- Email: [email protected]
Facilitating the transition from school to work: An empirically based prescription for handicapped youth
Chrldrcn and Ymdh Smwcs &www. Vol. IO. pp. 18%lYH. Primed in thr USA. AU rights reserved.
lYR8 (i)pvrighr
olw74oYm s3.00 + on E IYRR Pergamon Press plc
Facilitating the Transition from School to Work: An Empirically Based Prescription for Handicapped Youth
Paula Allen-Meares University of Illinois
This article reports on a case study of a community-based agency that provided vocational services to handicapped youth and the experiences of personnel in two local school districts, following the implementation of an interagency agreement. From these experiences a prescription is offered for facilitating the transition from school to work.
Introduction The transition from secondary school to the world of work can be a difficult one for many youth. However, for the special needs youth - the individual with a handicapping condition or disability, or from a minority group or low economic background - this difficulty is compounded many times. Inadequate coordination among service providers adds to the problem and has often been cited in the literature as a barrier to proper education and career preparation of this population (Nelson, Fisher, 8c Rubenstein, 1985). Depending on how one defines special needs youth, this group constitutes a substantial proportion of the nation’s total youth cohort - about 30-35%. According to Copra (1984), in 1981 of the 3.7 million unemployed youth (age 16 to 24), approximately Requests for reprints should be addressed University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801.
to Paula Allen-Meares,
189
School of Social Work,
190
Allen-Meares
2&25L/; (820,000) experienced unemployment for 1.5 kveeks oxlonger. As might be expected, for the special needs !.outh, the rates of’ unemplo!~ment ha1.e been disproportionatelyhigh (generalI!, near 50 percent) (Copra. 1984 and National Institute of Handicapped Research, 1985). It is these youth [
b!. the lead to requires point of in adult
In response to this alarming social problem (e.g., lack ofappropriate jobs, lack of community-based and public school vocational prog&~s, and long lists at adult service agencies) the federal go\:ernment has taken the initiative in the provision of’transitional services for special needs youth (McCarthy., Everson, Moon. & Barcus, 1985). Section 626 of the 1983 amendments to the Education of the Handicapped Act authorized Congress to spend 6.6 million dollars annually for funding of transition projects. These grants are made available to assist in the design and coordination of education, train-
191
Transition for Handicapped Youth
ing, and related services, and are aimed at facilitating transition to post-secondary education, competitive employment, and the delivery of adult services. The Office of Special Education & Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) (1985) has responded by establishing a national priority on improving the transition from school to work. Efforts to improve employment opportunities involve cooperative initiatives which target prospective employees, follow-up studies of special education graduates, and, research will be encouraged with careful attention to the unique characteristics of school population and program evaluation strategies. Further, the Developmental Disabilities Act of 1984 - P.L. 98-524, Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984 - P.L. 98-524, and the Job Partnership Act of 1982 - P.L. 97-300 are other statutory developments that have given impetus to the interagency movement to increase the provision of coordinated services for this population. Interagency/ cooperative agreements are intended to formalize in writing the roles and responsibilities of two or more parties involved in the delivery of services; they sometimes also specify funding commitments. Historically, relations between school personnel and human service agencies have been plagued with many problems. As Weatherley (1979) notes, relations between schools and other human service agencies, in the implementation of special education legislation have been characterized by “sometimes rancorous debate over programmatic and fiscal responsibility for youth” (p. 129). There is “distortion in the implementation of infrequently, considerable novative practices because the deliverers of service exercise substantial discretion” (Weatherley & Lipsky, 1977, p. 171). This article reports on a case study of the perceptions and experiences of personnel in a community-based, not-for-profit agency that provided vocational training for the mentally retarded and moderately to severely developmentally handicapped youth residing in a two-county area. Also described are the experiences and perceptions of personnel in two local school districts which refer clients to the agency after an early-referral inter-agency agreement was implemented (Decoteau, 1986). It is from these experiences that a prescription is offered for improving inter-agency/ cooperative agreements and issues related to transitional programming. Interagency/Agreements Interagency/cooperative
agreements
serve
several
functions:
192
Allen-Meares
the:. enhance the ~~I~derstar~d~r~g of’services, procedures. and organizatwnai channels; provide for the delineation of responsibilities: facilitate communication among service deli\.er!, syems; impro\,e case planning, management, and follo~l*-up; and reduce duplication of effort and fragmentation. Despite strong support f&- the concept, research documents a host of irlterorganizational ancl persotmel behaiiors that are problematic and that must be overcome to ensure effectiveness (National Institute of Handicapped Research, 198.5). For example. in the case of transitional programming for special needs !.ortth, though an ~rlteragei~c~/cooperative agreement ma!. be in place, sometimes youth are not identified soon enough to make maximum use of the services provided or are picked up too late to make use of vocational skill development leading to -job emplo!.ment. Time lags and failure on the part of agency personnel to inrolse handicapped youth and their parents a& operate to undermine even the most well-de\-eloped interagenq agreements. Agencies must make known that these services-are a\,ailable and explain how one connects with the services (e.g., eligibilitj, requirements and intake procedures must be co~~r~L~r~icate~~ and specified). coordination incfude Other barriers to successful interagenc)adequate understanding of each agenc\.‘s ser\.ice responsibilities, poor communication and feedback, and a general lack of case planning, management, and follow-up. The Kational Association of DeseI~)~~Il~e~~talDi~bi~ities Council (1985) has recommended specific guidelines for evaluating and reviewing interagency of cooperative agreements. According to the Association, such agreements shoulcl include the follon~ing: (a) clescription of services to be provicled as the exclusive responsibility of each cooperating ageno!‘: (b) description of the target ~(~~Lllati(~Il, i.e., identifying the characteristics of‘ persons with clisabilities; (c) description of the service responsibility to be shared; (d) listing of commitments of staff, housing, equipment. funds, and other resources; (e) clescription of goaIs, objectives, and pefornfance measures for the cooperative activity, inciucling date to be developed and reported; (f) identification of ftderal and state laws applicable to the service deliver),, listing requirements and restrictiolls: and (g) designation of‘ lead agency. especialI?, fi)r case management activities. at-e Ifot the panacea to However, interagent). agreemerlts. insure increased productlvit>,, illtegration, and inclependence of these students and the smooth transitio11 f?om school to work. hlore ef’ficient coordination through better agreements cannot compel:sate for the lack of‘educational/\ocatio~~aI training within the school ancl c(~~llI~l~~l~jt~, and the lack of emplovment o~~port~il~ities once training has been completed b!, ~~tuth,
Transition for Handicapped Youth
193
The Agency and the Schools The agency under discussion, as stated earlier, provided a comprehensive spectrum of programs and services, that is, CUSPmanugernent semices - included information, referral, monitoring of services, client advocacy and support groups; cornmunit~ semices included intense vocational and social skills training in communit>. settings; clinical services included family and individual/group counseling as well as speech and language therapy, residential apartment training senkes - included respite care, independent programs, group home facilities and a transitional living program for students 16 to 2 1; and vocutiod semices - included assessment evaluation, training, employment placement, and support services to maximize self-support capabilities. However, vocational services for youth making the transition from school to work was the service under analysis. This was a da) program, providing vocationally. handicapped youth with evaluation, and sex- and age-level vocational placement in the least restrictive environment, using community-based employment opportunities. The agency’s board and admmistration held the philosophy that employment opportunities should be sought in the least restrictive environment possible. The document under analysis was an early-referral interagency agreement, which provided a rational plan of action to implement a project that would lead to cooperative programming between the rehabilitation agency and two local school districts. The intent was to serve all graduating, moderately to severely handicapped students, with the expectation that they would be prepared for community employment in settings that paid minimum wage. This document became effective May 20, 1985. Further, additional memos specified procedural steps school officials and agency personnel would follow when making referrals. The early-referral program, jointly administered by the agency and the two local school districts, was made available to students in their senior year of high school or at age 18. The special education IEP (Individual Educational Program) team in the high school determined a youth’s eligibility for services as a part of special educational programming. Methodology Drawing upon case study methodology, structured interviews (Iv = 38) were developed, pretested and conducted with school (4) and agency personnel (12) and parents (22). School district and agency respondents were asked to identify number of referrals, ap-
194
Allen-Meares
of-r-&m-al. degree ut‘ ~Ii~~j~jarit~.with the inrerdisciplinar! agreement, personal knowledge of rhe services prcn+ded, and I.cconltlletl, of‘ 1986. “This dela!., according to agenq personne1 was ascrlbed to the voluntary nature of admissions FO the agettq, Lack of client ~~~o~~~ati~~n~ failure by parents to complete the necessarj’ paperwork, and failure b!, the schooi to send recent test data critical for making placement decisions. pr-t~piiatciiess
Findings
