|
Transition and Post-School Outcomes
for Youth with Disabilities: Closing the Gaps to Post-Secondary Education
and Employment
National Council on Disability
Social Security Administration
November 1, 2000
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Social Security Administration (SSA) and the National
Council on Disability (NCD) wish to express appreciation to the
following Transition-Post School Outcomes report team members who
participated in the development of this report:
Kate P. Wolters (Team Chair)(Vice Chairperson, NCD)
Bonnie O'Day, Ph.D. (Member, NCD)
Yerker Andersson, Ph.D. (Member, NCD)
Lilliam Rangel-Diaz (Member, NCD)
Gerrie Hawkins, Ph.D. (Program Specialist, NCD)
Important contributions in research, development,
review, and comments were made by:
LaVerne Buchanan, Ed.D. (Consultant, Arlington, Virginia)
Martin Gould, Ed.D (Research Specialist, NCD)
Susan Madison (Policy Fellow, NCD)
Jeffrey Rosen (General Counsel/Director of Policy, NCD)
We would like to thank all of the participants in
the NCD/SSA July 1999 National Forum for their time and energy given
to provide guidance for future activities of federal, state, and
local entities that will facilitate economic independence for the
nation's young people with disabilities.
For their policy review, program and systems' analysis,
and comments during the early stages of the project, appreciation
is also expressed to:
Andrew Imparato (President and CEO, American Association of People
with Disabilities)
Marie P. Strahan (Social Security Administration)
Robert Gropp, Ph.D. (Social Security Administration)
Kathleen Blank (Attorney Advisor, NCD)
Jane West, Ph.D. (Consultant, Chevy Chase, Maryland)
Richard Horne, Ph.D. (U.S. Department of Labor)
Ethel D. Briggs (Executive Director, NCD)
Susan M. Daniels, Ph.D. (Deputy Commissioner for Disability and
Income Security Programs)
Kenneth J. McGill (Associate Commissioner, Social Security Administration)
Sharon Shreet (Director Division of Employment Policy, Social Security
Administration)
Natalie Funk (Program Innovations Team Leader, Social Security Administration)
The staff lead for overall coordination and finalization
of this report was the responsibility of Gerrie Hawkins, Ph.D. (Policy
Team, NCD) and Christa Bucks Camacho (Program Innovations Team,
Social Security Administration).
This publication was made possible by funding from
the Social Security Administration.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Transition, Employment and Post-Secondary
Research and Findings
Employment
Post-Secondary Education
Social Security
What Works
Transition Planning,
Services and Supports
What Should Work
The Youth Opportunity
Movement
Workforce Investment Act: Youth Councils
and One-Stop Centers
Presidential Task Force on Employment
of Adults with Disabilities
Ticket to Work
and Work Incentives Improvement Act
Demonstrations Projects to Ensure Students
with Disabilities Receive a High Quality Education
Conclusions and Recommendations for
Action
Recommendations
to the President and the U.S. Congress
Recommendations
to State and Local Entities
Recommendations
to the Disability Community
REFERENCES
Transition and Post -School Outcomes for Youth
with Disabilities: Closing the Gaps to Post-Secondary Education
and Employment
Executive Summary
Despite advances in education, disability rights policy,
the support of federal mandates, and increased funding of programs
and initiatives that impact all youth, the post-school outcomes
for far too many of our nation's youth and young adults are still
poor. The current status translates not only into untapped talent
and potential and unfulfilled dreams, but severely limits America's
preparation of today's youth for full participation in tomorrow's
society. This report brings attention to persistent issues and problems
that various national studies on post-school outcomes document.
The problems identified in this report are: (a) poor graduation
rates from high school; (b) low employment rates after high school;
(c) low post-secondary education participation; and (d) an increasing
number of youth receiving Social Security benefits and not leaving
the benefits rolls. The outcomes reported through statistics resonate
to 30 years ago, prior to the benefit of federal laws and regulations.
This is a crisis situation for youth with disabilities. A national
initiative that focuses on coordinated actions to address system
reform is required. The new system must be effective in changing
an antiquated system that has not accomplished widespread and favorable
results from the beginning. To minimize continued casualties among
youth with disabilities in transition, we must implement a process
for reversing historical trends of ineffective transition service
planning and provision.
This report presents an analysis of research on the
status of transition, post-secondary education, and employment outcomes
for primarily 14 to 22 year old youth and young adults with disabilities
over the past 25 years. Next it identifies what has worked, and
what should work in light of unmet needs and unserved populations.
Finally, the report presents recommendations for national, state,
and local community action.
In the second half of the 20th Century, there has
been a dramatic change in the value of a high school education and
diploma. A high school diploma was considered a valued asset in
the labor market during the 1950s. By the early 1970s, a high school
diploma served as a gateway to many promising career opportunities.
Because high school completion and a diploma have become a requirement
for pursuing additional education, training, or the labor force,
the consequences of leaving high school without a diploma are severe.
On average, students who receive special education - like their
general education peers - who do not attain diplomas and those who
do not complete their high school education are: more likely to
be unemployed; more likely to earn less money if, and when, they
eventually secure work; and, more likely to receive public assistance
than they would if they completed their education and work preparation
programs, and attained a high school diploma.
Over the past 25 years federal legislation has been
enacted to exact changes in how children and youth with disabilities
were educated, engaged in postsecondary education experiences, and
prepared for and involved in meaningful employment. Such legislation
includes the following: the Education of All Handicapped Children
Act (P.L. 94-142), the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Amendments
of 1984 (P.L. 98-524) and Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Education Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-392), the Technology-Related Assistance
for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988, as amended in 1994
(P.L. 100-407 and P.L. 103-218) (Tech Act), the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-336), the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1992 (P.L.101-476) and 1997 (P.L. 105-17),
the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (P.L.103-239), the
Higher Education Act of 1998 (P.L.105-244) including a new program
for Higher Education Access for Students with Disabilities (Part
D of Title VII), the 1998 Rehabilitation Act Amendments (P.L. 105-166),
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220), and the 1999
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act (P.L. 106-170).
The Rehabilitation Act amendments also focused attention on the
Congressional intent regarding national level leadership that is
needed for coordination across programs, initiatives, and services.
It established special responsibilities for the Secretary of Education
to coordinate all activities with respect to individuals with disabilities
across programs administered by the Federal Government. Neither
the extent, effectiveness of carrying out this requirement, nor
its impact on the way students with disabilities exit high school
is clear at this time.
Chief among these various pieces of federal legislation
is IDEA, its transition services requirements, and related provisions
of the 1997 IDEA amendments. School districts are required to assess
each student's ability to meet post-graduation goals and to consider
individual transition services needs, not relying upon general services
and/or supports the school may already have in place. The 1997 IDEA
amendments require an individualized education program (IEP) team
to formulate a statement of each student's transition service needs
focusing on which courses will be necessary to help the student
achieve long-term vocational goals by the time a student turns 14
years old. By age 16 (or younger, if the IEP team determines that
it is appropriate), the specific transition services necessary to
accomplish those vocational goals must be addressed through IEP
team transition service planning. Transition services are defined
as a coordinated set of activities "designed within an outcome oriented
process" and aimed at promoting each student's movement from school
to post-school activities. These activities may include: Post-secondary
education, vocational training, integrated employment, adult education,
independent living and community participation.
Although IDEA may be considered the chief entitlement
law for children and youth with disabilities, it is not their only
federal civil rights protection. However, youth and their families
are not sufficiently aware that children, youth, and adults with
disabilities are also protected against discrimination and that
youth and adults are provided access to rehabilitation services,
if needed for employment, under the Rehabilitation Act. While this
law has been on the books more than a quarter of a century, administration
of its multiple sections is the responsibility of different federal
entities. Who administers what is unclear to some stakeholders and
becomes important information when laws are not always fully and
effectively carried out by state and local entities. The Rehabilitation
Act incorporates provisions for determining individual need for
vocational rehabilitation training to assist with reaching a desired
employment outcome.
How well has America met the education and employment
needs of youth through its education and disability policy, legislative
provisions and initiatives geared to prepare youth for success in
the digital economy, to decrease drop out rates, and to increase
graduation rates? In terms of preparing youth with disabilities
for the digital economy, according to a nationally representative
survey conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES, 2000) of 1,000 school administrators about the use of telecommunications
in their school:
- 65% of public schools had internet access;
- 73% of these school indicated that students had
access to the internet either through e-mail, newsgroups or the
web;
- 47% of schools indicated that the major barrier
to student use of telecommunications was that special education
teachers were not being sufficiently trained in the technology;
- 34% of schools cited not having enough computers
available to students with disabilities;
- 38% of schools reported not having enough computers
with alternative input/output devices for students with disabilities;
and
- 39% of schools indicated that there were inadequate
evaluation and support services to meet the special technology
needs of students with disabilities.
These data present a picture that leaves much to be
done in the area of telecommunications access and personnel training.
In school year 1996, there were 441,812 students reported
to have exited special education in the United States and outlying
areas. In 1997, that number increased to 463,025 students. In school
year 1998, that number increased to 486,625 students. The following
statistics provide information on the 'Basis of Exit' data reported
over the last 3 years by the U.S. Department of Education's Office
of Special Education Programs.
Basis of Exit for Students Who Receive Special Education
In the United States During the 1996 to 1998 School Years
School Year |
% Students 14
Yrs. And Older Who Exit with Diplomas |
% Students 14
Yrs. and Older Who Drop Out |
% Students Who
Moved, Not Known To Continue |
% Students 14
Yrs. And Older Who Returned to Regular Education |
IDEA Annual Report
Year |
1996 |
27 |
17 |
13 |
15 |
1998 |
1997 |
27 |
18 |
12 |
14 |
1999 |
1998 |
27 |
17 |
13 |
12 |
2000 |
Note: Data derived from
Tables AD1 of the 19th, 20th, and 21st Annual Reports to the U.S.
Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.
The diploma rates were basically static at 27% for
school years 1996, 1997 and 1998. Drop out rates remained static
during that three-year period. The percentage of students who left
the system and were reported as "not known to continue" remained
static.
Out-of-school youth (i.e., 'drop outs' and those 'not
known to continue') comprise almost one-third of all secondary-aged
students who exit the system. We, as a nation, do not really know
what happens to those 150,000 or so former students. It is not clear
how many go on to jobs, to college, or how many wind up on welfare
rolls. Unfortunately, it is difficult to say with any degree of
certainty from year to year. But each year now for the next 10 years
we may witness a steady increase in the overall numbers of youth
and young adults who disappear from our 'radar screens' because
they have dropped out and/or exited for unknown reasons.
When state-by-state data (from the 21st Annual Report
on IDEA) for 'Basis of Exit-Exiting with Diploma" are viewed geographically,
the following observations can be made:
- Graduation with diploma rates range from a low
of 7% for the state of Mississippi to a high of 81% for the state
of Texas;
- The southeastern most portion of the United States
has the largest cluster of states (i.e., Louisiana, Mississippi,
Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North
Carolina) with the lowest graduation by diploma rates that range
from 7% to 20%; and
- One cluster of four states (i.e., Ohio, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey) has some of the highest graduation
by diploma rates, ranging from 37% to 47%.
These data show a pattern of graduation rates across
the south east that are much lower than both the low rate for students
who received special education and students in the general population
nationwide. More specifically, other national research data indicate
that while only 27% of students who receive special education graduate
with diplomas, 75% of their peers in general education - who do
not receive special education-graduate with diplomas (NCES, 2000;
DoED, 1999). Only 27% of those who complete high school are enrolled
in post-secondary education compared to 68% of the general student
population. And, three to five years after exiting high school,
only a little more than half are found to be employed compared to
69% of their peers (Fabian, Lent & Willis, 1998).
An increasing number of youth with disabilities apply
for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability
Income (SSDI) each year. According to the Social Security Administration
in 1999, approximately 75,000 individuals between 18 and 24 years
of age were awarded SSI or SSDI benefits, and as of June 2000 about
355,000 persons aged 18-24 were receiving SSI or SSDI benefits.
Of these about 36,000 were getting benefits from both programs.
(Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin,
1999). Recent reports about the work patterns of disability insurance
beneficiaries showed mixed information. For example, that among
SSDI recipients, less than one percent of recipients who continue
to meet SSA's definition of disability ever leave the program to
return to work (Ross, 1996), only 12% of the beneficiaries who were
not previously working start jobs while receiving benefits (Hennessey,
1996), 43.8% of people with disabilities ages 18 to 34 tend to stop
working (Hennessey, 1997). On the other hand, when compared to untrained
people, youth with vocational or job training were less likely to
stop work and return to SSDI rolls than were older disability insurance
beneficiaries (Dykacz, 1998).
Differences in public policies and programs, however,
may account in part, for: (1) the growth by younger entrants to
the SSI and SSDI rolls; and (2) apparent confusion about eligibility
and program purposes. For example, technical assistance provided
by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) through the National Transition Alliance (e.g.,
Halloran and Austin, 1998:p.3; NTN, 1998) staunchly promotes application
to the SSI program by youth in special education. This raises concerns
about schools encouraging "students with certain disabilities" to
apply for SSI. This strategy could be viewed as inconsistent with
the IDEA requirement for services based on each child's individual
need, rather than on a category or type of disability. OSEP is required
by IDEA to implement "transition" policies and programs that are
designed to promote successful transition of youth from secondary
school to the world of work and adult life. At the same time,
SSA is required by the Social Security Act to implement policies
and programs that provide cash benefit to children and youth whose
disability prevents their employment. The eligibility requirements
are different for children and adults. To become enrolled, that
is, to be determined eligible by SSA, youth over 18 years of age
must present themselves as being unable to be employed. At the very
minimum, these public policies and their interpretation appear to
be in direct conflict.
A report entitled The Summary of Data on Young
People with Disabilities (NIDRR & SSA 1999) drew on data from
sources such as the National Health Interview Survey, the National
Center for Education Statistics, the Current Population Survey,
and the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Statistics included
in the Summary Data Highlights indicated that:
- Among the 25.1 million people 15 to 21 years of
age, 12.1 percent have a disability, and 3.2 percent have a severe
disability.
The head of household's educational attainment was significantly
lower for youth with disabilities. Parents or guardians who had
not completed high school were heads of household for 41 percent
of youth with disabilities. By comparison, the heads of households
who had not completed high school for youth ages 12 to 17 in the
general population was 22 percent.
- Typical household income in families with youth
with disabilities was considerably lower than for youth in the
general population. For 35 percent of the youth with disabilities,
household income was less than $12,500, compared with the general
population of youth age 12 to 17, where 18 percent of the households
had incomes of less than $12,500. For households including youth
with disabilities, 68 percent of the households had incomes of
less than $25,000, while in the general population households
with youth, only 18 percent had incomes of less than $25,000.
In addition to the discouraging reports on prevalence,
NCD indicated in 2000, in a report entitled Back
to School on Civil Rights, the following data about noncompliance
with the IDEA:
The largest areas of noncompliance were general
supervision, where 90 percent, or 45 states, failed to ensure
compliance, and transition, where 88 percent, or 44 states, failed
to ensure compliance (p. 89); and
Specific transition requirements and the percentage
of states in noncompliance were listed as - meeting participants
(76% or 38 states), notice (70% or 35 states), and statement of
needed services (68% or 34 states).
After reviewing all of the data described above, it
should be no surprise that transition and post-school outcomes for
youth are poor.
NCD urges the President and the Congress to ensure
that the tools necessary for obtaining education and employment
goals are provided to today's youth who will shape our nation's
future. In the spirit of hope and with the expectation that many
segments of American society have a stake in ensuring successful
transitions for youth and young adults, NCD makes a number of recommendations
for action at the local, state, and national level. Overall, NCD's
recommendations for action at the state, local, and community level
underscore the need to remove administrative disincentives for collaboration
and coordination of efforts, document and share information about
what works, including integration of preparation for transition
into daily school life and greater involvement of community resources
at all levels, and innovation in ways of reaching diverse cultures,
underserved and unserved populations. More specifically, NCD's recommendations
to the President and the U.S. Congress include the need to:
- Establish a timeline for reports to Congress and
the public on the review, revision and/or refinement of all relevant
federal agencies' compliance and enforcement of programs that
involve youth and young adults with disabilities. Include that
each agency must provide clear and distinct incentives for compliance
and enforcement, and specific and immediate sanctions for noncompliance
and lack of enforcement, whenever necessary.
- Require that all federal agencies redesign and/or
redirect regional grants, contracts and/or cooperative agreements
that are not producing results for youth and young adults with
disabilities in secondary education, career training and employment
preparation, and post-secondary education areas. Establish a timeline
for carrying out the work and reporting the revisions.
- Direct the Department of Education and the Social
Security Administration to work together to: (a) set forth clear
guidelines on the interpretation of the definitions of common
terms in the federal laws impacting youth transitioning from high
school; and (b) jointly fund and commission a national study for
review and analysis of the SSI program purposes and the IDEA program
purposes in relation to transitioning youth and young adults.
One outcome of that study could be the design of a combined program
with links to work incentive programs and other efforts that can
lead to greater self-sufficiency for youth and young people with
disabilities.
- Ensure that the Departments of Education, Health
and Human Services, Interior, and Labor, the Small Business Administration,
Health Care Financing Administration, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, and Social Security Administration develop and implement
actions needed to build and reinforce data - and information-sharing
crosswalks within and across executive, legislative, and judicial
branch agencies regarding the implementation of programs that
involve youth and young adults with disabilities.
- Ensure that the interagency coordination among
the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Interior,
and Labor, the Small Business Administration, Health Care Financing
Administration, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Social
Security Administration promote the infusion of knowledge about
what works regarding transition and post-school services and supports
for youth and young adults within and across all areas of federal,
state, and local governments, public-private partnerships focusing
on school and workplace improvements, and among all of America's
citizens. Collect and disseminate timely and useful data and information
about successful and unsuccessful strategies for youth and young
adults with disabilities. Information needs to be meaningful to
youth with disabilities, their families and the general public.
Designate the President's Task Force on the Employment of Adults
with Disabilities Subcommittee on Expanding the Employment of
Youth with Disabilities for the leadership of this effort.
- Ensure that all Department of Education and Department
of Labor youth initiative grants, programs, and initiatives include
dollars and resources for individuals with disabilities. A first
step should authorize the Department of Education to implement
a post-secondary education initiative that incorporates targeted
scholarships and/or loans for youth and young adults with disabilities.
Require that the initiative will provide effective outreach recruitment,
relevant follow-along supports, and reasonable financial terms
for repayment, when necessary.
Introduction
Each year tens of thousands of young people under
the age of 30 come onto the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and
Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) programs and the majority
of them never leave. A significant portion of the SSI youth caseload
includes youth with disabilities from diverse cultures and youth
with mental illness. These findings resulted in an interagency agreement
between the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the National
Council on Disability (NCD) in August 1998. SSA and NCD entered
this agreement to support a national policy review and July 1999
forum designed to analyze the development and implementation of
public policy in federal and state programs impacting career planning,
employment opportunity and employment outcomes for young people
with disabilities. Based upon the analysis of research data and
information generated through the forum, this joint SSA and NCD
report was commissioned.
Young people with disabilities were not moving successfully
from high school to post secondary education or employment. Differences
in public policies and programs, however, may account in part, for:
(1) the growth by younger entrants to the SSI and SSDI rolls; and
(2) apparent confusion about eligibility and program purposes. For
example, technical assistance provided by the U.S. Department of
Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) through
the National Transition Alliance staunchly promotes such growth
(e.g., Halloran and Austin, 1998, p.3; NTN, 1998). This raises concerns
about schools encouraging "students with certain disabilities" to
apply for SSI. The strategy may also be seen as inconsistent with
the IDEA requirement for services based on each child's individual
need, rather than on a category or type of disability. At the same
time, OSEP is required by IDEA to implement "transition" policies
and programs that are designed to promote successful transition
of youth from secondary school to the world of work and adult life.
On the other hand, SSA is required by law to implement policies
and programs that benefit children and youth whose disability prevents
their employment. To become enrolled, to be determined eligible
by SSA, children and youth must present themselves as being unable
to be employed. At the very minimum, these public policies and their
interpretation appear to be in direct conflict with each other.
The number, size, complexity, and seeming extension
into the future of many of our nation's issues surrounding secondary
and postsecondary public education and post-high school employment
for youth and young adults are imposing. A number of factors caused
the SSA and NCD to look at these issues in relation to youth and
young adults with disabilities in America.
First, the overall numbers of children and youth served
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has
increased to about 6,000,000 students. Of that number, nearly 45
percent are engaged in secondary school programs, and the numbers
and ages of secondary school youth are expected to continue to increase
until the year 2010. Unfortunately, there continues to be a lack
of appropriate services, supports and/or post high school assistance
to meet the educational and/or career training needs of teenagers
and young adults.
Second, the total number of 18-to-24 year olds in
the nation's population will rise steadily through the year 2010
outstripping the rate of growth for those 25 years and older. Racial
and ethnic diversity will increase, as will job competition from
young, foreign immigrants. Youth labor markets will be subjected
to renewed pressures, and young adults will become susceptible to
increasing demands for advanced skills (e.g., information technology)
by industry.
Third, the number of out-of-school youth is steadily
increasing, creating a pool of marginalized, unemployed, underemployed,
and able obtain jobs that use the existing skills of youth and young
adults with disabilities. While this pool of youth and young adults
is growing considerably larger each year, there is a conspicuous
absence of attention and resources by policymakers that is brought
to bear on their situation. Currently, an estimated15 million youths
ages 16-24 are out of school. Out of those 15 million, 70 percent
have a high school diploma or less education. It is estimated that
America loses $88 billion for each year's class of high school dropouts.
These 15 million young people form a major source of human capital
for the next century.
Fourth, there has been a dramatic increase in children
and younger entrants to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and
Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) and programs from 1975
to 1993 that has resulted in an increase in the expected duration
recipients remain in the programs (Social Security Administration,
1996). While rates in children and younger entrants to SSDI and
SSI programs since 1993 have not been as dramatic, there has been
a slow and steady growth in the overall numbers of young entrants.
Coupled with a miniscule 'return-to-work' rate, particularly among
SSDI beneficiaries, this situation contributes to an increase in
the overall numbers of underemployed and unemployed youth and young
adults in this nation.
Transition, Employment and Post-Secondary
Education Research and Findings
Historically, transition problems that followed students'
graduation were demonstrated in the data on access to and results
of services to adults with severe disabilities. For example, in
one follow-up study of high school graduates before IDEA changed
the configuration of special education programs, Stansfield (1976)
found that 40 percent of graduates were receiving no vocational
services and that 94 percent continued to live at home with their
parents. In 1983, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), identified the transition
from school to work as one of the major federal priorities of special
education programs across the nation (Will, 1983). The decision
to develop this school-to-work transition initiative was prompted
by numerous studies and reports conducted during the early 1980s,
which uniformly found high levels of unemployment, economic instability
and dependence, and social isolation among young adults with disabilities
(e.g., Mithaug, Horiuchi, & Fanning, 1985; Schalock, Wolzen, Feis,
Werbel & Peterson, 1984).
