To support the educational needs of children with disabilities, Congress originally enacted IDEA in 1975.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.) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Tables 2 to 6 of this appendix contain information on various federal programs that provide transition services to youth with disabilities. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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. 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.