Though the number of interviewees was small (everyone in~~rl~~rlin the initiative was included), their opinions and VRWS pinpoint critical situations in preventing interagency failure and shedding Iighr on issues related to transitional programs. According to agency personnel, the school had made appropriate referrals. However. a mean number of 27.5 days elapsed between the date of referral and the first interview of the student b!r the center; 78 days betlveen date of referral and rendering of the first service; and 162.75 days between date of referral and placement in a vocational program. ‘Thus, those students referred at the beginning of their senior )-ear of high school, did not actually receive services until midway through that year. Of the 16 students, four did not complete their -c-ocarional evaluation and thus were not placed. Descriptive data from case records suggest ii was easier to find vocational placements far handicapped females and more difficult to place minority youth. Also, minority );outh tr~ok longer to complete intake requirements such as submitting a phvsical exam, and thus took longer to be placed rhan white s.outh, Seventy-five percent (12) of the youth were identified as mentall), retarded, about twelve percent were physically handicapped, and the others suffered from epileps!,. Most had been referred for either adjL~strnent/~u~pur~ training or vocational evaluation services. By the end of this study another y.~rh had terminated contact with
Transition for Handicapped Youth
195
the agency. Though this youth had completed work adjustment and training, 158 days had elapsed between the initial referral and a vocational placement. Thus, a total of five youth left the program. The remaining youth were receiving extended work adjustment training, or had moved to the second level of day training. Even though the agency’s case management staff had not been informed of the particulars contained in the ear!\;-referral agreement (e.g. placement was expected by the district within the rehabilitation facililty) because it had been negotiated by their superiors, they stated that the intake process went well. However, according to school personnel there were communication barriers and inconsistencies related to differences between what school personnel and the agency perceived as needs of the youth. School personnel charged that though the student’s goals and objectives had been specified in the IEP, the admission’s committee ignored them and placed the student where they felt best. According to the agency’s case management staff, when they did participate in the IEP conferences held in the school, they were not given constructive roles to play at the meetings. Instead, their primary role was to inform parents about the kinds of services that were available at the center rather than discussing their child’s individual vocational needs and how the agency’s programming might meet them. Only two persons in one of the school districts could make an out-of-district placement. The school social worker at the high school, who coordinated all of the special education services and IEP conferences, had not been informed of the early referral agreement. Parents felt that having the school involved in the referral ensured continuity of services and facilitated the transition from school to work. Parents saw the school as their advocate and as responsible for their knowledge of the services offered by the agency. They stated that they could identify specific school personnel, but it was more difficult to identify agency personnel because of the high turnover in staff. Also, parents stated that it took too long for referrals to be processed and for services to be rendered. Parents recommended that the center decentralize itself by making available speakers, outreach workers, and advocates for handicapped youth. Parents expressed disappointment that even though the process was termed early-referral, their children tended to complete agency referral procedures about the same time that they exited from school. Data compiled from the case records confirmed this observation. Accordingly, parents strongly recommended earlier vocational program planning and training beginning in junior high school.
196
Allen-Meares
A Prescription
Some of the follow%lg prescriptions and/or recommendations are not drawn solelv from the previous case material but logicall\ flow from principles of comnlunicatioi~ and organizational theories when applied to collaborative efforts involving several agencies and interagenc\, agreements. I. The agreement should be operationalized so that its objettives are specified and made known to all of the significant actors. EIigibility criteria for services, intake and referral processes. and staff members’ roles and responsibilities at various stages of- the process must be written in behavioral terms and communicated to staff. For example, if the school refers a youth ,for services and invites the agency’s personnel to the IEP conferences to explore the appropriateness of the referral, then the role this persomlel will pla) in the staffing should be made clear. Further, the agenct must specify for whom the services are appropriate and what information is needed from whom for intake (e.g., physical examinations perhaps are the responsibility; of parents and psvchometric data are the responsibility of school personnel, etc.). 2. If parental involvement is critical. then someone must be assigned the responsibility of working with parents. Because parents in this case study identified with school personnel and found them to be their advocate, perhaps someone tshthin the school should contact parents to explain the referral process and what information is needed from them. This ma!.. be of particular importance for minority youth; it took them conslderabl\- longer to link up agency’s sersices. If parents cannot afford medical examinations, then school personnel can assist in identifying resources in the cornIllLlnit~ to provide such services. Once the youth has been placed, school personnel should follow up with parent and youth to ascertain lvhether anv concerns or issues exist. It is imperative that someone rvithin the agkncy be assigned as the youth’s case manager. The case manager and a representative of the school, knowledgeable about the youth, shoulcl have periodic discussions about the vouth’s school and voca’ tional progress and problems that arise. 3. A system of feedback. structured. with set intervals for evaluating the youth’s progress and with an emphasis on long range planning, should be a part of the interaFency/cooperative agreement. The system of feedback should also Include opportunities for consumers to evaluate the process. For example, in this case parents did not feel that they had an identified role in the process, and because of the agenc),‘s high turnover they could not identify any one person as their youth’s advocate. They were also not a part of a
Transition for Handicapped Youth
197
formal procedure to evaluate the overall quality of the service. Related, it took 162.75 days between date of referral and placement in a vocational program. This is a considerable time lag, and youth could become disenchanted with the program. Someone, within the agency and/or school should stay in contact with the youth while simultaneously working to shorten this lag. 4. Finally, what was bothersome to the author was the failure to communicate to all staff in each setting the purpose and process of the early-referral agreement. As stated earlier, the social worker at the high school who coordinated special educational services was unaware of the agreement. On another level, the person most often involved with the youth was left out of transitional decision making. The school administrator, often the least informed school official, made all of these decisions. Parents expressed a concern to increase their knowledge of the agency’s service before the child reached the 12th grade. Prior to implementing interagency agreements it would appear that relevant agencies should provide some form of in-service training and/or orientation. Appropriate personnel at the various organizational levels of the agencies should be included in the training (e.g., assist superintendent of special education, building principal, special education teachers, school social work, and parents. etc.).
Conclusions Interagency agreements can be considered a very useful tool for networking services for handicapped youth, and are one small piece and/or aspect of many factors influencing the outcome of transitional programs. As stated previously, in the school the role of linking school age children with community-based services has primarily been filled by the social worker. In this particular case, however, the social worker at the high school was not involved in linking special needs youth with transitional programming and was ignorant of the interagency agreement. Moreover, numerous problems were cited concerning how the interagency agreement was conceptualized and implemented. The linking of the institution of education and community-based vocational services while these youths are still in school is of critical importance. The prescription/recommendations offered here are intended to minimize problems while maximizing effective transitional programming. Planning postgraduate vocational assistance for handicapped youth could offset a life of dependency, and this warrants the attention and involvement of social workers.
Allen-Meares
198 References
Allen-Meares, P.. Washington, R., &- Welsh, B. ( 1986). Social u~~k sm~im irrJC/~OOLL Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Copra, G. H. ( 1984). ~‘orut&al e&~atio~~ a& yzcth ~rr$~lo~~~~~~zf ~~?~#~~~~f/~)~~ .st’r/f’sM. 274. Columbus, Ohio. Nationai Center for Research in Vocational Educational Education. The Ohio State University. Decoteau, P. (1986, Summer). Under the supervision of the author, collected data as a required practicum experience in Vocational/Technical Education, Lniversit? of Illinois. Urbana/Champaign. McCarthy. P. Everson, J., Moon, S.. II- Barcus. M. (Eds.) (19853. St-/~>1 tcl work trumitionfor pouth with seL+eredisabilities. Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Commonwealth University, Research and Training Center, 7-8. NASW Board of Directors (1985). Established the Education Commission in April. National Association of Social Workers, Washington, DC. National Association of De~e~opmencal DisabiIities Councils (1985). ~z~~~~~i~~~s~ur evaluating. rev2pufing aad enhancing sr/lplol’,,le,lt-related services ,for people with deuelo~mental disabilities. Washington, DC. . National Institute of Handicapped Research, U.S. Department of Education, OSERS (1985). Cooperative programs f;lr tmmihu frow schoc~l to work. Washington, DC: Author. Nelson, R., Fisher, J., & Rubenstein. J. (1985). Education and career planning. Joumal ojAdole.scent Health Care, 6, 136 140. Weatherler, R. (1979). R~fbrmi~zgs/&w’al educatimr: Polir~ ir,,pkmerrtalio~l/~o~n state LfJzlel MA: The l\lassachusetts Institute of to street Irzvl. (pp. l-160) Cambridge, Technolog. Weatherley, R., & Lipsky. X1. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: lmplement~ng special-education reform. Hanlard Edwatinml Rez~iezo, 47, 171-197,. Will, ;Irl. (1984). Bridges,from school to work lijb. Prqrams for the hamGapped. (pp. l-5) ~~arc~Apri1, No. 2. Washingto~l, DC: Office of Special E&cation and Rehabilitation Services.
lYR8 (i)pvrighr
olw74oYm s3.00 + on E IYRR Pergamon Press plc
Facilitating the Transition from School to Work: An Empirically Based Prescription for Handicapped Youth
Paula Allen-Meares University of Illinois
This article reports on a case study of a community-based agency that provided vocational services to handicapped youth and the experiences of personnel in two local school districts, following the implementation of an interagency agreement. From these experiences a prescription is offered for facilitating the transition from school to work.
Introduction The transition from secondary school to the world of work can be a difficult one for many youth. However, for the special needs youth - the individual with a handicapping condition or disability, or from a minority group or low economic background - this difficulty is compounded many times. Inadequate coordination among service providers adds to the problem and has often been cited in the literature as a barrier to proper education and career preparation of this population (Nelson, Fisher, 8c Rubenstein, 1985). Depending on how one defines special needs youth, this group constitutes a substantial proportion of the nation’s total youth cohort - about 30-35%. According to Copra (1984), in 1981 of the 3.7 million unemployed youth (age 16 to 24), approximately Requests for reprints should be addressed University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801.
to Paula Allen-Meares,
189
School of Social Work,
190
Allen-Meares
2&25L/; (820,000) experienced unemployment for 1.5 kveeks oxlonger. As might be expected, for the special needs !.outh, the rates of’ unemplo!~ment ha1.e been disproportionatelyhigh (generalI!, near 50 percent) (Copra. 1984 and National Institute of Handicapped Research, 1985). It is these youth [
b!. the lead to requires point of in adult
In response to this alarming social problem (e.g., lack ofappropriate jobs, lack of community-based and public school vocational prog&~s, and long lists at adult service agencies) the federal go\:ernment has taken the initiative in the provision of’transitional services for special needs youth (McCarthy., Everson, Moon. & Barcus, 1985). Section 626 of the 1983 amendments to the Education of the Handicapped Act authorized Congress to spend 6.6 million dollars annually for funding of transition projects. These grants are made available to assist in the design and coordination of education, train-
191
Transition for Handicapped Youth
ing, and related services, and are aimed at facilitating transition to post-secondary education, competitive employment, and the delivery of adult services. The Office of Special Education & Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) (1985) has responded by establishing a national priority on improving the transition from school to work. Efforts to improve employment opportunities involve cooperative initiatives which target prospective employees, follow-up studies of special education graduates, and, research will be encouraged with careful attention to the unique characteristics of school population and program evaluation strategies. Further, the Developmental Disabilities Act of 1984 - P.L. 98-524, Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984 - P.L. 98-524, and the Job Partnership Act of 1982 - P.L. 97-300 are other statutory developments that have given impetus to the interagency movement to increase the provision of coordinated services for this population. Interagency/ cooperative agreements are intended to formalize in writing the roles and responsibilities of two or more parties involved in the delivery of services; they sometimes also specify funding commitments. Historically, relations between school personnel and human service agencies have been plagued with many problems. As Weatherley (1979) notes, relations between schools and other human service agencies, in the implementation of special education legislation have been characterized by “sometimes rancorous debate over programmatic and fiscal responsibility for youth” (p. 129). There is “distortion in the implementation of infrequently, considerable novative practices because the deliverers of service exercise substantial discretion” (Weatherley & Lipsky, 1977, p. 171). This article reports on a case study of the perceptions and experiences of personnel in a community-based, not-for-profit agency that provided vocational training for the mentally retarded and moderately to severely developmentally handicapped youth residing in a two-county area. Also described are the experiences and perceptions of personnel in two local school districts which refer clients to the agency after an early-referral inter-agency agreement was implemented (Decoteau, 1986). It is from these experiences that a prescription is offered for improving inter-agency/ cooperative agreements and issues related to transitional programming. Interagency/Agreements Interagency/cooperative
agreements
serve
several
functions:
192
Allen-Meares
the:. enhance the ~~I~derstar~d~r~g of’services, procedures. and organizatwnai channels; provide for the delineation of responsibilities: facilitate communication among service deli\.er!, syems; impro\,e case planning, management, and follo~l*-up; and reduce duplication of effort and fragmentation. Despite strong support f&- the concept, research documents a host of irlterorganizational ancl persotmel behaiiors that are problematic and that must be overcome to ensure effectiveness (National Institute of Handicapped Research, 198.5). For example. in the case of transitional programming for special needs !.ortth, though an ~rlteragei~c~/cooperative agreement ma!. be in place, sometimes youth are not identified soon enough to make maximum use of the services provided or are picked up too late to make use of vocational skill development leading to -job emplo!.ment. Time lags and failure on the part of agency personnel to inrolse handicapped youth and their parents a& operate to undermine even the most well-de\-eloped interagenq agreements. Agencies must make known that these services-are a\,ailable and explain how one connects with the services (e.g., eligibilitj, requirements and intake procedures must be co~~r~L~r~icate~~ and specified). coordination incfude Other barriers to successful interagenc)adequate understanding of each agenc\.‘s ser\.ice responsibilities, poor communication and feedback, and a general lack of case planning, management, and follow-up. The Kational Association of DeseI~)~~Il~e~~talDi~bi~ities Council (1985) has recommended specific guidelines for evaluating and reviewing interagency of cooperative agreements. According to the Association, such agreements shoulcl include the follon~ing: (a) clescription of services to be provicled as the exclusive responsibility of each cooperating ageno!‘: (b) description of the target ~(~~Lllati(~Il, i.e., identifying the characteristics of‘ persons with clisabilities; (c) description of the service responsibility to be shared; (d) listing of commitments of staff, housing, equipment. funds, and other resources; (e) clescription of goaIs, objectives, and pefornfance measures for the cooperative activity, inciucling date to be developed and reported; (f) identification of ftderal and state laws applicable to the service deliver),, listing requirements and restrictiolls: and (g) designation of‘ lead agency. especialI?, fi)r case management activities. at-e Ifot the panacea to However, interagent). agreemerlts. insure increased productlvit>,, illtegration, and inclependence of these students and the smooth transitio11 f?om school to work. hlore ef’ficient coordination through better agreements cannot compel:sate for the lack of‘educational/\ocatio~~aI training within the school ancl c(~~llI~l~~l~jt~, and the lack of emplovment o~~port~il~ities once training has been completed b!, ~~tuth,
Transition for Handicapped Youth
193
The Agency and the Schools The agency under discussion, as stated earlier, provided a comprehensive spectrum of programs and services, that is, CUSPmanugernent semices - included information, referral, monitoring of services, client advocacy and support groups; cornmunit~ semices included intense vocational and social skills training in communit>. settings; clinical services included family and individual/group counseling as well as speech and language therapy, residential apartment training senkes - included respite care, independent programs, group home facilities and a transitional living program for students 16 to 2 1; and vocutiod semices - included assessment evaluation, training, employment placement, and support services to maximize self-support capabilities. However, vocational services for youth making the transition from school to work was the service under analysis. This was a da) program, providing vocationally. handicapped youth with evaluation, and sex- and age-level vocational placement in the least restrictive environment, using community-based employment opportunities. The agency’s board and admmistration held the philosophy that employment opportunities should be sought in the least restrictive environment possible. The document under analysis was an early-referral interagency agreement, which provided a rational plan of action to implement a project that would lead to cooperative programming between the rehabilitation agency and two local school districts. The intent was to serve all graduating, moderately to severely handicapped students, with the expectation that they would be prepared for community employment in settings that paid minimum wage. This document became effective May 20, 1985. Further, additional memos specified procedural steps school officials and agency personnel would follow when making referrals. The early-referral program, jointly administered by the agency and the two local school districts, was made available to students in their senior year of high school or at age 18. The special education IEP (Individual Educational Program) team in the high school determined a youth’s eligibility for services as a part of special educational programming. Methodology Drawing upon case study methodology, structured interviews (Iv = 38) were developed, pretested and conducted with school (4) and agency personnel (12) and parents (22). School district and agency respondents were asked to identify number of referrals, ap-
194
Allen-Meares
of-r-&m-al. degree ut‘ ~Ii~~j~jarit~.with the inrerdisciplinar! agreement, personal knowledge of rhe services prcn+ded, and I.cconltlletl
Findings
