program in the remaining 17 states 

and the U.S. territories by 2004. 
Appendix V: Availability of Medicaid Buy-In to 

Working People with Disabilities as of May 

2003 

Page 52 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

The map below shows which states offer working people with disabilities 

the opportunity to maintain Medicaid benefits while receiving income 

from work. 

Appendix V: Availability of Medicaid Buy-In 

to Working People with Disabilities as of May 

2003 

Source: Social Security Administration.

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

Alaska

Hawaii

Vt.

Ala.

Ariz.

Ark.

Calif. Colo.

Ga.

Idaho

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Maine

Mich.

Minn.

Mo.

Mont.

Nebr. Nev.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak.

Okla.

Oreg.

Pa.

S.C.

S.Dak.

Tenn.

Tex.

Utah

Va.

Wash.

W.Va.

Wisc.

Wyo.

Fla.

Miss.

N.C.

Ohio

Ky.

Available

Not Available
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 53 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Education 
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 54 GAO-03-773 Special Education 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Labor 

Page 55 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Labor 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Labor 

Page 56 GAO-03-773 Special Education 
Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of Labor 

Page 57 GAO-03-773 Special Education 
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Social Security Administration 

Page 58 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Social 

Security Administration 
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Social Security Administration 

Page 59 GAO-03-773 Special Education 
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 60 GAO-03-773 Special Education 

Lacinda Ayers (206) 654-5591 

Tranchau Nguyen (202) 512-2660 

In addition to those named above, Natalya Bolshun, Julianne Hartman 

Cutts, Molly Laster, and Adam Roye made key contributions to this report. 

Barbara Alsip, Carl Barden, Carolyn Boyce, Stefanie Bzdusek, 

Patrick DiBattista, Behn Kelly, and John Smale also provided key technical 

assistance. 

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(130158) 
The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

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. General Accounting 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 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs