Students with Disabilities: Better Federal Coordination Could Lessen Challenges in the Transition from High School
Published: 2012-07-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The transition out of high school to postsecondary education or the workforce can be a challenging time, especially for students with disabilities. Multiple federal agencies fund programs to support these students during their transition. In 2003, GAO reported that limited coordination among these programs can hinder a successful transition. GAO was asked to provide information on the (1) challenges students with disabilities may face accessing federally funded transition services; and (2) extent to which federal agencies coordinate their transition activities. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and agency documents from Education, HHS, Labor, and SSA, which administer the key programs that provide transition services. GAO also administered a data collection instrument to gather program information from these agencies. Finally, GAO interviewed various stakeholders, including state and local officials, service providers, parents, and students with disabilities, in five states selected based on the number of federal grants they received to fund transition services.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Students with disabilities face several longstanding challenges accessing services that may assist them as they transition from high school into postsecondary education or the workforce--services such as tutoring, vocational training, and assistive technology. Eligible students with disabilities are entitled to transition planning services during high school, but after leaving high school, to receive services that facilitate their transition they must apply as adults and establish eligibility for programs administered by multiple federal agencies. Students with disabilities may face delays in service and end up on waitlists if these programs are full. In addition, while all five states GAO contacted have taken steps to coordinate their transition services and assist families with the transition process, officials said that it is still difficult for students and their parents to navigate and for providers to coordinate services across different programs. Officials and parents GAO spoke with also noted a lack of sufficient information or awareness of the full range of service options available after high school on the part of students with disabilities, parents, and service providers. In addition, state and local officials said students with disabilities may not be adequately prepared to successfully transition to life after high school. This may be due, in part, to limited opportunities to engage in vocational and life skills training or obtain work experience while in school.
The Departments of Education (Education), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor (Labor), and the Social Security Administration (SSA) coordinate transition activities to some degree, but their coordination has limitations and they do not assess the effectiveness of their efforts. One coordinating body involves all four agencies and focuses on transition services. However, that group's primary coordination activity is information sharing among staff-level representatives rather than developing common outcome goals and establishing compatible policies for operating across agencies. Agency officials told GAO that a lack of compatible outcome goals for transitioning students and differences in statutory eligibility criteria are among the barriers that hinder interagency coordination for this population. While agencies collaborate to some extent, their efforts represent a patchwork approach and there is no single, formal, government-wide strategy for coordinating transition services for students with disabilities. Moreover, it is unclear what impact coordination has on service provision because agencies do not assess the effectiveness of their coordination activities.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: To improve the provision of transition services for students with disabilities, GAO recommends that Education, HHS, Labor, and SSA develop an interagency transition strategy that addresses (1) operating toward common outcome goals for transitioning youth; (2) increasing awareness of available transition services; and (3) assessing the effectiveness of their coordination efforts. All four agencies agreed with the recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The transition from high school to postsecondary education or the  workforce can be a challenging time for all students, and particularly for  those with disabilities who may need additional services such as tutoring,  vocational training, assistive technology, and other supports to achieve  their goals. This can be a daunting process, and research has  documented that students with disabilities are less likely than their peers  to successfully make the transition. For example, as of February 2012,  the employment rate for young adults ages 20 to 24 with disabilities was  less than half the rate of their peers without disabilities. When young  adults with disabilities do not successfully transition out of high school,  they may face a lifetime of continued reliance on public assistance,  potentially leading to substantial costs to the government and society.  Although the total amount of federal money spent to support students with  disabilities in transitioning out of high school is not known, the federal  investment in educating students with disabilities is substantial. In 2011,  the Department of Education (Education) awarded about $11.5 billion in  federal grants to states to help ensure that 6.6 million students with  disabilities—approximately 2.2 million of whom were of transition-age— received a free appropriate public education, as required by the  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a key piece of  legislation pertaining to transition. IDEA requires that beginning not later  than the first individualized education program (IEP) to be in effect when  the student turns 16, school officials must include in the IEP  postsecondary goals and the transition services needed to assist the  student in reaching those goals.
Students remain eligible for transition planning and services, as well as  other IDEA services, until they exit high school. Once students exit high  school, they are no longer entitled to federal transition services under  IDEA.  Instead, they may apply and be found eligible for a number of  other separately administered federal programs that are authorized to  provide services that can assist youth with disabilities in their transition to  postsecondary education, employment, and independent living. GAO has  reported on the need for better coordination among federal disability  programs, including those serving students with disabilities. This is one  reason that, as of 2011, federal disability programs remained on GAO’s  high risk list.of transition services for students with disabilities, you requested we  provide information on: (1) challenges students with disabilities may face   In light of questions about the accessibility and coordination  accessing transition services under existing federal programs; and (2) the  extent to which federal agencies coordinate their transition activities.
