relevant articles had to explicitly mention that VR was somehow involved with the program, but no other specific threshold of VR involvement was required for inclusion in the study. A second reviewer read the full texts of articles with seemingly relevant programs and ultimately decided whether the article was relevant to the study. The database and website search yielded 757 potentially relevant articles, of which 38 received a full text review. Thirteen of the discovered articles were ultimately identified as being relevant to the study, but some of these articles discussed the same program. Together, the 13 articles described seven unique programs. Table 1. Program Target and Study Populations, Program Features and Partnering Organizations Program Name/Citation Target and Study Population Program Features Partnering Organizations Communicating Interagency Relationships and Collaborative Linkages for Exceptional Students (CIRCLES) Povenmire-Kirk et al. (2015) High school students with disabilities in 48 schools across 15 counties/districts in North and South Carolina. The schools were evenly divided into treatment and control groups. Three coordinated teams delivered services: (1) Community-level team addressed policy issues and did not work directly with students; (2) School-level teams provided interagency services to students and their families; and (3) the individualized education program (IEP) team formalized transition and education goals in IEP. School districts and various other partner organizations, such as VR, public health and social service departments, advocacy groups, and other service providers Dual Enrollment with Individualized Supports (DEIS) Project Yamamoto et al. (2014) Students with intellectual disabilities at eight Hawaii public high schools. students participated in the program during its The participants received educational coaches who helped the participants engage in opportunities at local community colleges. The program also Hawaii public high schools, Hawaii’s VR agency, and other community agencies
first three years. featured interagency collaboration and person-centered planning. Maryland Seamless Transition Collaborative (MSTC) Luecking and Luecking (2015) High school students with disabilities in 11 Maryland counties/school districts from The program’s target sample size was 400 students. MSTC participants were connected to VR services, paid employment, and a community rehabilitation provider one to three years before exiting high school. In addition, the program enabled students to lead their IEP development, encouraged family participation, made health and social links, and provided benefits management support. Maryland’s VR agency, Maryland State Department of Education, Maryland Department of Disabilities, TransCen, Maryland Developmental Disabilities Administration, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, families, and the Governor’s Interagency Transition Council Model Transition Program (MTP) Brewer et al. (2011); Karpur et al. (2014 New York State high school students with disabilities. Sixty MTP sites operated from fall 2007 through fall 2009. The program enabled VR, MTP, and school staff to develop and refine transition curriculums; fostered interagency collaboration for VR services; and developed internship and work experience sites. New York State high schools; New York’s SVRA; and other partners such as businesses, colleges, and other postsecondary institutions Project SEARCH Müller and VanGilder (2014); O’Day (2009); Transition-age youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities. More than 200 Project Project SEARCH provided work experience to participants, including one full Public schools, local employers, and SVRAs
(2013) three high schools in the northwest United States. Included 122 treatment and 100 control group members. social skills using common activities in work settings. Services were delivered for 3-4 days per week for 4.5 months. other school staff Table 2. Program Focal Outcomes, Evaluation Efforts and Program Effects Program Name/Citation Focal Outcomes Evaluation Efforts and Program Effects Communicating Interagency Relationships and Collaborative Linkages for Exceptional Students (CIRCLES) Povenmire-Kirk et al. (2015) In-school outcomes included better academic outcomes, better behavioral outcomes, and greater satisfaction. Post-school outcomes included higher employment rates, higher postsecondary education rates, and greater independent living rates. Article examined focus groups describing the first year of implementation. Assignment to the treatment group was random, so a rigorous impact evaluation might eventually be possible. Dual Enrollment with Individualized Supports (DEIS) Project Yamamoto et al. (2014) The program sought to improve employment outcomes. The article provided qualitative data describing the implementation process and key lessons. Maryland Seamless Transition Collaborative (MSTC) Luecking and Luecking (2015) Key outcomes at high school exit were an open VR case, links to postsecondary education, paid and inclusive employment, and links to community rehabilitation provider. Longer-term outcomes were ongoing paid and inclusive employment and systemic transition collaboration. The article for this descriptive study reported employment, program participation, and postsecondary participation outcomes at high school exit for some program participants.