Though the number of interviewees was small (everyone in~~rl~~rlin the initiative was included), their opinions and VRWS pinpoint critical situations in preventing interagency failure and shedding Iighr on issues related to transitional programs. According to agency personnel, the school had made appropriate referrals. However. a mean number of 27.5 days elapsed between the date of referral and the first interview of the student b!r the center; 78 days betlveen date of referral and rendering of the first service; and 162.75 days between date of referral and placement in a vocational program. ‘Thus, those students referred at the beginning of their senior )-ear of high school, did not actually receive services until midway through that year. Of the 16 students, four did not complete their -c-ocarional evaluation and thus were not placed. Descriptive data from case records suggest ii was easier to find vocational placements far handicapped females and more difficult to place minority youth. Also, minority );outh tr~ok longer to complete intake requirements such as submitting a phvsical exam, and thus took longer to be placed rhan white s.outh, Seventy-five percent (12) of the youth were identified as mentall), retarded, about twelve percent were physically handicapped, and the others suffered from epileps!,. Most had been referred for either adjL~strnent/~u~pur~ training or vocational evaluation services. By the end of this study another y.~rh had terminated contact with
Transition for Handicapped Youth
195
the agency. Though this youth had completed work adjustment and training, 158 days had elapsed between the initial referral and a vocational placement. Thus, a total of five youth left the program. The remaining youth were receiving extended work adjustment training, or had moved to the second level of day training. Even though the agency’s case management staff had not been informed of the particulars contained in the ear!\;-referral agreement (e.g. placement was expected by the district within the rehabilitation facililty) because it had been negotiated by their superiors, they stated that the intake process went well. However, according to school personnel there were communication barriers and inconsistencies related to differences between what school personnel and the agency perceived as needs of the youth. School personnel charged that though the student’s goals and objectives had been specified in the IEP, the admission’s committee ignored them and placed the student where they felt best. According to the agency’s case management staff, when they did participate in the IEP conferences held in the school, they were not given constructive roles to play at the meetings. Instead, their primary role was to inform parents about the kinds of services that were available at the center rather than discussing their child’s individual vocational needs and how the agency’s programming might meet them. Only two persons in one of the school districts could make an out-of-district placement. The school social worker at the high school, who coordinated all of the special education services and IEP conferences, had not been informed of the early referral agreement. Parents felt that having the school involved in the referral ensured continuity of services and facilitated the transition from school to work. Parents saw the school as their advocate and as responsible for their knowledge of the services offered by the agency. They stated that they could identify specific school personnel, but it was more difficult to identify agency personnel because of the high turnover in staff. Also, parents stated that it took too long for referrals to be processed and for services to be rendered. Parents recommended that the center decentralize itself by making available speakers, outreach workers, and advocates for handicapped youth. Parents expressed disappointment that even though the process was termed early-referral, their children tended to complete agency referral procedures about the same time that they exited from school. Data compiled from the case records confirmed this observation. Accordingly, parents strongly recommended earlier vocational program planning and training beginning in junior high school.
196
Allen-Meares
A Prescription
Some of the follow%lg prescriptions and/or recommendations are not drawn solelv from the previous case material but logicall\ flow from principles of comnlunicatioi~ and organizational theories when applied to collaborative efforts involving several agencies and interagenc\, agreements. I. The agreement should be operationalized so that its objettives are specified and made known to all of the significant actors. EIigibility criteria for services, intake and referral processes. and staff members’ roles and responsibilities at various stages of- the process must be written in behavioral terms and communicated to staff. For example, if the school refers a youth ,for services and invites the agency’s personnel to the IEP conferences to explore the appropriateness of the referral, then the role this persomlel will pla) in the staffing should be made clear. Further, the agenct must specify for whom the services are appropriate and what information is needed from whom for intake (e.g., physical examinations perhaps are the responsibility; of parents and psvchometric data are the responsibility of school personnel, etc.). 2. If parental involvement is critical. then someone must be assigned the responsibility of working with parents. Because parents in this case study identified with school personnel and found them to be their advocate, perhaps someone tshthin the school should contact parents to explain the referral process and what information is needed from them. This ma!.. be of particular importance for minority youth; it took them conslderabl\- longer to link up agency’s sersices. If parents cannot afford medical examinations, then school personnel can assist in identifying resources in the cornIllLlnit~ to provide such services. Once the youth has been placed, school personnel should follow up with parent and youth to ascertain lvhether anv concerns or issues exist. It is imperative that someone rvithin the agkncy be assigned as the youth’s case manager. The case manager and a representative of the school, knowledgeable about the youth, shoulcl have periodic discussions about the vouth’s school and voca’ tional progress and problems that arise. 