To identify potential challenges, we reviewed the definitions of disability  and the eligibility criteria in selected federal statutes governing federal  programs that provide transition services.  To assess the extent to which  federal agencies coordinate their transition activities, we asked officials  from the four agencies that administer key programs serving students in  their transition out of high school—Education, the Departments of Health  and Human Services (HHS) and Labor (Labor), and the Social Security  Administration (SSA)—to provide information on their coordination efforts  and activities relating to transition services. We compared their responses  and agency documents to our criteria on activities that can enhance and  sustain collaboration among federal agencies. In addition, we consulted  a number of experts in the field of transition and from advocacy  organizations that represent young adults with a wide range of disability  types. Finally, to obtain the perspectives of state and local agencies that  deliver transition services, we selected a nongeneralizable sample of five  states and contacted officials to obtain their views. We selected these  states based on the number of federal grants they received in fiscal year  (FY) 2011 to fund transition services, recommendations of agency  officials and experts, and geographic diversity. Through a combination of  site visits and telephone interviews, we spoke with service providers and  officials from state education, vocational rehabilitation, developmental  disability, and workforce agencies. In each state we visited, we also met  with groups of students with disabilities and parents to discuss the  challenges they face. Appendix I explains our scope and methodology in  more detail.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 through July 2012 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: To support the educational needs of children with disabilities, Congress  originally enacted IDEA in 1975. Part B of IDEA authorizes federal  funding for children aged 3 through 21 with a range of disabilities who  need special education services. To receive federal funds, states and  local education agencies must identify and evaluate children who have  disabilities and provide special education and related services, as well as  supplementary aids and services when necessary, to those who are  eligible. Such services and supports are formulated in an IEP, which is   In the  developed, discussed, and documented by a student’s IEP team.2004 reauthorization of IDEA, Congress required that, beginning no later  than age 16, a student’s IEP must include measurable postsecondary  goals related to training, education, employment, and where appropriate,  independent living skills. The IEP also must specify the transition   services needed to assist the student in reaching those goals. School  officials are required to invite the student to a meeting where the  transition services detailed in the IEP are discussed. When appropriate,  they also must invite a representative of any participating outside agency  (with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age  of majority).
As students with disabilities exit high school, they may apply as adults  and be found eligible for a number of federally funded programs, including  federal disability programs, if they wish to obtain services important to  their transition. There is wide diversity in this population—students with  disabilities can have a range of physical and cognitive disabilities that can  affect their ability to learn. They may also demonstrate varying levels of  academic aptitude and achievement in different areas. Thus, the number  of programs for which each student may be eligible can vary widely based  on their abilities, postsecondary goals, and the types of supportive  services they may need to be successful. We identified a range of  programs that provide services to support students with disabilities in their  transition out of high school. These programs vary in the target population  served, services provided, grant funding amounts, and other  characteristics. In addition, they are authorized by multiple federal laws  (administered through various federal agencies), each with its own  eligibility requirements and application processes. (See fig. 1). Moreover,  federally funded programs that provide transition services, as defined in  this report, are often delivered through state and local entities that have  flexibility on how to administer services.
The following four agencies have primary responsibility for administering  federal programs that can provide services to transition-age youth with  disabilities:
Education’s Rehabilitation Services Administration awards funds to  state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies in the form of matching  grants to help individuals with disabilities prepare for and engage in  gainful employment. VR programs require that an individualized plan  for employment be developed for eligible students before they leave  high school. Furthermore, if the student is receiving special  education services, this plan must be coordinated with the student’s  IEP in terms of goals, objectives, and services.
Labor oversees the one-stop center system, a comprehensive  workforce investment system created under the Workforce Investment  Act of 1998 (WIA) that brings together multiple federally funded  employment and training programs that can help all eligible individuals  seeking employment and training—including students with  disabilities. Labor also administers the Disability Employment  Initiative, which is designed to improve educational, training, and  employment opportunities and outcomes for youth and adults with  disabilities who are unemployed, underemployed, and/or receiving  Social Security disability benefits.
SSA provides cash benefits to qualifying individuals with disabilities— including transition-age young adults—through its Disability Insurance  and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. SSA also  administers the Ticket to Work program, which is designed to enable  individuals with disabilities (who are receiving disability insurance or  SSI benefits and are between the ages of 18 and 64) to obtain  services needed to find, enter, and retain employment. They obtain  these services from providers such as VR agencies.
HHS’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services manages Medicaid,  the joint federal-state health care financing program for qualifying low- income individuals. Within the Medicaid program, states provide home  and community-based services to individuals with certain types of  disabilities—which may include young adults—who might otherwise  be cared for in institutional settings. Because Medicaid usually does  not cover home and community-based services, states must obtain a  waiver to provide these services. Services provided in accordance  with these waivers vary by state, are individualized, and may include,  for example, case management, personal care attendants, or day or  residential habilitation.
In addition, these and other federal agencies fund a number of other  programs through grants to states, localities, and nongovernmental  organizations that may assist students and young adults during their  transition from high school. Some of these grants explicitly target  improving postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities and  others provide a range of support services such as assistive technology,  information and referral, advocacy, transportation, leadership  development, benefits counseling, and independent living services. (See  app. II for more information on federal programs that received federal  funding in FY 2011 to provide transition services to students with  disabilities.)
section_title: Students with Disabilities Face Several Longstanding Challenges Accessing Federal Transition Services
paragraphs: Students with disabilities face several challenges accessing federally  funded programs that can provide transition services as they leave high  school for postsecondary education or the workforce. These include  difficulty navigating multiple programs that are not always coordinated;  possible delays in service as they wait to be served by adult programs;  limited access to transition services; a lack of adequate information or  awareness on the part of parents, students, and service providers of  available programs that may provide transition services after high school;  and a lack of preparedness for postsecondary education or employment.  Prior GAO work identified many of these same challenges, which is  indicative of the longstanding and persistent nature of the challenges facing students with disabilities as they transition out of high school.
In each of the five states we contacted, state officials said it can be  difficult for students with disabilities and their families to navigate the  multiple federal programs that provide transition services. Some officials  said that the shift from being automatically entitled to services under IDEA  if identified as disabled while in high school to having to apply as adults  and be found eligible for multiple programs after exiting high school is  difficult for students and their parents to understand. (See fig. 2).