Beginning in 1985, significant research and demonstration
activities were initiated for the explicit purpose of improving
the transition of youth with disabilities from school to work, post-secondary
education, and community living (Leach & Harmon, 1993). For the
approximately 250,000 to 300,000 students who exited their public
special education programs each year, the transition policy initiative
was an attempt to focus the nation's resources and vision to help
those students achieve valued adult lifestyles. Throughout the 1980s,
school-to-work transition services for youth with disabilities expanded,
principally emphasizing (a) state and local efforts to improve the
high school curriculum to address students' development of functional
skills for work and community living; (b) opportunities for students
to learn in real-world contexts (i.e., work sites and other community-based
settings); (c) increased student and family participation in the
development of transition plans focused on a range of post-school
outcomes in the areas of employment, post-secondary education, and
community living; and (d) concerted efforts to increase the level
and intensity of interagency cooperation among educators, employers,
and community service agencies in addressing the transition needs
of secondary students with disabilities.
The results of other post-school follow-up studies
suggested that students with disabilities had a very difficult time
adjusting to life after graduation from high school. During their
final years in school, these youth remain dependent on IEP teams
to make decisions, assess performance, and make linkages with service
agencies (Chadsky-Rusch, Rusch & O'Reilly, 1991). Rarely were they
taught, required, or invited to advocate their own interests (Mithaug,
Martin, Agran & Rusch, 1988). The unemployment, under education,
and continued substantial dependence on parents; social isolation;
and lack of involvement in community-oriented activities characteristic
of many individuals with disabilities are factors that foster continued
dependence among youth in transition.
In 1989, NCD published its first study of public education,
The
Education of Students with Disabilities: Where Do We Stand?
In that report NCD found that:
Upon leaving school students with disabilities and
their families often have a difficult time accessing appropriate
adult services and/or postsecondary education and training programs
(p. 40).
Effective transition planning for high school students
with disabilities can facilitate their success in adult life (p.
41).
Graduates with disabilities are more likely to be
employed following school if (1) comprehensive vocational training
is a primary component of their high school program and (2) they
have a job secured at the time of graduation (p. 42).
There are insufficient partnerships between the
business community and schools for the purpose of enhancing employment
opportunities for students with disabilities (p. 43). and
Parent participation during high school facilitates
the successful transition of students with disabilities from school
to adult life (p. 44).
Beginning in 1991, OSERS initiated a new discretionary
grant system for states to overhaul and expand transition services
to youth with disabilities. Statewide systems change transition
projects were required to focus on six common elements: (a) individualized
education program (IEP)/transition planning; (b) assessment; (c)
student empowerment; (d) parent and family involvement; (e) curriculum
and instruction change; and (f) school-community coordination. These
statewide system change transition projects were funded on five-year
cycles; states also received technical assistance and evaluation
services from the National Transition Network, a nationwide consortium
of universities. It was not clear which, if any, of the state funded
systems change projects resulted in exemplary state programs - which
were replicated - or produced the outcomes desired by students,
families, advocates, and policy makers.
In response to concerns about major national school
reform activities, NCD returned to the issue of public education
in the report Serving
the Nation's Students with Disabilities: Progress and Prospects
(1993). In this report NCD focused on a range of issues including
outcomes for students who receive special education in relation
to students who receive general education only. A substantial amount
of the data and findings from this report indicated significant
differences existed between the two groups with respect to: Diploma
Attainment rankings (pp. 76-77); National Assessment of Educational
Progress math and reading scores ( pp. 78-80); and, Scholastic Aptitude
Test scores (p. 74). In every instance, students who received special
education and related services performed worse than their general
education peers in academic performance areas. Major within-state
discrepancies were noted in terms of diploma rates between students
who received special education and students who received general
education, only.
During the same period, other reviews and evaluations
of school-to-work (Kazdis & Barton, 1993), and vocational training
programs (Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1994;
General Accounting Office, 1993) concluded that the intended outcomes
were still not being achieved. National criticism was also expressed
in relation to individual federal employment training programs such
as vocational rehabilitation (General Accounting Office, 1993) and
the Job Training Partnership Act (General Accounting Office, 1993),
as well as the group of 154 employment training programs funded
at $25 billion annually in the U.S. and run by 14 federal departments
and agencies (General Accounting Office, 1994). Some professionals
charged that federal, state, and local governments did not have
coordinated and targeted existing practices and policies that could
directly maximize the power of transition and supported employment
(Mank, 1994).
Few of the ongoing research, reviews, and evaluations
of transition efforts have addressed the unique problems for youth
in rural areas, including tribal communities. Some of the findings
from the literature on rural school systems are also applicable
to some tribal communities. For example, several researchers (Griffin,
cited in Revell, Inge, Mank and Wehman, 1999; Gold & Williams, 1998)
identified barriers to transitioning youth to employment and post
secondary education that included geographic distance and lack of
accessible public transportation, a waiting list for services, and
continued stereotyping of people with disabilities. Many of the
transition services and planning needs in rural schools funded by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are within the responsibility
of the U.S. Departments of Education and the Interior to address.
Other BIA and tribal community issues, concerns, and findings have
also been raised that are beyond the scope of this report and merit
further attention.
In its 21st Annual Report to the U.S. Congress on
the Implementation of the IDEA, the U.S. Department of Education's
Office of Special Education Programs included an "Interim Report
From the National Assessment" based on the 1997 reauthorization
of the IDEA (DoED, 2000). The IDEA amendments of 1997 direct the
Department of Education to assess the impact and effectiveness of
State and local efforts to provide a free appropriate public education
to children and youth with disabilities (DoED, 2000: Section IV,
p. 43). In this section, the Office of Special Education Programs
reports that it has found "that the requirements of the law with
the strongest links to improved educational results for students
with disabilities include those addressing_the provision of transition
services to enable students with disabilities to move effectively
from school to post-school independence and achievement (Section
IV, p. 44). In a subsequent sub-section, spanning 20 pages, entitled
"Progress in Implementing the Transition Requirements of IDEA:
Promising Strategies and Future Directions" the report acknowledges
that after nearly 10 years of effort to implement the transition
service requirements of federal law:
"Although IDEA's mandate for transition planning
presents a host of challenges that have been addressed with varying
degrees of success in State departments, schools, and communities
across the United States, some States and localities have in fact
made substantial progress in their efforts to implement the IDEA
requirement (Section IV, p.55).
This statement appears to be a delicate way of informing
readers that after 10 years, the Department of Education's transition
initiative has not met with the degree of success expected, hoped,
and needed.
Indeed, we can see problems in trend data from the
last three Annual Reports to Congress. The Department's Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Office of Special
Education Programs reported the Basis of Exit data below.
Basis of Exit for Students Who Receive Special Education
In the United States During the 1996 to 1998 School Years
School Year |
% Students 14
Yrs. And Older Who Exit with Diplomas |
% Students 14
Yrs. and Older Who Drop Out |
% Students Who
Moved, Not Known To Continue |
% Students 14
Yrs. And Older Who Returned to Regular Education |
IDEA Annual Report
Year |
1996 |
27 |
17 |
13 |
15 |
1998 |
1997 |
27 |
18 |
12 |
14 |
1999 |
1998 |
27 |
17 |
13 |
12 |
2000 |
Note: Data derived from Tables AD1
of the 19th, 20th, and 21st Annual Reports to the U.S. Congress
on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act.
The exit data above show that the high school diploma
rates are basically static at 27 percent for the three school years
1996, 1997 and 1998. Drop out rates and the percentage of students
who left the system and were reported as 'not known to continue'
also showed little change. The rate of return to regular education
decreased 3 percent. In addition, when other data on the Department
of Education's state-by state information (from the 21st Annual
Report on IDEA) for "Basis of Exit-Exiting with Diploma" are viewed
geographically, the following observations about youth with disabilities
can be made:
- Graduation with diploma rates range from a low
of 7 percent for the state of Mississippi to a high of 81 percent
for the state of Texas;
- The southeastern most portion of the United States
has the largest cluster of states (i.e., Louisiana, Mississippi,
Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North
Carolina) with the lowest graduation by diploma rates that range
from 7 percent to 20 percent; and
- One cluster of four states (i.e., Ohio, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey) has some of the highest graduation
by diploma rates, ranging from 37 percent to 47 percent.
There were unexplained regional differences in rates
of graduation with diplomas that call attention to how poorly a
number of southeastern states are faring compared to other regions
of the country for both the general population and youth who received
special education. For example, all of the states in the southeastern
cluster had rates of graduation with a diploma that were below the
national figures for youth with disabilities and for their peers.
According to national data sources, only 27 percent of students
who receive special education graduate with diplomas compared to
75 percent of their peers in general education-students who do not
receive special education (NCES, 2000; DoED, 1999).
As early as possible, while still in school, a number
of youth with disabilities need help entering the rehabilitation
service system. The Rehabilitation Amendments of 1992 were intended
not only to provide easier access, but also to bring together rehabilitation
and education services. The following Congressional intent for coordination
still has not become a reality at most state and local levels:
"The Committee wishes to reiterate that the vocational
rehabilitation program should use information from the public
schools if that information reflects the current status and abilities
of the student. Coordination between agencies regarding the adequacy
of data needed by each agency will save time and money. The Committee
also intends that the Individual Written Rehabilitation Plan [IWRP]
be coordinated with an individualized education program for such
students with disabilities."
". . . to ensure that all students who require VR
services receive those services in a timely manner . . . There
should be no gap in services between the education system and
the VR system. Thus, an individual's IWRP should be completed
before the individual leaves the school system_The committee intends
that transition services be available not only to those students
in special education programs, but also to students with disabilities
who are in regular education programs." (Senate Report 102-357,
pp.33-34.)
In January of 2000, in response to an increasing volume
of parent complaints and concerns, NCD issued Back to School on
Civil Rights, a comprehensive study of IDEA-related federal monitoring
and enforcement activities for the period 1975 to 1997. Chief among
its findings were that:
The largest areas of noncompliance were general
supervision, where 90 , or 45 states, failed to ensure compliance,
and transition, where 88 , or 44 states, failed to ensure compliance
(p. 89); and
Specific transition requirements and the age of
states found in noncompliance were listed as - required meeting
participants (76 percent or 38 states), transition services as
a purpose included in the meeting notice (70 percent or 35 states),
and statement of needed transition services (68 percent or 34
states).
In the face of the data provided on transition needs,
it should come as no surprise that an overwhelming number of youth
with disabilities are under educated, under qualified for today's
job market or unemployed, and unprepared for the rigors of post-secondary
education.
Employment
In 1989, the Stanford Research Institute conducted
the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS). The NLTS included
8,000 youth ages 13-21 who were enrolled in secondary schools during
the 1985-86 school year and had left school by 1987. Students were
interviewed for the study at two intervals: 1) two years or less
post-school, and 2) at three to five years post-school. The results
of the NLTS included the following highlights:
- As shown in the chart below, the competitive employment
rate for youth with disabilities was at least 10 percent lower
at three to five years after high school than it was at the two-year
point. The rate for youth in the general population did not reflect
the same decrease.
YOUTH GROUP |
TWO YEARS AFTER
HIGH SCHOOL |
THREE TO FIVE
YEARS AFTER
HIGH SCHOOL |
General
Population |
59% competitively employed |
46% competitively employed |
Youth
with
Disabilities |
69% competitively employed |
59% competitively employed |
- The study also revealed that employment rates differed
across types of disabilities. Students with learning disabilities
and speech impairments were employed at the same rate as youth
in the general population at three to five years after high school,
but the picture was more devastating for youth with other disabilities,
as shown in the chart below.
DISABILITY |
THREE TO FIVE YEARS AFTER HIGH SCHOOL |
Visual |
29% competitively employed |
Orthopedic |
22% competitively employed |
Multiple disabilities |
17% competitively employed |
- The NLTS data also disclosed differences in employment
rates among students with disabilities based on how they exited
high school, as presented below.
METHOD OF HIGH
SCHOOL EXIT |
TWO YEARS AFTER
HIGH SCHOOL |
THREE TO FIVE
YEARS
AFTER HIGH SCHOOL |
Graduated |
7% competitively employed |
42% competitively employed |
Dropped out |
12% competitively employed |
38% competitively employed |
Reached age beyond
IDEA service |
13% competitively employed |
25% competitively employed |
The data above indicate that the students with disabilities
who had graduated from high school were more likely to be employed
at three to five years after leaving high school.
- Other NLTS data disclosed gender and culture differences-males
were more likely to be competitively employed than females and
received 50 percent more in wages; African American students with
disabilities were more likely to be employed at three to five
years post-school than at two years after leaving school; whereas,
white and Hispanic students showed only slight increases in three
to five years. However, white and Hispanic students' wages increased
substantially while African American students' wages increased
slightly between the time of the first and second follow-up;
Of interest to note also was that hourly wages for
youth with disabilities increased 40 percent during the first and
second interviews; both students who graduated and students who
dropped out had a 27 percent increase in wages during the study,
while youth who reached the maximum age for IDEA services (and did
not graduate), did not have such increases in wages.
In 1996, NCD released Cognitive
Impairments and the Application of Title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, a policy and program analysis that included
a review of multiple pieces of legislation regarding transition
and supported employment. A chief finding from this research endeavor
was that:
From the data and analyses presented in this section,
it appears that at least three sets of interrelated conditions
exist related to poor outcomes for youth and young adults with
disabilities. First, many youths and young adults with disabilities
apparently do not learn and use the skills they need to achieve
productivity, empowerment, and independence. Second, service programs
and environments may not be providing the types of reasonable
accommodations necessary to support youths and young adults with
disabilities in training or employment situations. Third, the
absence of a comprehensive national policy and services system
to help youths with disabilities move into responsible adulthood
may be a contributing factor to these disappointing results. These
conditions will be rectified, it is hoped, by building on and
redirecting attention to existing practices and policy provisions
and by the current Administration's efforts involving intergovernmental
education and labor reform (p. 22).
The disability community raised concerns about the
major policy barriers and disincentives to employment that people
with disabilities, including youth and young people, continually
encountered. NCD addressed these concerns through its report Removing
Barriers To Work: Action Proposals for the 105th Congress and Beyond
(NCD, 1997). Removing Barriers To Work identified major barriers
preventing SSI and SSDI beneficiaries from becoming more self-sufficient
through employment. The barriers identified were applicable to youth
and young people with disabilities as well and included that:
- Many people would be worse off financially if they
worked and earned to their potential than if they did not work.
(p. 5)
- People with disabilities cannot choose their own
vocational rehabilitation program. (p. 6)
- People with disabilities lack employment opportunities.
(p. 7)
Concerns about factors and barriers that impact the
employment status of youth with disabilities were included in a
number of reports released since the mid-1990s. Among these were
concerns about limited preparation for the digital economy and methods
of exiting high school as factors that impact the employment status
of youth and disabilities. Highlights from three such reports included
data on access to and use of telecommunications in public schools,
and the types of high school exit for students who received special
education.
In terms of youth and young adults' preparation for
the digital economy, according to a nationally representative survey
conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES,
2000) of 1,000 school administrators about the use of telecommunications
in their school, 65 percent of public schools had Internet access
and students at 73 percent of these schools had access to the Internet
either through e-mail, newsgroups or the web. However, information
reported for students with disabilities, depicts major barriers,
as follows.
%
of SCHOOLS |
MAJOR BARRIERS TO ACCES/USE OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS BY STUDENTS
WITH DISABILITIES
|
47% |
Special education teachers were sufficiently
trained |
39% |
Inadequate evaluation and support services to
meet needs |
38% |
Not enough computers with alternative input/output
devices |
34% |
Not enough computers available to students with
disabilities |
These NCES findings were similar to issues and barriers
identified in other recent reports concerned with the status of
all people with disabilities in the digital economy. Two of these
reports were released in May 2000. One report, a paper commissioned
by the National Science Foundation, The Growing Digital Divide
in Access for People With Disabilities: Overcoming Barriers to Participation
in the Digital Economy (Waddell, 2000) was presented at a national
conference on understanding the digital economy. The researcher
stated "Unless the civil rights of America's 54 million people with
disabilities are address during this period of rapid, technological
development, the community will be locked out from participation
on the basis of disability and the technological world will not
be enriched by their diverse contributions. The impact is systemic
and reaches all sectors of our economy, whether or not the participant
is a consumer, business owner, employee, educator, student, parent,
child or citizen. Specific digital economy barriers need to be addressed
in our research in order to inform our civil rights laws and public
policy" (p. 1). Along similar lines were NCD's findings about access
in its report, Federal
Policy Barriers to Assistive Technology (NCD, 2000). The
NCD report disclosed that "Existing laws and policies that fund
assistive technology have gaps that fail to address the needs of
many individuals with disabilities. In addition, the laws and policies
are frequently misinterpreted or implemented inappropriately by
those charged with service delivery and oversight. Federal agencies
and others that implement federal policy (such as states and local
agencies) commonly lack the expertise and resources necessary to
implement existing [assistive technology laws] and policies" (p.
7).
This brings us to related concerns about the extent
to which youth with disabilities are exiting high school prepared
for full participation in the digital economy and other aspects
of adult living. According to recent reports issued by the U.S.
Department of Education, the students who exited special education
in the United States and outlying areas were 441,812 in 1996. The
numbers increased to 463,025 in 1997 and 486,625 in 1998.
Information about how youth and young adults have
fared overall is disturbing. The National Organization on Disability
began releasing reports on work and the overall quality of life
was apparent from review of the National Organization on Disability/Harris
1998 Survey of Americans with Disabilities. The nationwide survey
of 1,000 Americans with disabilities aged 16 and older reported
that Americans with disabilities continued to lag well behind other
Americans in many of the most basic aspects of life, as previous
Harris studies found in 1994 and 1986. The researchers concluded
that large gaps still exist between people with disabilities and
the general population with regard to employment, education, income,
frequency of socializing and ten other major "indicator" areas of
life. Furthermore, they reported, most of these gaps show little
evidence of narrowing. In some cases, the gaps have even widened.
The researchers also noted that employment continued to be the area
with the widest gulf between people with disabilities, including
youth, and the general population. Only three in ten working-age
people with disabilities were employed full or part-time, compared
to eight in ten people in the general population. Working age people
with disabilities were no more likely to be employed today than
they were a decade ago, even though almost three out of four who
are not working say that they would prefer to be working. This low
rate of employment has, in turn, led to an income gap that has not
narrowed since 1986. As such, one in three people with disabilities,
including youth and young people, compared to just one in eight
other Americans, live in very low income households with less than
$15,000 in annual income. These findings were consistent reports
by a different group of researchers who studied high school exit
data. Fabian, Lent, and Willis (1998) found that three to five years
after high school a little more than half of youth with disabilities
were employed compared to 69 percent of their peers.
In addition to the aforementioned general employment
issues and concerns that pose barriers for many people in the larger
disability community, youth with disabilities from at least two
segments of the disability community also face other challenges.
These include people from (1) diverse cultures and (2) people with
developmental disabilities.
What does the employment picture show for people with
disabilities, including youth and young adults, from diverse cultures?
NCD reported in Lift
Every Voice: Modernizing Disability Policies and Programs to Serve
a Diverse Nation (1999) that while the general labor force
participation rate for people 18 to 64 years old is nearly 83 percent,
it is about 52 percent for those with disabilities, including youth.
However, only about 38.6 percent of those with disabilities from
diverse cultures are in the labor force (p.5). As shown in the chart
below, the picture is more dismal for people with severe disabilities.
GROUP |
PEOPLE
WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES EMPLOYED |
White |
30 % of population subgroup |
Hispanic/Latino |
21.2% of population subgroup |
Black |
17.8% of population subgroup |
The same NCD report also revealed that in many diverse
cultural groups, family members of people with disabilities have
unique needs and confront unique barriers to employment. Barriers
such as the lack of after-school childcare have a direct impact
on the provision of services for the family member with a disability.
On a broad scale, the needs of family members have not been incorporated
into the larger disability policy agenda. This failure has also
had adverse effects on the lives of people with disabilities from
diverse cultures. Overall, data on the employment status of many
people with disabilities, including youth, from diverse cultures
(e.g., Native
Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, Alaska Natives,
and the multiple Asian American and Pacific Islander subgroups),
are sparse when compared to data available on the larger population
of people with disabilities.
What do we know about the recent employment status
of Americans with developmental disabilities, including youth and
young adults? A report entitled The Summary of Data on Young
People with Disabilities (NIDRR & SSA 1999) drew on data from
sources such as the National Health Interview Survey, the National
Center for Education Statistics, the Current Population Survey,
and the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Statistics included
in the Summary Data Highlights indicated:
- Among the 25.1 million people 15 to 21 years of
age, 12.1 percent have a disability, and 3.2 percent have a severe
disability.
- The head of household's educational attainment
was significantly lower for youth with disabilities. Parents or
guardians who had not completed high school were heads of household
for 41 percent of youth with disabilities. By comparison, the
heads of households who had not completed high school for youth
ages 12 to 17 in the general population was 22 percent.
- Typical household income in families with youth
with disabilities was considerably lower than for youth in the
general population, as shown below.
ANNUAL
HOUSEHOLD
INCOME |
YOUTH
AGES 12-17
WITH DISABILITIES |
GENERAL
YOUTH
POPULATION AGES 12-17 |
Less than $12,500 |
35% of households |
18% of households |
Less than $25,000 |
68% of households |
18% of households |
Another 1999 report released by the Office of Inspector
General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
reached some troubling conclusions. The OIG found that while State
developmental disabilities councils do not obtain direct employment
for persons with developmental disabilities, they facilitate job
opportunities for them by funding demonstration projects for promising
employment practices. The OIG also found that key factors in creating
and maintaining jobs for persons with developmental disabilities
include: involvement of the employer community, collaborative arrangements
among State entities, and planning for long-term support systems.
In addition, the OIG found that outcome data to assess the success
or effectiveness of employment programs, despite federal and/or
state information requirements (e.g., through the Government Performance
Results Act) are generally not available. Furthermore, the OIG found
that the data that are available are limited and inconsistent from
State to State.
In summary, data on the employment of youth with disabilities
show little change in the status of those who exit school prepared
to enter the work force. There is also the unlikelihood of youth
without a high school diploma being employed three to five years
after high school-those who exit by dropping out or not-known-to-continue.
The findings on the employment status of youth with disabilities
point to a lack of appropriate preparation, transition planning,
services, and linkages prior to high school exit. In addition, there
are special challenges for youth with disabilities from diverse
cultures and youth with mental or developmental disabilities.
The increasing gaps between income levels for youth
with disabilities and the general population add to the questions
raised about the poor outcomes, including-Why are the national graduation
rates static across a recent three-year period? Why are the graduation
rates in the Southeastern states much lower than other regions of
the country? What are the barriers to improved graduation-with-diploma
rates? How many of the out-of-school youth (i.e., those who dropped
out and those 'not known to continue') wind up on welfare rolls
indefinitely? Although responses to these questions are not addressed,
it is such questions that will need to be addressed by policy makers
at the national, state and local levels in order to bring about
coordinated systems reform that leads to more successful post-school
employment outcomes for youth with disabilities.
Postsecondary Education
Data about participation rates among youth and young
adults with disabilities in postsecondary education have been uneven.
Youth and young adults with disabilities have been less likely than
their peers in the general population to participate in postsecondary
education (OSEP, 1992: p. 77). However, according to the American
Council on Education, the percentage of all freshmen entering college
who reported disabilities quadrupled between 1978 and 1991-from
2.2 percent to 8.8 percent of all freshmen (OSEP, 1992: p. xxiv).
The Department of Education's NLTS data suggested that, among youth
with disabilities, 16.5 percent enrolled in academic postsecondary
programs while 14.7 percent enrolled in vocational postsecondary
programs within 3 years after graduating from high school (OSEP,
1992: p. xxiv).
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
conducted a survey with 21,000 college students in the 1995-96 academic
year. Of these, 6 percent reported having a disability. Among college
students with disabilities, 29 percent had a learning disability,
23 percent had an orthopedic impairment, 16 percent had a non-correctable
vision impairment, 16 percent were deaf or hard of hearing, and
3 percent had a speech impairment. Students with disabilities, when
compared to non-disabled students, were more likely to be male,
older, non-Hispanic white, and to be enrolled in sub-baccalaureate
institutions, mostly public two-year colleges. They were less likely
to have taken advanced placement courses in high school, and more
likely to have remedial mathematics and English courses. In addition,
as a group, they tended to have a lower high school grade point
average and average Scholastic Aptitude Test scores than students
without disabilities (Gajar, 1998; Horn & Bobbitt, 1999).
In a more recent survey, in October of 1999, the HEATH
Resource Center published its data about freshmen college students
with disabilities. One in 11, first-time, full-time freshmen entering
college in 1998 self-reported a disability. This translates to about
9 percent of the total, or about 154,520 students who reported disabilities
described as hearing, speech, orthopedic, learning, health-related,
partially sighted or blind, or other conditions. According to the
published data, there were some major differences between students
who did and did not report disabilities. Among the findings reported
in 1998 by freshmen with disabilities were that they were more likely
than their peers to:
- Be male.
- Be 20 years or older.
- Come from families with slightly lower median incomes.
- Have earned C's and D's in high school.
- Have not met or exceeded the recommended years
of high school study in math, foreign languages, and biological
or physical sciences.
- Have spent more time between high school graduation
and entry into college.
- Be attending two-year colleges.
- Predict that they would need extra time to complete
their educational goals.
- Aspire toward vocational or associate degrees rather
than bachelors or master's degrees.
- Rate themselves lower in measures of self-esteem,
emotional health, and academic or physical ability.
Another 1999 report from the HEATH Resource Center
entitled College Freshmen with Disabilities: A Biennial Statistical
Profile indicated that the characteristics of the freshmen who
participated in the most recent Cooperative Institutional Research
Program (CIRP) survey were similar to those of students surveyed
7 years earlier. More specifically, the researchers learned that:
The proportion of full-time college freshmen reporting disabilities
(9 percent) remained unchanged between 1991 and 1998. Students with
learning disabilities continued to be the fastest growing group;
by 1998, two in five freshmen with disabilities reported a learning
disability. In addition, a gradual shift became apparent in the
enrollment patterns of freshmen with disabilities.
Although freshmen with disabilities were still more
likely than their nondisabled peers to enroll in two-year colleges,
a higher proportion of students with disabilities were enrolling
in four-year institutions in 1998 than had seven years earlier
(p.29).
Although freshmen with disabilities were more likely
to report lower high school grades and to be starting college
at older ages, their educational and career goals were generally
similar to those of students without disabilities. When asked
to rate their own talents, fewer students with disabilities than
nondisabled students ranked themselves above average or higher
on a wide range of abilities (pp. 29-30).
Behind the statistics of postsecondary education participation
rates lies another type of data. These data relate to the real life
experiences of youth with disabilities. They reflect the disincentives
presented to youth and young adults with disabilities who want to
enroll in and
benefit from a postsecondary education. For example,
in 1996, students with learning disabilities enrolled at Boston
University (BU) brought a class action lawsuit in U.S. district
court claiming discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) and other federal and state laws. The plaintiff group
of students alleged that BU had discriminated against them by establishing
unreasonable eligibility criteria for qualifying as a student with
a disability, not providing reasonable procedures for evaluating
their requests for academic accommodations, and instituting a blanket
policy precluding course substitutions in foreign language and mathematics
as academic accommodations. The BU case was, and is, illustrative
of the national debate about the rights of qualified students with
(learning) disabilities to receive academic accommodations and the
rights of colleges and universities to establish academic standards.
The circumstances surrounding the BU case have been, and still are,
part of a growing ideology that perpetuates attitudinal barriers
and prejudice toward many qualified individuals with (learning)
disabilities in higher education. In August of 1997, federal district
court Judge Patti Saris found that, in a number of significant respects,
BU had violated the students' rights under the ADA and related laws
(21 Mental & Physical Disability L. Rep 679, 1997).
For far too many students with disabilities, compliance
with federal regulations regarding paying for and providing auxiliary
aids for vocational rehabilitation (VR) clients with disabilities
who enroll in postsecondary institutions has been hampered due to
the lack of guidance on the issue from the U.S. Department of Education,
and the refusal of some state agencies to share the cost associated
with servicing students who need reasonable accommodations. The
issue of who should pay for special services needed for VR clients
with disabilities who enroll in postsecondary courses has been the
subject of considerable debate since the passage of the (ADA) in
1990. Existing law required vocational rehabilitation agencies to
pay for special services for their clients, but some agency officials
argued that the ADA shifted the financial responsibility onto colleges
and universities that enrolled VR clients. To resolve the issue,
Congress included in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 language
that called for the development of interagency agreements between
state higher education institutions and other state entities to
determine the appropriate balance of financial responsibility for
servicing VR clients. However, regulations on implementing the law
have not yet been issued by the Department of Education. Some states
already have begun work to implement the new provision, while other
state VR agencies have refused to discuss any shared financial responsibility
agreement related to providing auxiliary aids to VR clients enrolled
in postsecondary studies (Selingo, 1998). While this stalemate continues,
VR clients who require auxiliary aids and supports to benefit from
a postsecondary education will continue to suffer when their needs
for accommodations are not met.
More recently, in another case, Duke University settled
a disability-rights ADA complaint with the U.S. Justice Department,
agreeing to make wide-ranging changes over the next 5 years to render
its buildings and services more accessible to people with disabilities.
Under the agreement, Duke must also pay $25,000 in civil penalties
and $7,500 to a former Duke undergraduate, who filed the complaint
in 1996. The student uses a wheelchair and graduated from Duke in
1997. In her complaint, she charged that a number of campus facilities-including
dining halls, dormitories, academic buildings, and water fountains-were
inaccessible to people with mobility impairments. Justice Department
officials said the settlement marked their first agreement with
a college on broad, campus wide accessibility issues (Hebel, 2000).
Unfortunately, legal experts indicated, such broad-based
actions were likely to occur one institution at a time, rather than
en masse, because the process of investigating a campus's compliance
with the disabilities law is time-consuming.
These kinds of barriers to enrollment and on-campus
support during students' college careers prevent far too many youth
and young adults from pursuing postsecondary studies, increasing
their knowledge and skill levels, and enhancing their marketability
to potential employers. The barriers and obstacles must be removed.
Social Security
When Supplemental Security Income (SSI) was enacted
in 1972, its main purpose was to assure a basic minimum income for
needy aged, blind and individuals with other disabilities who, under
the prior programs of federal grants to states, were subject to
very disparate treatment across the nation because of great disparities
among States in their financial capacity or willingness to provide
such support. The prior law had provided federal funds to states
for children who were blind, but not for other children with disabilities.
The question arose whether the new federal SSI program should include
children who were blind and children with other disabilities. Then
as now, the rationale for including children in SSI is somewhat
different from that for adults. Cash assistance for poor adults
who are aged or have disabilities is justified because they lack
the capacity to support themselves through their own earnings. That
is true for all poor children. For low-income children with disabilities,
however, there are added justifications for support. Their disabilities
pose additional costs to their families and, if they do not have
appropriate developmental supports when they are young, they are
at high risk of relying on public support when they become adults.
In brief, there is a clear rationale and a compelling
need for cash support to families with a child with a disability.
The basic purpose of these benefits is to support and preserve the
capacity of families to care for their children in their own homes
by:
- Meeting some of the additional disability-related
costs of raising a child with a disability;
- Compensating for some of the income lost because
of the everyday necessities of caring for a child with a disability;
and
- Meeting the child's basic needs for food, clothing
and shelter.
Without these supports, children and youth with disabilities
would be at a much greater risk of losing both a secure home environment
and the best opportunity for integration into community life, including
the world of work.
In August 2000, about 853,000 children who were blind
and children with other disabilities under age 18 were receiving
SSI benefits. These children and youth share two common realities:
they have significant disabilities and very low incomes. Mental
retardation is the primary diagnosis for a little more than one-third
of the school-age children and youth who receive SSI. Many who receive
this diagnosis are children and youth with learning disabilities
or "mild" mental retardation. Others have significant physical or
other mental disorders. The number of children and youth awarded
SSI benefits grew rapidly between 1989 and 1993, but has since declined.
The growth in 1989-93 is attributed to four factors: the 1990 Supreme
Court decision in Sullivan v. Zebley, which changed the assessment
of childhood disability and required that past claims which had
been denied be reassessed; the update of the listings of disabling
childhood mental impairments in 1990; legislatively mandated outreach
activities by the Social Security Administration, as well as efforts
by States and private organizations to enroll eligible children
in SSI; and an economic recession in 1990-91 that caused more families
whose children had disabilities to meet the program's low-income
criteria. The rapid growth in the program has slowed. Fewer children
and youth were awarded SSI disability benefits in 1994 than in 1993.
In recent years, however, an increasing number of
youth and young adults with disabilities have applied for and enrolled
in SSI or SSDI each year. According to the Social Security Administration
in 1999, approximately 75,000 individuals between 18 and 24 years
of age were awarded SSI or SSDI benefits, , and as of June 2000
about 355,000 persons aged 18-24 were receiving SSI or SSDI benefits.
Of these about 36,000 were getting benefits from both programs.
(Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin,
1999). Among SSDI recipients, less than one percent of recipients
who continue to meet SSA's definition of disability ever leave the
program to return to work (Ross, 1996).
Researchers and policy analysts have identified a
number of federal policy barriers that operate as disincentives
to people with disabilities - including youth and young adults with
disabilities - to stay off of or leave the SSI/SSDI program. These
federal policy barriers include: conflicting goals within Social
Security programs; strict program eligibility requirements; loss
of medical coverage; individuals may be financially worse off by
working; complex, confusing and seemingly arbitrary rules about
work incentives; lack of choice in vocational rehabilitation providers;
and, lack of employer incentives to hire people with disabilities
(DeJong & O'Day, 1997; General Accounting Office, 1996a, 1996b;
Martin, Conley & Noble, 1995; National Council on Disability, 1997;
O'Day, 1999). These barriers must be removed before employment and/or
return-to-work rates among youth and young adults with disabilities
can be expected to improve.
In summary, there are fundamental problems in the
structure, process, and outcomes of transition and secondary education
programs that feed into, and negatively impact postsecondary education,
career training and employment outcomes. This situation is critical,
demands our immediate attention, and must be corrected. The next
sections present information gleaned from practice and research
about what works and what should work in these areas.
What Works
America faces an imposing but not impossible set of
challenges in terms of the academic and work preparation of its
youth and young adults, and their entry into the world of adulthood.
This is as true for those who receive special education
services as it is for students who are in general education. Public
secondary schools are slowly beginning to recognize that general
education must change. For example, the traditionally dominant purpose
of American high schools - perform well on tests and get students
admitted to a university - serves a small fraction of students,
and many of them not very well when we consider that up to 50% of
college freshmen often receive remediation in the basic skills.
High schools that, in the past, have been organized around isolated
academic disciplines, use a lecture-based format as the chief medium
for providing instruction, and administer testing through pencil
and paper formats are ineffective. We see that ineffectiveness in
the increasing numbers of students who drop out of general education,
and those who prematurely exit special education services. For those
students who manage to graduate from high school and enter college,
the little known truth is that very few of them actually graduate.
The largest majority of them enter technical training, complete
a year or two of career focused education at a community college
or go directly into the workplace, or at least try to obtain work.
There is a pressing need to connect secondary school
curricula and structure with the realities and demands of life beyond
high school. If one of the primary purposes of high school - and
transition planning, services and supports - is to successfully
prepare young people for the adult world, then: (a) we should implement
transition planning and service delivery mandates with fidelity,
and (b) the high school experience should resemble the world of
adulthood. The goals, accommodations, linkages, and services students
incorporate into their transition plans must be adhered to and implemented
in a timely manner. What we ask students to learn, how we ask them
to learn it and how they are tested, should correspond to the ways
in which they will demonstrate proficiency on the job, in lifelong
education activities, in their families and in the community. High
school should position every graduate to successfully begin the
next major steps in his or her life - whether going to a university,
entering a community college or beginning a job or career with a
future. A high school education, basically, should contribute towards
competence in students' various roles as adults. In short, a student
completing 12 years or about 14,000 hours of public education culminating
in a high school diploma should not face the shock, frustration,
and powerlessness upon entering the real world that many of today's
graduates (and drop outs) face.
For those out-of-school youth and young adults, as
well as for current SSI/SSDI beneficiaries, who would like to go
on to post high school education and/or work but currently cannot,
there is an intense need for: (a) access to proven transition practices;
(b) access to individualized and effective postsecondary education
services and supports, when needed; (c) access to reasonable accommodations
at the workplace (e.g., personal assistance services, assistive
technology); and (d) meaningful options for choice by individuals
in the pursuit of education, career training, and individualized
services and supports.
Transition Planning, Services
and Supports
One of the best strategies for improving the quality
of school programs and post school outcomes experienced by students
is, unfortunately, the least often used. Carrying out the IDEA transition
services requirements, and where appropriate, the Rehabilitation
Act provisions for all who are determined eligible for services
and supports, enables students with disabilities to move effectively
from school to post-school independence and achievement.
In an effort to highlight promising and proven practices
from the world of public education and to address continuing problems
about shortcomings in public schools for students with educational
disabilities, NCD produced Improving
the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act: Making Schools Work for All of America's Children (1995).
In addition to findings from national hearings, NCD provided a number
of 'best-practices' examples from more than twenty of the nation's
most prolific educational researchers and practitioners. Among many
of this report's conclusions, included in the sub-section on "Transition,"
were the following:
In order to maximize a student's potential in a
post school setting, the link between high school and the "real
world" needs to be strengthened. Students should not be abandoned
once they have been provided with some transitional services.
Supports provided after graduation can guarantee that the skills
learned in school will not be lost in new environments. At present,
there are two options for students following graduation: finding
employment or continuing their education. High schools can provide
programs that make pursuing these choices realistic and viable.
Usually, a joint effort between high schools and employers or
postsecondary programs offers the best opportunity for success
(p. 137).
Stronger programs in the schools will ensure that
their talents are cultivated as they enter work places and campuses.
Rarely do parents and children think that postsecondary education
is an alternative. This could be attributed to a lack of information
concerning programs or a fear of failure in a new and strange
environment (p. 139).
One option for schools is to expose students to
junior colleges and universities while they are still in high
school. A program in Milwaukee brings special education students
to a junior college for a day and allows them to see what college
life is like. Familiarity is the key to encouraging students to
pursue a postsecondary education. Trained personnel at both the
high schools and postsecondary institutions help students apply
to college and then create a college course schedule (p. 139).
Many families and students perceive the cost of
college to be an impossible obstacle. Family members testified
that they had already spent large sums of money in acquiring a
better education for their children in special education programs,
indicating that they need information concerning the types of
postsecondary financial aid available to them. Testimony reflected
that the level of financial aid awarded to students with disabilities
at the university level was disproportionately low when compared
to the rest of the student body. Increased information from postsecondary
programs would provide more students with disabilities with opportunities
to access financial aid (p. 140).
Another aspect of establishing stronger links to
life after school is job training. Allowing students to learn
job skills while still in school makes them employable upon graduation.
In New York City, funds are available to local merchants who employ
students from special education programs. The program simply reimburses
the employer the amount of wages earned by the student. The student
is able to work in his neighborhood instead of a sheltered environment,
earning at least minimum wage. The student gains valuable work
and social skills while at the same time learning the benefits
and rewards of working. The employer, on the other hand, gains
both extra productivity and valuable experience in employing a
person with a disability, often changing coworkers' and customers'
negative attitudes toward individuals with disabilities (p. 140).
Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell (1997) provided other examples
of successful practices. They examined employment and postsecondary
education outcomes for youth with disabilities leaving secondary
schools and studies of educational practices reporting high-quality
outcomes. In their analytical considerations they included the then
current initiatives in educational reform that emphasized the improvement
of career-related outcomes for all students and the inclusion of
youth with disabilities in regular classes. They found that while
school and employment-related outcomes for youth with disabilities
continued to be problematic when compared with their peers, two
educational practices appeared to consistently align with higher-quality
outcomes for students. In their opinion, the promising practices
that merited attention in improving programs and in advancing the
knowledge base included school supervised work experiences and functionally
oriented curricula in which occupationally specific skills, employability
skills, and academic skills are systematically connected for students.
From their review of outcomes and best practices, they reported
that the educational reform literature indicated that valued outcomes
for all students were focusing more prominently on workplace and
transition outcomes, and that educational practices supported with
documented evidence from the secondary special education literature
were viewed by many authors as promising directions for improving
secondary education for all students.
Furthermore, in 1997, Blank and Harwell identified
a number of practices that have shown promise for students, in general,
for better connecting what happens in high school with what happens
in the broader world beyond school. The promising practices identified
included: authentic instruction; project-based learning; problem-based
learning; service learning; school-based enterprises; apprenticeships;
internships; career education; mentoring; and, career academies.
For each of the practices, the authors provide a description of
the approach, a rationale, examples, evidence of benefits, and bibliographic
citations for those individuals who are interested to learn more
about the particular practice(s).
More recently, a number of educational researchers
(Anderson-Inman, Knox-Quinn & Szymanski, 1999; Aspel, Bettis, Test
& Wood, 1998; Benz, Doran & Yovanoff, 1997; Blackorby, Hancock &
Siegel, 1998; Donovan & Tilson, 1998; Doran & Benz, 1998; Fisher
& Gardner, 1999; Harrington, 1997; Lehman, 1998; Lehman, Denniston,
Tobin & Howard, 1996; Thomas & Bottersbusch, 1997; Wagner & Blackorby,
1996; Wehman & Revell, 1997; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997) identified
strategies as factors that can lead to successful post school outcomes,
including increased earnings and the likelihood of succeeding in
the workplace. The strategies were:
1 integration of a strong vocational component into
the curriculum before high school;
- inclusion in general education classes;
- career focused and on-the-job training while in
school;
- inclusion of self-advocacy and self-determination
skills in the curriculum;
- clarification of roles and responsibilities, and
coordinated services among vocational, regular and special education
teachers, and counselors;
- professional development activities, focused on
providing all staff with transition-related skills and knowledge;
- assessment of needs before developing a student
centered transition plan;
- interpersonal skills, and job-related skills training
for students;
- supervised on-the-job training in the community
with continuous support for both the employer and the student;
- involvement of students, parents, businesses, and
community representatives in interagency transition teams;
- meaningful job placement experiences that provide
living wages and career opportunities for youth with disabilities;
- expanding secondary transition programs for students
ages 18-21 to include two and four year college campuses;
- coordination between school and post-school activities;
- provision of follow-up services until connection
is made with adult services; and
- inclusion of assistive technology in the academic
and work-based learning experiences.
And while educational researchers have identified
a number of transition practices as factors linked to successful
post school outcomes, the question arises - Why has widespread implementation
of these identified practices not occurred? In their review of the
literature on the post-school outcomes for youth with disabilities,
Fabian, Lent & Willis (1998) indicated that many of the studies
tended to look only at whether or not the youth was employed at
the time of the follow-up, were broad in scope, or were generally
conducted at a single site which limited the universality of the
study. While these researchers supported the notion that identifying
and sharing information on promising practices is essential to effective
transition and school-to-work efforts, they cautioned: "knowledge
of 'general programmatic indicators' of successful outcomes is not
sufficiently detailed to guide program improvement and policy decisions"
(Fabian, Lent & Willis, 1998; p. 312). The same researchers also
found that administrators and teachers tend to respond more favorably
to research findings and the implementation of recommended practices
from transition outcome studies that (1) identify specific circumstances
under which research based interventions (i.e., describe the study
participants, setting, conditions, and so forth) and strategies
were used, and (2) result from multi-site evaluations. The researchers
found that these results afforded critical information to administrators
and practitioners for selecting programs and practices that they
determined to be viable models for local implementation.
In 1999, the National Transition Alliance identified
about 27 promising programs from 17 different states and practices
that promote post-school outcomes for students with disabilities
through inclusive school-to-work systems (Kohler & Troesken, 1999).
Selections were made based on documented evidence of benefits to
students including: improved skill levels, specific post-school
experiences, and/or opportunities to participate in specific activities
that were acknowledged to help foster improved post-school outcomes
(e.g., career exploration or work-based education). The programs
or practices identified included a variety of approaches and occurred
in a variety of contexts. It should be noted that these 27 promising
programs and practices from 17 different states represent "islands
of excellence." That is, about half of the states from which those
promising practices and programs are drawn have diploma graduation
rates at or below 20 percent according to the 21st Annual Report
to U.S. Congress on the IDEA.
The National School-to-Work, a joint initiative of
the Departments of Labor and Education, has produced some noticeable
results. School-to-Work has been implemented in every state, and
many states are moving toward sustainability. All 50 states have
received a School-to-Work implementation grant and have formed local
partnerships to implement School-to-Work activities. Evaluation
and research data from local partnerships in 34 states and Puerto
Rico indicate: (a) nearly 18 million students - including about
11 percent who have disabilities - in more than 36,000 schools are
in the geographic areas served by these partnerships; (b) 2,600
post-secondary institutions are working with these partnerships;
(c) nearly 178,000 employers are involved in School-to-Work activities,
and 109,000 employers are providing work-based learning for students
(MPR Associates, 1999; pp. 5, 6 & 21); (d) almost half of the states
have enacted statutes that provide financial, personnel and programmatic
support for School-to-Work initiatives after the transition from
federal funding (National Conference of State Legislatures, 1999);
(e) many states are developing post-federal funding strategies;
seventy-one percent of all partnerships receive outside funds or
contributions, more than half (53 percent) are receiving cash funds
from outside sources, and 56 percent are receiving in-kind contributions
from public entities (MPR Associates, 1999; pp. 31-32); (f) between
1997 and 1998, employers providing training and internships for
teachers grew from 25,000 to 32,000; employers engaging in curriculum
development increased from 20,000 to 21,600, and employers promoting
or marketing School-to-Work rose from 59,000 to 74,000 (Mathematica
Policy Research, 1999: p. 58, 80 & 102); (g) Over 46,000 businesses
are working with partnerships in operation for four or more years,
seven and a half times the 6,000 employers working with newer
partnerships (MPR Associates, 1999; p. 29; (h) more students, particularly
African American students and the students not typically bound for
college, see a connection between their academic coursework and
career interest. For students with no plans for post-secondary education,
participation in academic classes they perceived as focused on their
career goals doubled from 10 percent for seniors in 1996 to 20 percent
for seniors in 1997 (STW, 1998; p. 71); and (i) approximately 90
percent of career academy students met their graduation requirements
and 51 percent submitted college applications, compared with 75
percent of non-academy students who met their graduation requirements
and 36 percent who submitted college applications (Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation, 1999; Executive Summary-12).
Finally, in a groundbreaking piece of research, Luecking
(2000) produced a study that examined various participant, educational
setting and work behavior variables and their relationship to work
outcomes among youth with disabilities who participated in a highly
standardized internship programs, called "Bridges_from school to
work." The study involved the analysis of archival data collected
in conjunction with the operation of the Bridges program from 1993
to 1997 in seven distinct school districts. The 3,024 participants
in the program during the study interval represented a broad spectrum
of disability, racial and other demographic settings. The sample
sizes for the six, 12 and 24-month follow-up contacts were 983,
539, and 249 participants respectively. Luecking (2000) found that:
"A high percentage of participants completed the
12 week internship (85 percent) and received offers of ongoing
employment from their host companies (77 percent). Indicators
for successful internship completion were insignificant across
participant characteristics (i.e., primary disability, gender,
race, and educational setting). Work behaviors, particularly attendance
and hours worked, were predictors of successful performance. As
time out of school increased there was more disparity in employment
outcomes between disability and racial categories, and between
those youth who were educated in segregated vs. integrated educational
settings. Youth with emotional disabilities had notably poor post-school
work outcomes, as did those youth educated in segregated educational
settings. Wages, hours worked and benefits increased for workers
as time out of school increased. Participants' employment outcomes
suggest that, regardless of disability or demographic category,
youth with disability can successfully perform work viewed by
their employers as beneficial to their enterprise. Sustaining
successful work performance beyond high school, however, poses
a continuing challenge for many categories of youth (pp. iv-v).
What Should Work
At the start of the 21st Century in America we face
a series of challenges which include: (1) increasing secondary-aged
students' access to relevant and rigorous curricula, and information
technology, while also increasing the proportion of students who
successfully complete a high school program as a result of the national
investment in our public secondary schools; (2) expanding options
for career and employment for youth and young adults who choose
to work upon graduation from high school; (3) improving access to
postsecondary educational experiences for students after exiting
a secondary education program; (4) ensuring a range of educational
and/or employment alternatives for out-of-school youth and young
adults - i.e., those who do not complete a high school program;
and (5) increasing the level of accountability of government funded
programs for human service outcomes such as secondary and postsecondary
education, career training and employment.
Interventions and 'fixes' to the transition problems
that result in poor high school and post-school outcomes have been
few in number and shallow in scope. This is true, despite the nature
and extent of identified problems and barriers to successful transitions.
Some recent federal programs and initiatives hold out the promise
of addressing some of these problems. How these programs are to
be targeted to benefit youth and young adults with disabilities,
as part of the targeted consumer base, is unspecified and unclear.
A caveat is in order. The way that new youth programs
and services are funded, regulated and held accountable can support
or undermine state and local outcomes. Instead of just asking whether
the Federal Government should use its funds to create more slots,
improve training, enhance interagency coordination, or provide tax
credits to business and industry, we should address:
- How could the Federal Government use its regulatory
and accountability mechanisms to encourage high standards and
achieve significant outcomes?
- What steps could the Federal Government take to
encourage and ensure replication of the very best programs and
practices?
- How could the Federal Government create intermediary
organizations to promote more effective and efficient approaches
for helping youth and young adults?
- How could the Federal Government encourage, perhaps
even require, partnerships between formal service systems and
community-based organizations?
- How could the Federal Government encourage states
and local communities to combine what works to target defined
areas or neighborhoods?
- What could the Federal Government do to create
the political will to support youth interventions that may take
up to two generations to achieve real results?
- And finally, how could we build and sustain a useful
knowledge base to help practitioners along the way?
In light of the caveat offered, and the questions
posed, the following "new" federal programs and initiatives are
now discussed.
The Youth Opportunity Movement
The Youth Opportunity Movement is an initiative of
the Department of Labor, working through local communities to build
partnerships between government, community-and faith-based organizations
and business leaders - and also with youth. On one level, it is
a $1 billion investment in community programs to train and empower
young people. On another level, it is about inspiring young people
to abandon perceptions of barriers and seize opportunities to be
the best they can be. On yet another level, it is a strong partnership
with local leaders and local communities. All our young people need
skills. All adults have a responsibility to give young people the
skills they need. The purpose of the Youth Opportunity Movement
is to convince an entire generation that if they want to succeed,
there is no barrier they cannot overcome.
The Youth Opportunity Movement is designed to offer
a way to bridge gaps and break cycles that lead to poverty and despair.
In conjunction with the recently enacted Workforce Investment Act,
the U.S. Department of Labor recently awarded $250 million in grants
to 36 Youth Opportunity programs, ranging from $3 to $11 million
a year, in 5-year cycles to communities. This funding enables communities
to establish "one-stop" service centers where youth can access a
wide range of services and resources, and to form community-wide
partnerships. Effective strategies to help at-risk youth find employment
must address personal, societal, academic and professional challenges.
Job training alone is not enough: while young people need "hard"
career-oriented skills, such as computer training, they also need
"soft" skills, such as learning how to interview for a job. While
various programs have succeeded in treating parts of the problem,
the Youth Opportunity Movement will apply a "360§ approach" by focusing
on the whole person and engaging the whole community.
As discussed, it is unclear, however, whether and
how youth and young adults with disabilities will reap the benefits
from, and be enabled to fulfill the promise of, the "Yomovement."
It is not clear that there are specific requirements and expectations
for the inclusion of people with disabilities in the 36 communities
recently awarded. While some grantees may have committed themselves,
up front, to including people with disabilities from their communities
in their proposal efforts, other communities did not. It is also
not clear that any technical assistance provided to the 36 communities
will include staff and resources that have a proven track record
when dealing with people with disabilities. In the absence of clear
and consistent direction from the Department of Labor, after-the-fact
grant award assurances - on paper - of serving 'all' youth and young
adults may remain just that_after the fact promises. In the absence
of well-trained and experienced technical assistance, the support
provided would be of little benefit to the communities.
Workforce Investment Act: Youth
Councils and One-Stop Centers
The employment and training system is transitioning
from the Job Training Partnership Act to the Workforce Investment
Act. The Workforce Investment Act substantially reforms youth programming
and places new emphasis on serving youth within a comprehensive
statewide workforce development system. Youth Councils will plan
for the Workforce Investment Act comprehensive year-round system.
The Act requires them to establish linkages with other organizations
serving youth in the local area and to coordinate youth services.
Services for youth under Workforce Investment Act shift to comprehensive
services, with summer youth employment representing one of the ten
required program elements that comprise a local area's year-round
youth services strategy.
Another Workforce Investment Act strategy involves
"One-Stop Centers." One-Stop Centers were developed to bring together
employment and training services that work with all people in one
place and make it easier for job seekers and employers to use these
services. One-Stop Centers first began in the early 1990's as demonstration
projects, and have expanded so there are now One-Stop Centers opening
in most areas of the country. Services available through the One-Stop
system include such things as: information about job vacancies,
career options, and relevant employment trends; instruction on how
to conduct a job search, write a resume, or interview with an employer;
referral to training programs and unemployment insurance claim processing.
The One-Stop system is designed and required to meet
the needs of all job seekers who want to use the system. This includes
people with disabilities. The establishment of the One-Stop system
across the country provides a wonderful opportunity for people with
disabilities to receive services in new and different ways, right
alongside everyone else. The expansion of the One-Stop Centers was
authorized in the Workforce Investment Act that was signed in 1998,
and contains several main principles that influence services, involving:
- Universal Access. Any individual should be able
to go into a One-Stop and receive services called core services,
to assist in making decisions about what career to pursue and
in the actual job search.
- Streamlining services. Employment and training
programs for all people should be brought together, and be easily
accessible via One-Stop Centers.
- Increased accountability. The One-Stop system is
being evaluated based on how many people get jobs and the satisfaction
of the customers.
- Empowering individuals. Customers should be given
more information about services in order to make informed choices
and have more control of their services.
- State and local flexibility. Local One-Stop systems
can set up services in different ways to respond to the needs
of their local community.
The Workforce Investment Act is a relatively new law
and, in many areas, the Youth Councils and One-Stop system are just
beginning. Individual states are developing plans for how they will
implement the Workforce Investment Act. Formal implementation and
subsequent evaluation(s) began in the summer of 2000. It remains
to be seen whether, how, to what extent, and how well One-Stop Centers
have an impact on the 70 percent unemployment rate among millions
of people with disabilities ages 16-64 who are unemployed in this
country.
Presidential Task Force on the
Employment of Adults with Disabilities
On March 13, 1998, President Clinton signed an Executive
Order which established the Presidential Task Force on the Employment
of Adults with Disabilities with the mandate to "evaluate existing
federal programs to determine what changes, modifications, and innovations
may be necessary to remove barriers to employment opportunities
faced by adults with disabilities" and review areas that include
"reasonable accommodations, inadequate access to health care, lack
of consumer-driven, long-term supports and services, transportation,
accessible and integrated housing, telecommunications, assistive
technology, community services, child care, education, vocational
rehabilitation, training services, employment retention, promotion
and discrimination, on-the-job supports, and economic incentives
to work." The Presidential Task Force on the Employment of Adults
with Disabilities' (PTFEAD) activities for youth with disabilities
are addressed through its Sub-Committee on Expanding Employment
Opportunities of Young People with Disabilities (Sub-Committee on
Young People).
The Sub-Committee on Young People's recent report
outlining federal agency activities include a set of comprehensive
recommendations for interagency and intra-agency actions that, if
followed by the respective agencies, could result in some improvements
in the coordination of service delivery as well as outcomes for
youth and young adults (PTFEAD, 1999). The current PTFEAD ends in
2002.
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act.
On December 17, 1999, President Clinton signed the
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act (P.L. 106-170;
Conference Report 106-478). The law takes significant steps toward
removing some of the most serious barriers to work faced by people
with disabilities by providing quality, affordable health insurance
for people with SSI and SSDI who work and by making it easier for
people to choose their own provider of employment services in the
private or public sector.
The new law creates a Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency
program. Under the program, individuals with disabilities receiving
SSI or Title II (SSDI) benefits may receive a "ticket" or voucher
to obtain employment services of their choosing from within employment
networks. Employment networks may include both state Vocational
Rehabilitation agencies and private and other public providers.
Examples of employment services include vocational rehabilitation
counseling, assistive technology or job coaching. A new payment
system rewards employment providers for outcomes and long-term results
through a choice of two payment systems: a) an outcome -based payment
system that provides a percentage of the average monthly disability
benefits for each month benefits are not payable to the beneficiary
due to work; or b) an outcome-milestone payment system that also
provides early payments based on the achievement of one or more
milestones towards permanent employment. This provision will be
phased in starting one year after enactment, with full implementation
within three years.