3. A system of feedback. structured. with set intervals for evaluating the youth’s progress and with an emphasis on long range planning, should be a part of the interaFency/cooperative agreement. The system of feedback should also Include opportunities for consumers to evaluate the process. For example, in this case parents did not feel that they had an identified role in the process, and because of the agenc),‘s high turnover they could not identify any one person as their youth’s advocate. They were also not a part of a
Transition for Handicapped Youth
197
formal procedure to evaluate the overall quality of the service. Related, it took 162.75 days between date of referral and placement in a vocational program. This is a considerable time lag, and youth could become disenchanted with the program. Someone, within the agency and/or school should stay in contact with the youth while simultaneously working to shorten this lag. 4. Finally, what was bothersome to the author was the failure to communicate to all staff in each setting the purpose and process of the early-referral agreement. As stated earlier, the social worker at the high school who coordinated special educational services was unaware of the agreement. On another level, the person most often involved with the youth was left out of transitional decision making. The school administrator, often the least informed school official, made all of these decisions. Parents expressed a concern to increase their knowledge of the agency’s service before the child reached the 12th grade. Prior to implementing interagency agreements it would appear that relevant agencies should provide some form of in-service training and/or orientation. Appropriate personnel at the various organizational levels of the agencies should be included in the training (e.g., assist superintendent of special education, building principal, special education teachers, school social work, and parents. etc.).
Conclusions Interagency agreements can be considered a very useful tool for networking services for handicapped youth, and are one small piece and/or aspect of many factors influencing the outcome of transitional programs. As stated previously, in the school the role of linking school age children with community-based services has primarily been filled by the social worker. In this particular case, however, the social worker at the high school was not involved in linking special needs youth with transitional programming and was ignorant of the interagency agreement. Moreover, numerous problems were cited concerning how the interagency agreement was conceptualized and implemented. The linking of the institution of education and community-based vocational services while these youths are still in school is of critical importance. The prescription/recommendations offered here are intended to minimize problems while maximizing effective transitional programming. Planning postgraduate vocational assistance for handicapped youth could offset a life of dependency, and this warrants the attention and involvement of social workers.
Allen-Meares
198 References
Allen-Meares, P.. Washington, R., &- Welsh, B. ( 1986). Social u~~k sm~im irrJC/~OOLL Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Copra, G. H. ( 1984). ~‘orut&al e&~atio~~ a& yzcth ~rr$~lo~~~~~~zf ~~?~#~~~~f/~)~~ .st’r/f’sM. 274. Columbus, Ohio. Nationai Center for Research in Vocational Educational Education. The Ohio State University. Decoteau, P. (1986, Summer). Under the supervision of the author, collected data as a required practicum experience in Vocational/Technical Education, Lniversit? of Illinois. Urbana/Champaign. McCarthy. P. Everson, J., Moon, S.. II- Barcus. M. (Eds.) (19853. St-/~>1 tcl work trumitionfor pouth with seL+eredisabilities. Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Commonwealth University, Research and Training Center, 7-8. NASW Board of Directors (1985). Established the Education Commission in April. National Association of Social Workers, Washington, DC. National Association of De~e~opmencal DisabiIities Councils (1985). ~z~~~~~i~~~s~ur evaluating. rev2pufing aad enhancing sr/lplol’,,le,lt-related services ,for people with deuelo~mental disabilities. Washington, DC. . National Institute of Handicapped Research, U.S. Department of Education, OSERS (1985). Cooperative programs f;lr tmmihu frow schoc~l to work. Washington, DC: Author. Nelson, R., Fisher, J., & Rubenstein. J. (1985). Education and career planning. Joumal ojAdole.scent Health Care, 6, 136 140. Weatherler, R. (1979). R~fbrmi~zgs/&w’al educatimr: Polir~ ir,,pkmerrtalio~l/~o~n state LfJzlel MA: The l\lassachusetts Institute of to street Irzvl. (pp. l-160) Cambridge, Technolog. Weatherley, R., & Lipsky. X1. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: lmplement~ng special-education reform. Hanlard Edwatinml Rez~iezo, 47, 171-197,. Will, ;Irl. (1984). Bridges,from school to work lijb. Prqrams for the hamGapped. (pp. l-5) ~~arc~Apri1, No. 2. Washingto~l, DC: Office of Special E&cation and Rehabilitation Services.