Many of the stakeholders told us that a lack of coordination between  programs was another key challenge for students with disabilities and/or  their families. For example, staff from a parent training and information  Center in Minnesota said that it is very challenging for parents to navigate  the system and coordinate resources for their children across programs.  In their experience, none of the program officials coordinate with those  from other programs to share information on clients. State officials  suggested that a lack of coordination between programs often arises as  early as during IEP transition planning meetings. IDEA requires high  schools to invite, with parental or student consent, representatives from  adult programs likely to be responsible for providing or paying for  transition services to the student after high school, such as VR, to these  meetings to the extent appropriate.not required to attend, and we heard that they are often not at the table  for transition planning meetings. VR officials from one state  acknowledged this, saying that while they try to attend transition planning  meetings, it is not always possible because of resource and time  constraints. Some of the stakeholders suggested that without the  commitment of local leaders and service providers to coordinate services  between high school and adult programs, there is little to no  communication between programs, which can create difficulty for families  trying to navigate across different programs.
These representatives, however, are  In each of the five states we contacted, some officials said that differing  requirements for adult programs can confuse students and parents. For  example, officials from Florida’s department of VR said that the  requirement for VR clients to have an individualized plan for employment  that identifies an employment goal and the services and supports  necessary to achieve that goal can be confusing for youth who already  included transition plans and identified a career goal in their IEP. In  addition, the amount of documentation each program requires can be  overwhelming for students with disabilities and their parents. According to  a student in Maryland, there is a continuous administrative burden on  applicants to provide the same or similar information to multiple  programs. Officials we interviewed from three of the four federal agencies  acknowledged these challenges.
In each of the states we contacted, officials suggested that it would be  helpful to appoint a case manager to coordinate services and guide  students and their families through the transition process. Some of the  parents and also officials from two of the four federal agencies agreed  that a case manager could help students with disabilities and their  families navigate across the multiple programs. However, officials from  one federal agency cautioned that it could be costly and, given that  programs that provide transition services are administered by different  federal agencies and implemented at the state and local level,  challenging to administer.
Students with disabilities may also face delays in service upon leaving  high school as they wait to obtain services from adult programs or for  their eligibility determinations to be finalized. Many stakeholders said that  delays in service can be caused by limited financial or program  resources, which may leave youth with disabilities on waitlists for  services. In particular, states may have waitlists—sometimes with several  thousand individuals—for home and community-based waiver services.  The departments of VR in four of the five states we contacted were  operating under a federally required order of selection, requiring them to  serve individuals with the most significant disabilities before serving  others. Several parents from Minnesota said that their children had  been on waitlists for waiver services or VR services for years. One parent  from Florida said that her adult son was living at home with no services or  employment options as he waited for waiver services from the state’s  department of disability. Officials from Nevada’s department of VR said  that delays in service may also occur when students with disabilities,  upon leaving high school, must return assistive technology devices on  loan from the school, such as software for blind individuals that reads text  on a screen in a computer-generated voice. According to officials, some  students go without these critical adaptive devices until VR is able to  equip them with the same or similar technologies.
Service delays can be exacerbated if students with disabilities have to  wait until program officials resolve who should provide and pay for  services. In addition, some adult programs will not provide services to  students who are still eligible to receive services under IDEA. Officials  from two states said that, as a result, there has been a shift toward  keeping students with disabilities in high school longer so that schools  continue paying for services until students graduate or turn 22 years of  age. For example, officials from Maryland’s department of VR said that  students with developmental disabilities who decide to leave high school  before they age out of IDEA services often face a delay in services  because the state department of developmental disability will not provide  services to students younger than age 21.
Some of the stakeholders said that differing eligibility criteria, definitions  of disability, and assessment requirements for the various adult programs  can also result in service delays while youth with disabilities wait for  assessments or eligibility determinations. For example, officials in the four  states in which we spoke with higher education officials said some  colleges require students with disabilities to be reassessed before they  can receive accommodations, and that this can cause a delay in service  because there are long waitlists for these reassessments or because they  are cost prohibitive for some families.
Limited access to reliable public transportation to and from employment  programs and service providers—especially in rural areas—was also  frequently highlighted as a major challenge. For example, officials from  Florida said limited funding for transportation services contributes to the  lack of transportation for students with disabilities.
Officials in each of the states we contacted also said that certain groups  of students with disabilities are more likely to face limited service options  or gaps in service because their disabilities may be less visible or  because they are less likely to qualify for adult programs. These groups  include students with developmental or cognitive disabilities, learning  disabilities, mental health disabilities, autism, and mild disabilities.  Further, we heard that there may be limited programs for students with  hearing or visual impairments, and that if these students also have other  disabilities, it can be difficult to determine which program (e.g., VR or a  developmental disability agency) should provide services, which can lead  to gaps in service. Similarly, officials said that students with disabilities  who are in the juvenile justice system, are themselves parents, or are  homeless may also be more likely to face gaps in service than other  students with disabilities because they tend not to be aware of or  connected to adult service providers. In addition, some students who  qualified for services under IDEA and/or under Section 504 of the  Rehabilitation Act may not meet the eligibility requirements for adult  programs and may, therefore, have limited or no post-high school service  options. For example, one parent told us that her daughter, who has a  serious physical disability, did not receive any transition planning  assistance and struggled to gain access to services such as personal  care attendants who would help her successfully transition to a college  out of state.
A lack of adequate information and awareness of available program  options on the part of parents, students, and service providers was  another challenge highlighted during our site visits. Many stakeholders  said that students with disabilities and their parents do not always receive  enough information about the full range of service options after high  school. For example, a parent from California said that she was very  disappointed with the limited information she received from her school  district and that she had no idea what resources were available for her  son after he left high school. A student from Maryland expressed concern  that students with disabilities who do not seek information about transition  services outside of high school may not have access to information, and  consequently, to needed services. In contrast, a few stakeholders said  parents may receive too much information and feel overwhelmed. For  example, a parent from California said that families may receive so much  information that they do not remember everything and do not know where  to seek help when the time comes. A staff member from the California  Department of Education’s Workability program said that, even when  information about transition services is available, it is generally not  compiled and made available in one central place for families to access.She recommended that states or programs develop an accessible, easy  to read transition manual that clearly lays out post-high school service  options.
Sometimes there was an issue with the accuracy of information parents  received. For example, officials in three of the five states we contacted  said that parents may be misinformed about programs, especially about  the ability of their children to retain SSI benefits. Officials from Florida’s  developmental disability agency noted that parents are often misinformed  by teachers or adult program service providers that their children will lose  these benefits entirely if they obtain any paid employment.
Lack of awareness of service options also extended to teachers and other  high school personnel. Many of the stakeholders said that teachers and  other high school personnel may not always be aware of post-high school  service options for students with disabilities. For example, one parent said  that while there are a lot of programs in her community that can aid  students in transition, school personnel are not aware of them and  therefore cannot appropriately guide students with disabilities and their  families. Moreover, some experts and state education officials said that  teacher training and professional development programs do not always  adequately prepare teachers to provide transition services or inform them  about the various agencies and resources available to students with  disabilities. A few of the officials, however, said that teachers in some  school districts are well trained in and aware of adult programs that can  provide transition services, which allows them to disseminate information  to students and their parents.
In addition, some stakeholders said that service providers from adult  programs may not be used to working with this student population or have  limited awareness of other adult programs that can provide  complementary transition services. For example, stakeholders in  Maryland and Nevada said that VR counselors need additional training to  work with transition-age youth with disabilities and officials from  Maryland’s local workforce agencies said that one-stop center staff need  more training to help these students enter the workforce. A representative  from a parent training and information center in Maryland added that the  knowledge service providers have about other programs is piecemeal and  inconsistent. She suggested the federal government support additional  training for all professionals who work with students in transition.
Many stakeholders said that high schools do not always adequately  prepare students with disabilities for college or the workforce, and cited  several contributing factors. According to some officials, the federal  requirement to begin transition planning by age 16 is too late. In fact,  officials in four of the five states we contacted said that schools are  required to start transition planning at an earlier age. In addition, in all  five states we heard that schools’ emphasis on academic achievement  has left little time for vocational and life skills training, even though these  skills may be key to gaining and retaining employment—especially for  students with disabilities. Officials from Minnesota’s department of VR  said that schools need to pay greater attention to vocational training  because students with disabilities are at a distinct disadvantage if they  leave high school with no work experience. Further, officials from  Maryland’s department of developmental disabilities said that because  most jobs require a high school diploma, students with disabilities who  receive certificates instead of diplomas could find their employment  options significantly curtailed because many employers do not recognize  alternative completion documents. As a transition specialist from  Maryland noted, many students with non-traditional diplomas end up in  sheltered workshops because they are not considered to be qualified for  competitive employment opportunities.
In addition, according to some stakeholders, adult programs are not  always designed to meet the needs of transition-age youth with  disabilities in ways that will help them succeed in college or in a job. For  example, a few state officials said that the VR system does not provide  incentives for serving transition-age youth with disabilities because VR’s  performance indicators reward counselors for serving clients who find and  maintain employment for at least 90 days, and youth with disabilities may  take longer to do so. representatives from California’s workforce agency, that the time frame of  the employment outcome measures under the WIA youth program may  be too short—for example, the employment retention rate at 6 months— and not appropriate for transition-age youth with disabilities who often  require follow-up support longer than 6 months in order to be successful  at a job.
We previously reported that Education does not comprehensively measure the  performance of VR for certain key populations, including transition-age youth. See GAO,  Vocational Rehabilitation: Better Measures and Monitoring Could Improve the  Performance of the VR Program, GAO-05-865 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 2005). social security benefits instead of receiving job training, and that students  with more serious disabilities who could benefit from competitive  employment (i.e., applying for and getting a job) may be steered instead  toward adult day training programs and sheltered workshops.
section_title: Federal Agency Coordination of Transition Activities Has Limitations
subsections: section_title: Federal Agencies Coordinate on Specific Transition Activities but Face Some Barriers
paragraphs: Education, HHS, Labor, and SSA coordinate transition activities to some  degree, but their coordination has limitations and they do not assess the  effectiveness of their efforts. They coordinate on some specific transition  activities, but their efforts are primarily focused on information sharing  and lack elements that our prior work identified as enhancing and  sustaining effective coordination. We have reported on the importance  of developing common outcome goals and of engaging in strategic  planning and coordination to address issues that cut across agency  boundaries. This can take many forms, ranging from occasional meetings  between agency staff to more structured joint policy teams operating over  a long period of time.
One federal coordination effort—the Federal Partners in Transition  Workgroup—targets transition services to students with disabilities and  involves all four agencies that administer the key programs that provide  transition services to youth with disabilities. However, this workgroup is informal and primarily involves information sharing among staff-level  representatives, according to agency officials. For example, SSA officials  told us that in past meetings, their staff presented information about SSI  requirements for the transitioning youth population, including the process  for redetermining eligibility for SSI when youth turn age 18, and  information on the Student Earned Income Exclusion. To a lesser  extent, some workgroup members also reported that they have jointly  developed guidance for students with disabilities and grantees, including  a fact sheet about how students can take advantage of Schedule A hiring  authority for federal jobs. In addition, the workgroup has convened  forums to help students with disabilities develop their leadership and self- advocacy skills and to discuss action steps to ensure students are  prepared to move successfully to adulthood. This workgroup also  convened a meeting of representatives of technical assistance centers to  discuss coordination among the centers. Agencies involved in the  workgroup reported varying levels of involvement in more extensive  coordination activities, such as policymaking, program planning, and joint  strategic planning. Labor officials leading the effort told us they are in the  process of drafting a strategic plan to identify objectives, activities, and  outcomes for the group.
Education and Labor also participate in the National Community of  Practice in Support of Transition, which was developed by the IDEA  Partnership and focuses on joint efforts among state and local agencies  to coordinate and improve outcomes for youth with disabilities in  transition. Both agencies also have established intra-agency groups to   (See fig. 3.)  facilitate collaboration between internal program offices.
Education officials also said they recently sponsored a national transition  conference for more than 800 professionals, families, and students to  facilitate collaboration and communication across federal, state, and local  entities. Aside from these efforts, officials said most of their interagency  coordination regarding transition services occurs on an ad hoc basis,  such as sharing white papers and holding informal discussions about  policies, performance measures, and technical assistance to states. In  addition, several federal coordination efforts broadly target disadvantaged  youth or all individuals with disabilities and may address some aspects of  transition. (See app. III).
Some federal agencies are involved in new demonstration projects that  plan to address coordination across systems at the state and local level.  For example, an official from HHS stated that the agency has coordinated  with Education and Labor to develop grants under the new Projects of  National Significance Partnerships in Employment Systems Change. This  initiative will provide resources for state agencies and service providers to  collaborate with other services systems to develop statewide model  demonstration projects that expand competitive employment for youth  with developmental disabilities. In another example, officials at all four  agencies said they have been involved in early discussions regarding  implementation of the new Promoting Readiness of Minors in  Supplemental Security Income (PROMISE) initiative, which will fund pilot  projects in states to promote positive changes in the outcomes of youth  SSI recipients and their families. Education officials said they are in the  process of holding meetings to gather input on potential projects from  federal partners and stakeholders, including state agency officials, service  providers, researchers, policy experts, and families. As part of the  initiative, Education and SSA officials said they will work collaboratively to  identify legislative barriers to competitive employment and ways to  improve coordination at the state level. In addition to collaborative efforts  across agencies, Education officials said that six grants focusing on  transition and funded by their Rehabilitation Services Administration are  in their fifth and final year of operation. According to Education officials,  these grants demonstrate the use of promising practices of collaborative  transition planning and service delivery to improve the postsecondary  education and employment outcomes of youth with disabilities.
Despite these efforts, federal agency officials identified several barriers  that limit their ability to coordinate. We have reported that federal  agencies face a range of coordination barriers, one of which stems from  goals that are not mutually reinforcing or are potentially conflicting,  making it difficult to reach a consensus on strategies and priorities. found interagency coordination is enhanced by having a clear and  compelling rationale for staff to work across agency lines and articulate  the common federal outcomes they are seeking. Indeed, officials  identified a lack of compatible outcome goals for transitioning students  with disabilities as one of the key barriers that hinder their coordination  efforts.
Mutually reinforcing goals or strategies are designed to help align agency activities,  core processes, and resources to achieve common outcomes. countered by requirements for students to prove that their disabilities limit  their ability to work in order to receive SSI benefits. Similarly, officials  told us that, in early interagency discussions regarding the PROMISE  initiative, special education officials focused on students’ access to  postsecondary education, while VR and SSA officials were more  concerned about students’ earnings. Officials from all four agencies said  that aligning outcome goals for transition-age students with disabilities  would enhance interagency coordination and help agencies approach  transition in a more integrated way. Some officials suggested establishing  a common agreement on desired outcomes for transitioning students,  such as economic self-sufficiency or engagement in meaningful  employment, volunteer work, or postsecondary education by a certain  age.
The age range for children served through special education under IDEA is 3 through  21. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(B). SSI serves children from birth to age 18, (42 U.S.C. §  1382c(c)), at which point there must be a redetermination as to whether or not they are  still eligible for SSI benefits as adults (42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(H)(iii)). programs.services to recipients who might benefit from them. Moreover, integrating  information about students served by multiple programs over time would  allow agencies to assess the impact of transition services across  programs, according to Education and SSA officials. In addition, officials  said sharing information about common service recipients would help  agencies serve students with disabilities in a more streamlined way. For  instance, SSA could identify students receiving employment and training  services through other federal programs and provide counseling to help  them understand how paid employment affects their SSI benefits and  health insurance, with an eye toward helping students attain greater  economic self-sufficiency. Officials cautioned, however, that privacy  concerns may limit some information sharing and make it difficult to  integrate information from multiple systems. While officials noted that the  Federal Partners in Transition Workgroup has discussed these  information sharing challenges at some of its meetings, one official noted  that there is no substantive effort to address them at the federal level.
As a result, agencies are limited in their ability to target  Officials also identified a lack of clarity on agencies’ roles and  responsibilities for providing and paying for transition services as another  coordination barrier. For example, each program has its own statutory  authority, permitting it to pay only for certain services or types of services.  This can create confusion, particularly at the state and local levels, about  who is responsible for paying for a particular service. It can also result in  frequent debates about which agency is responsible for funding services,  according to some officials, creating a disincentive for agencies to work  together. While certain state agencies such as educational agencies and  VR agencies are required to articulate roles and responsibilities in  interagency agreements,authorizing statute should clearly define agency responsibilities to help   Education officials suggested that a program’s  avoid confusion and minimize potential delays and disruptions in  delivering transition services.
section_title: Agencies Lack a Government-wide Strategy or Framework for Coordinating Transition Services
paragraphs: Although federal agencies are engaged in some coordination efforts,  these efforts represent a patchwork approach and officials at all four  agencies indicated there is no single, formal, government-wide strategy  for coordinating transition services. While such a strategy is not required,  we have previously cited the need for an overall federal strategy and  government-wide coordination to align policies, services, and supports  among the various disability programs, which include supports for  transition-age students. Agency officials acknowledged that coordination  specifically on transition services could be improved. For example, one  official said agencies could work collaboratively to identify opportunities to  address legislative and regulatory barriers to coordinating transition  services. Officials added that improved data collection and sharing could  help agencies adopt a more coordinated and crosscutting approach to  delivering transition services to students with disabilities. Labor officials  leading the Federal Partners in Transition Workgroup said that, while an  overall plan for transition remains beyond the group’s scope of work, a  framework that identifies what is needed for a successful transition could  be used at the federal level to review collaboration across systems and to  identify definition, service, and funding gaps.also be used at the local level to identify gaps in communities and  individual plans.
section_title: Federal Agencies Do Not Assess the Effectiveness of Their Coordination Efforts
paragraphs: It is unclear whether existing federal coordination efforts have had a  positive effect on access to transition services because agencies do not  assess their coordination efforts. We have reported that developing  mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on the results of their  coordination efforts can help key decision makers within agencies, as well  as clients and stakeholders, obtain feedback for improving both policy  and operational effectiveness. For example, coordinating agencies could  require members with lead responsibilities for a focus area to report on  their progress in achieving defined objectives. Federal officials said that  coordination has helped improve relationships and communication across  agencies administering transition services, yielding an increased  understanding of each other’s research, policy, and evidence-based  practices as a result of their involvement in interagency efforts, including  the Federal Partners in Transition Workgroup. Agency officials also told  us that some coordination efforts have led to increased engagement in  transition policy by students with disabilities and their families and  improved results in achieving career readiness and self-sufficiency.  However, these results are difficult to corroborate because agencies do  not evaluate the impact of their efforts, and in many cases do not track  coordination outcomes at the federal level, according to agency officials.Furthermore, the effectiveness of existing federal coordination efforts is  questionable, as evidenced by persistent challenges students with  disabilities face navigating multiple programs.
Some federal agencies monitor compliance with requirements for  grantees to coordinate with other state and local entities under individual  programs. For example, Part B of IDEA requires state educational  agencies to report annually on their performance using 20 indicators  established by the Secretary. One of the indicators measures the state’s  compliance with the requirement under IDEA to include postsecondary  goals and transition services in the IEPs of students age 16 and above;  and to invite the student and, if appropriate, representatives from other  participating state agencies to the student’s IEP team meetings if  transition services are to be discussed. Similarly, state VR agencies  must report annually to the Rehabilitation Services Administration on  whether they have identified the responsibilities of other agencies through  statute, regulation, or written agreements, and to undergo monitoring of  their coordination activities. These monitoring reviews, however, mainly  address compliance with programmatic and fiscal requirements, help  ascertain whether state agencies have in place signed formal interagency  agreements, and check whether these agreements include key  components such as providing technical assistance to school districts on  transition planning. Agency officials noted that there are no quantifiable  measures to assess how effectively transition services are coordinated,  and that any assessment is typically based on observation and a review  of practices and procedures rather than on data.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The current federal approach to assisting students with disabilities in their  transition to postsecondary education or the workforce necessitates that  students and their parents navigate multiple programs and service  systems to piece together the supports these students need to achieve  maximum independence in adulthood. Under this complex structure,  information dissemination and service coordination are essential. Without  receiving accurate and timely information about available services,  students may miss opportunities to access needed services that could  mean the difference between achieving an optimal level of self-sufficiency  and relying on public assistance to meet their basic needs. While officials  report that federal agency coordination efforts, such as the Federal  Partners in Transition Workgroup, have improved relationships and built  shared knowledge across participating agencies, they have yet to adopt a  broader interagency strategic approach to addressing longstanding  challenges in providing transition services to students with disabilities.  The transition workgroup, in particular, represents a unique vehicle that  could provide leadership in developing such a strategy specifically  focused on students with disabilities who are transitioning out of high  school. Given the multiple agencies involved in supporting this population,  in conjunction with multiple eligibility criteria and definitions established in  statute, the lack of such a strategy is a missed opportunity to break down  coordination barriers and work across agency boundaries. Only then can  agencies systemically address persistent transition challenges and  improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Furthermore, without  assessing the effectiveness of federal coordination efforts, agencies are  unable to determine what works well, what needs improvement, and  where best to direct increasingly constrained federal resources.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the provision of transition services to students with disabilities  through enhanced coordination among the multiple federal programs that  support this population, we recommend that the Secretaries of Education,  HHS, and Labor, and the Commissioner of SSA direct the appropriate  program offices to work collaboratively to develop a federal interagency  transition strategy. This strategy should address:  1.  compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate across  agency boundaries towards common outcomes for transitioning youth  and their families;  2.  methods to increase awareness among students, families, high school  teachers, and other service providers on the range of available  transition services; and  3.  ways to assess the effectiveness of federal coordination efforts in  providing transition services.
To the extent that legislative changes are needed to facilitate the  implementation of this transition strategy, agencies should identify and  communicate them to the Congress.
section_title: Agency Comment and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to officials at the Departments of  Education, HHS, and Labor, and to SSA for their review and comment.  Their responses are reprinted, respectively, in appendixes IV, V, VI, and  VII of this report. They also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate.
In their comments, all four agencies agreed with our recommendation and  noted that they have been or will be in contact with each other to expedite  preliminary discussions on an implementation strategy.
Some of the agencies also described coordination efforts beyond those  mentioned in our draft report. Specifically, Education said it is currently  engaged in numerous transition coordinating activities with HHS, Labor,  and SSA related to discretionary grants, legislative proposals, draft  regulations, policy positions, and program improvements. Education  highlighted the National Transition Conference it hosted in May 2012,  explaining that the four agencies worked together to plan and participate  in all stages of the conference with the goals of raising awareness of  services, sharing promising practices, and creating an action agenda to  improve transition outcomes for youth with disabilities.
HHS noted that it funds the Consortium to Enhance Postsecondary  Education for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities. This consortium  conducts research, provides training and technical assistance, and  disseminates information on promising practices that support individuals  with developmental disabilities to increase their independence,  productivity and inclusion through access to postsecondary education.  Since 2010, HHS has also collaborated with Education and Labor on  Project SEARCH, a program to support local students with disabilities in  their last year of high school to experience work opportunities within these  federal agencies.
Labor stated that it plans to reach out to Education and SSA to explore  ways to formalize its Federal Partners in Transition Workgroup. This  group will work to help align policies, services, and supports provided by  various programs to transition-age youth with disabilities, and to help  identify legislative and regulatory barriers that prevent the coordination of  transition services. Moreover, this group would assess the impact of its  coordination efforts by developing common outcome goals.
Finally, HHS noted that the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill  of Rights Act of 2000 does not provide for direct transition services. In  response, we clarified, in figure 1, that the act provides funding for  activities that support employment and training for youth with disabilities.  HHS also questioned the relevance of several programs included in our  list of federal programs that provide transition services, on the basis that  the programs do not provide direct services. We agree that one of these  programs, Partnership in Employment Systems Change Grants, is  intended to enhance collaboration rather than provide transition services;  therefore, we removed it from the list. However, we disagreed that the  Youth Information, Training and Resources Centers program be omitted  from the list. It provides self-advocacy services that we consider to be a  type of transition service for youth.  Similarly, we disagreed that  Developmental Disabilities Protection and Advocacy should be omitted  from the list. This program provides information on transition services and  supports to youth, among other things.  Consequently, both programs are  still included.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  Secretaries of Education, HHS, and Labor, as well as the Commissioner  of SSA, and other interested parties.  In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on our website at: http://gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-7215 or moranr@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our review examined the (1) challenges students with disabilities may  face accessing federally funded transition services; and (2) extent to  which federal agencies coordinate their transition activities. To determine  the challenges students with disabilities may face accessing transition  services as they leave high school for postsecondary education or the  workforce, we selected a nongeneralizable sample of five states and  interviewed state and local officials responsible for administering the key  federal programs that provide transition services. We visited four states:  California, Florida, Maryland, and Minnesota, and interviewed officials in  Nevada by phone. In the four states we visited, we also met with groups  of parents and students with disabilities to discuss the challenges they  face. In addition, we met with a number of experts in the field of transition  and with associations representing young adults with a wide range of  disability types to obtain their perspectives on challenges students face  during transition. Finally, we reviewed the definitions of disability and the  eligibility criteria in selected federal statutes that govern relevant federal  programs providing transition services to identify any potential legislative  or regulatory challenges they may pose.
To assess the extent to which the four key federal agencies that  administer programs providing transition services—the Departments of  Education (Education), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor  (Labor), and the Social Security Administration (SSA)—coordinate their  transition activities, we interviewed agency officials, obtained their written  responses to questions about their coordination efforts, and reviewed  agency documents. We analyzed this information based on GAO criteria  detailing activities that can enhance and sustain collaboration among  federal agencies. We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 to  July 2012 in accordance with generally accepted governmental auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We selected the five states in our nongeneralizable sample based on the  number of grants each state received under key federal programs that  provide transition services, recommendations from agency officials and  experts, and geographic diversity, to the extent possible. To identify these  key federal programs that provide grants to states and localities for  transition services, we searched the Catalog of Federal Domestic  Assistance (CFDA) and asked relevant agency officials to verify this list  of programs and identify any programs that were not captured in our  search results. Based on this search, we identified six federal grant  programs that had a specific focus on improving transition services, and  we looked at the distribution of grants to select states that received a  relatively high number of federal grants for transition services. We also  asked agency officials and experts for their recommendations of states  with model programs or promising practices related to transition services  and/or state-level collaborative efforts to improve transition outcomes. We  did not do an independent legal analysis to verify program information  from the CFDA or agency officials. To identify what additional challenges,  if any, students may face in states with relatively few programs that  provide transition services, we also selected one state with relatively few  federal grant programs to determine if the key challenges identified were  similar to those in other states.
In each state we visited, we met with officials from state departments of  education or special education, higher education, vocational  rehabilitation, developmental disabilities, workforce agencies, and staff  from parent training and information centers. In addition, with the  exception of Nevada, staff from parent training and information centers in  each state assisted us by organizing discussion groups with parents and  students with disabilities that were in the process of planning their  transition from high school to postsecondary education or employment or  had recently made the transition out of high school. In a few states, we  also met with officials from centers for independent living, other  nongovernmental organizations that received federal grants to provide  transition services, and transition specialists and experts. See table 1 for  a complete list of the organizations and groups we interviewed. During  our interviews, we discussed challenges students with disabilities may  face—including legislative or administrative barriers, potential gaps in  transition services, knowledge of teachers and other service providers  about transition services and options, parent and student awareness of  available transition services and options, and coordination among federal  agencies providing transition services. Finally, we asked officials from the  relevant Education, HHS, Labor, and SSA program offices for their  perspectives on the challenges faced by transitioning students with  disabilities.
To supplement the information collected during our interviews, we  reviewed written responses and documents provided by officials from  state and local organizations; reviewed selected statutory language  related to some of the main legislative challenges identified by federal,  state and local officials; and conducted a limited literature review of recent  research related to transition challenges.
To evaluate the extent to which federal agencies coordinate their  transition activities, we asked officials from Education, HHS, Labor, and  SSA to complete a data collection instrument we developed that  requested information on their coordination efforts and activities relating  to transition services. We reviewed agency officials’ written responses to  determine whether their efforts were formal or informal, targeted towards  transitioning students with disabilities, which agencies were involved, and  which specific activities were coordinated. We also interviewed agency  officials from relevant program offices at each agency to obtain additional  information about ongoing coordination efforts related to transition  services. These interviews also addressed inter- and intra-agency  coordination efforts related to transitioning students with disabilities,  examples of successful outcomes from these coordination efforts, any  agency assessments of their coordination efforts, and potential barriers to  coordination. In addition, we reviewed and analyzed available documents  from each agency, including their strategic plans, performance reports,  and agency performance measures; program websites and descriptions;  and other relevant agency documents, such as joint technical guidance.  We assessed the extent of the agency’s coordination efforts based on  GAO’s criteria for practices agencies can use to help enhance and  sustain interagency collaboration.
To provide an overview of federal programs that provide transition  services to youth with disabilities, we identified 21 such programs  administered by five federal agencies: Education, HHS, the Department  of Justice, Labor, and SSA. first searched the CFDA using key subject terms related to transition  services for students with disabilities.list of programs that was reviewed independently by two analysts. Each  analyst reviewed the program descriptions in CFDA and from the relevant  program websites, as necessary, and independently determined whether  a program should be excluded due to clear lack of relevance to transition  services for students with disabilities. The analysts then compared and  discussed their decisions to further refine the list of programs.   (See app. II). To identify these programs, we   This search produced a preliminary  From this second list, we selected programs that met the following  criteria: they (1) exclusively serve individuals with disabilities, including  students of transition-age (age 14 to 25); (2) provide transition services  directly to youth going from high school to postsecondary education or the  workforce and/or services to their families; and (3) received federal  funding in fiscal year 2011.
The 21 programs included in this appendix met the specific selection criteria described in  this appendix. In contrast, the programs described in the background section of this report  are examples of broader programs administered by Education, HHS, Labor, and SSA that  support transition-age students with disabilities, although they may not directly provide  transition services. any programs meeting our selection criteria that were not included in our  search results, and provide additional information on the selected  programs. We followed up with agency officials through teleconferences  and email, as necessary, to clarify program information and make a  decision to include or exclude programs. We reviewed agency  documentation and selected laws and regulations to verify eligibility  criteria, including definitions of disability and funding information. To  assess the reliability of recipient data reported in our tables, we reviewed  agency officials’ responses to questions regarding how they collected the  data, any potential limitations of the data, and the databases and systems  used to maintain the information on program recipients. To assess the  reliability of funding data, we reviewed publicly available and agency- provided budget documents. In cases where funding amounts for specific  programs were not separately reported, we clarified the information with  agency officials and noted that data were reported by the agency. Based  on our review of agency officials’ responses to our questions and of  budget documentation, we determined that the recipient and funding data  we reported were sufficiently reliable to include in this report.
section_title: Appendix II: Federal Programs that Provide Transition Services to Youth with Disabilities
paragraphs: Tables 2 to 6 of this appendix contain information on various federal  programs that provide transition services to youth with disabilities.
section_title: Appendix III: Other Federal Coordination Efforts that Address Individuals with Disabilities, Including Students
paragraphs: Some of the coordination efforts of the Departments of Education  (Education), Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor (Labor), and the  Social Security Administration (SSA) broadly address youth or individuals  with disabilities (see fig. 4). A focus on transition-age students with  disabilities may or may not be explicitly included in these federal  coordination efforts, but agency officials indicated that all of these efforts  include discussions of programs or policy that impact this population in  some manner.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Social Security Administration
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact:
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments:
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Meeta Engle (Assistant Director),  Nora Boretti (Analyst-in-Charge), Rachel Batkins, Brenna Guarneros, and  Jennifer McDonald made significant contributions to this report. In  addition, assistance, expertise, and guidance were provided by Susan  Anthony, James Bennett, Amy Buck, Susannah Compton, Elizabeth  Curda, Jill Lacey, Kathy Leslie, Craig Winslow, and Carolyn Yocom.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: High Risk Series: An Update. GAO-11-278. Washington, D.C.: February  2011.
Postsecondary Education: Many States Collect Graduates’ Employment  Information, but Clearer Guidance on Student Privacy Requirements Is  Needed. GAO-10-927. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2010.
Higher Education and Disability: Education Needs a Coordinated  Approach to Improve Its Assistance to Schools in Supporting Students.  GAO-10-33. Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2009.
Young Adults with Serious Mental Illness: Some States and Federal  Agencies Are Taking Steps to Address Their Transition Challenges.  GAO-08-678. Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2008.
Federal Disability Programs: More Strategic Coordination Could Help  Overcome Challenges to Needed Transformation. GAO-08-635.  Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2008.
Highlights of a Forum: Modernizing Federal Disability Policy.  GAO-07-934SP. Washington, D.C.: August 2007.
Summary of a GAO Conference: Helping California Youths with  Disabilities Transition to Work or Postsecondary Education,  GAO-06-759SP. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2006.
Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and  Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15. Washington,  D.C.: October 21, 2005.
Vocational Rehabilitation: Better Measures and Monitoring Could Improve  Performance of the VR Program. GAO-05-865. Washington, D.C.:  September 23, 2005.
Federal Disability Assistance: Wide Array of Programs Needs to Be  Examined in Light of 21st Century Challenges. GAO-05-626. Washington,  D.C.: June 2, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate  Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts May  Not Be Sufficient. GAO-05-54. Washington, D.C.: December 12, 2004.
Special Education: Federal Actions Can Assist States in Improving  Postsecondary Outcomes for Youth. GAO-03-773. Washington, D.C.:  July 31, 2003.