The new law gives states two options to offer Medicaid
coverage to people with disabilities (ages 16-64) who work: 1) states
could allow individuals with disabilities to buy into Medicaid even
if they are not eligible for SSI (because they make too much money
working); 2) states may also cover people who continue to have a
severe disability but who lose SSI or SSDI benefits because of medical
improvement. Individuals covered under these options might be required
to pay premiums on a sliding-fee scale based on income. States may
require individuals with incomes above 250 percent of the federal
poverty level to pay the full premium as long as it does not exceed
7.5 percent of their income. The effective date for this provision
was October 1, 2000. Also effective October 1, the act allows Medicare
coverage to be extended for individuals who receive benefits through
Title II of Social Security (SSDI). Currently, disability payments
stop when the individual earns $700 per month or more (after a nine-month
trial work period). If the individual continues working, he/she
can continue to receive Medicare for an additional 39 months, for
a total of 48 months (four years). The new work incentives law provides
for continued Medicare Part A coverage for four and one-half more
years beyond the current limit, resulting in a total of eight and
one-half years. When the full Medicare Part A coverage period runs
out, the individual may still continue receiving Medicare by paying
the premium.
The act establishes new protections for individuals
who choose to go back to work. Effective January 1, 2001, Social
Security cannot initiate a continuing disability medical review
while the beneficiary is using a "ticket." In addition, effective
January 1, 2002, returning to work will no longer automatically
trigger continuing disability reviews. Continuing disability reviews
will still be held on a regularly scheduled basis, however. The
new law also establishes an expedited reinstatement of disability
benefits. This will make it easier for an individual to regain eligibility
for Social Security benefits in cases where that individual is unable
to work because of his/her disability. The request for reinstatement
must be made within 60 months of termination. This provision is
effective in January 1, 2002.
The new law requires the SSA to conduct an extensive
demonstration program of a gradual reduction in Title II (SSDI)
disability benefits as the individual's earnings increase. It will
demonstrate the work incentive effect of reducing the benefit by
$1 for every $2 the individual earns, similar to the reduction made
now in the SSI program. This is particularly beneficial to low-income
workers for whom the loss of cash benefits is as much a barrier
to work as the loss of health coverage. The law also requires the
General Accounting Office to do several studies on existing work
incentives. These studies would, among other things, assess the
value of existing tax credit and disability-related employment initiatives
under federal laws; evaluate the coordination of work incentives
for individuals eligible for both SSDI and SSI; and examine the
substantial gainful activity limit as a work disincentive.
The promise and potential of the Ticket to Work and
Work Incentives Improvement Act is much needed and long overdue.
Among the millions of income beneficiaries, a significant number
are youth and young adults with disabilities. Expectations are high.
Some members of the disability community have spent a good deal
of time thinking about the application of the Ticket to Work and
Work Incentives Improvement Act in the lives of the young people
they know. The following sobering text summarizes some of that thinking.
It comes in the form of an open story to the Internet community
from Dr. Frank Bowe, a prominent disability advocate:
"Nothing has been more frustrating for me, in 25
years of disability-rights advocacy, than the 1974 creation of
Supplemental Security Income (SSI). This program, which offers
a guaranteed minimum income designed to bring people up to the
poverty level, has been undeniably helpful to millions of Americans
with disabilities. It has also caused millions to forego the American
dream, or at least think they had to.
All of my conflicting emotions about SSI surfaced
over the past several weeks as I tried to help a former student
of mine. Let me call him "Mike," a 25-year-old quadriplegic with
a new master's degree. He got a job last September as a high-school
teacher.
Mike needed SSI, and the Medicaid that came with
it, to get his BA and MA degrees after injuring his spinal cord
when he was 19 years old. He's grateful for it. Medicaid pays
for the twice-daily attendant care he needs to get up every morning
and get back to bed every night. Mike estimates that it would
cost him about $1,000 a month if he paid the attendants himself.
That would be, of course, in after-tax dollars. Putting it bluntly,
he would fork over about half of his income for attendant care.
"I'll do it," he told me. He loves teaching that much.
It is not just attendant care. Mike also has to
pay for a lift-equipped van, which he needs to get to and from
work and for all the other things people need transportation to
do. Modified vans cost at least $40,000 and consume massive amounts
of gas and oil. With Medicaid paying his attendant care expenses,
he can cover his monthly transportation costs (barely). Mike knows
that, now that he's working, he risks losing SSI and the Medicaid
that comes with it.
He asked me to help him identify his options. The
first one, obviously, was one of the health insurance plans offered
by the school that employs him. Alas, none of the available plans
includes home health care services such as attendant care. Even
if one did, Mike can't switch to it until October, long after
his expected loss of Medicaid coverage.
Maybe I'm more upset about this than he is. It's
not right. All my working life I have tried to make it possible
for people like Mike, who want to work, to work. The Ticket to
Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (PL 106-170)
is supposed to help. But it doesn't help now, when Mike needs
it, and I'm not sure it will even help him later. Beginning in
October 2000, this law permits states to allow people who "make
too much" (that is, earn more than about $20,000 a year) to buy
into Medicaid. There's no
guarantee that the state where Mike lives will elect
that option. Even if it did, Mike makes over $20,000 a year as
a teacher. The act also changes some federal rules. After December
2000, people who lose SSI benefits because of earned income can
request reinstatement. But Mike faces the loss of benefits much
earlier than that.
What am I supposed to tell Mike? Should I tell him
that I admire his love of teaching, but that he started teaching
too early? That he should quit now? That some time next year,
if his state passes a law allowing him and others like him to
make more money and still get Medicaid, he could again become
a teacher - but only if he makes under $20,000 a year? How is
he supposed to live on that income?
I can't bring myself to tell Mike these things."
Demonstration Projects to Ensure
Students with Disabilities Receive a High Quality Education
Because of significant changes in education laws for
people with disabilities, the proportion of first-time, full-time
freshmen with disabilities attending college increased more than
threefold between 1978 and 1994, from 2.6 percent to 9.2 percent.
The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that 17 percent
of students attending higher education programs in this country
have a disability. Yet research indicates that students with disabilities
are less likely to enroll in postsecondary education than their
peers. Moreover, when students with disabilities attend postsecondary
programs, they are more likely to attend two-year or vocational
programs rather than four-year, degree-granting institutions and
when they do attend, they are less likely than their peers to persist
in these programs and graduate.
The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Postsecondary
Education has initiated a discretionary grant program to increase
the number of students with disabilities who persist in attaining
a four-year degree. Approximately 20 grants were funded in 1999
that provide technical assistance and professional development activities
for faculty and administrators in institutions of higher education,
in order to provide a quality education to students with disabilities.
This program supports technical assistance and professional development
activities for faculty and administrators in institutions of higher
education to improve their ability to provide a quality postsecondary
education for students with disabilities. Demonstration Projects
to Ensure Students with Disabilities Receive a Quality Higher Education
is authorized under Title VII, Part D of the Higher Education Amendments
of 1998. This program was funded for the first time in FY 1999 at
$5 million.
Grantees in the program will develop innovative, effective,
and efficient teaching methods and other strategies to enhance the
skills and abilities of postsecondary faculty and administrators
in working with disabled students. Activities include:
- In-service training
- Professional development
- Customized and general technical assistance workshops
- Summer institutes
- Distance learning
- Training in the use of assistive and educational
technology
- Synthesizing research related to postsecondary
students with disabilities
Grantees will also disseminate information from their
grant activities to other institutions of higher education.
It is not clear whether or not there will be an independent
evaluation of these demonstration programs. In addition, the Department
of Education's long-term commitment to any expansion of this initiative
is unclear. Similarly, it is not clear what, if any, relationship
exists between the different federal agencies that serve youth and
young adults with disabilities, and this higher education initiative.
It remains to be seen, therefore, what will become of this worthy
postsecondary education effort.
Conclusions and Recommendations
for Action
NCD's analysis of transition and post-school outcomes
has identified continuing gaps among youth and young adults with
disabilities, and between them and their peers. There has been little
noticeable progress made in the past decade in terms of students
exiting special education services with high school diplomas. There
has been slight progress in terms of young adults' entry into community
and 4-year colleges. There has been negligible progress in the numbers
of youth and young adults who have benefited from real life work
experiences that could have prepared them for employment following
their high school careers. There is little discernable progress
in the overall numbers of youth and young adults who have successfully
entered the real world of work. Overall, there is still a fragmented
system of youth development - within and across youth initiatives.
A few recent initiatives have demonstrated success in building partnerships
among different agencies, the public and private sectors, and federal-state-local
governments; many initiatives have yet to fulfill their promise.
Barriers to successful post-school outcomes for youth
with disabilities have persisted, despite federal legislation, research
initiatives, and evidence of promising practices. Based on the available
data and evidence from research and public information NCD finds
that:
- Actual transition plans and implementation do not
reflect the intent of the federal laws and initiatives, such as
the IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act Amendments;
- There is a disparity between transition service
needs and the services provided to youth by schools and community
service agencies that are federally funded;
- Youth with disabilities and their families are
not provided adequate opportunity to become actively involved
in transition services planning;
- Schools need additional resources for adequate
transition services that youth with disabilities require to prepare
them for successful post school outcomes;
- The application of information technology in the
preparation of youth with disabilities for post-secondary education
and employment is inadequate to meet their needs;
- Research based strategies and promising practices
have been defined but are not widely adopted or implemented and
are not seen as user friendly or to have wide generalizability;
- Secondary and post-secondary education systems
fail to provide youth with disabilities with consistent, individualized,
and appropriate access, equity and quality learning experiences
to support their completion of education and movement to meaningful
employment;
- Vocational rehabilitation and other community service
providers have limited involvement in the transition process on
a national scale;
- Ethnicity and cultural diversity issues impacting
post school outcomes are not appropriately considered by persons
involved in transition planning, such as respect for differences
or cultural awareness, information dissemination and resources;
- Youth in rural areas, including tribal communities,
experience additional and significant challenges that have not
been addressed, including geographic isolation, transportation
and access needs, as well as resolution of government to government
issues;
- The application of work incentives for youth with
disabilities receiving Supplemental Security Income or Social
Security Disability Income has been inadequate to promote greater
participation in post secondary education and employment; and
- Discrimination, differential attitude toward youth
with disabilities, and lack of access to appropriate accommodations
persist as barriers to post secondary school outcomes.
Among the changes needed in America to address these
serious issues is a serious and protracted emphasis on the positive
skills and attributes of youth with disabilities, and the need to
promote business involvement in the educational lives of students
with disabilities.
An analysis of the available research and public use
data conveys both "positive and negative news." On the positive
side: Youth with disabilities are protected by both long-standing
and more recent federal laws that prohibit routine institutionalization
without options, denial of enrollment and wholesale segregation
in public schools, and outlaw broadly overt discrimination in the
workplace. The scope and use of language in the federal laws and
their accompanying regulations make it clear that youth with disabilities
are entitled to the same civil and human rights afforded their peers.
On the negative side: There are longstanding and persistent
challenges that are the bases for federal, state, and local actions
for systemic reform. Despite some advances in research, education,
and disability rights policy and limited gains toward inclusion
in educational and workplace settings, national rates of high school
completion with a diploma and student progression to post secondary
school and employment for youth with disabilities are relatively
low. These rates are even lower for the majority of youth with disabilities
from diverse cultures. Students with disabilities continue to drop
out of school at higher rates than the general student population
and are less likely to enter post-secondary education or to be employed
at rates equal to those of their peers. Youth with disabilities
who are from diverse cultural groups, as well as youth with mental
disabilities and youth with developmental disabilities remain the
most under-employed of all young people.
Documented models of multidisciplinary, coordinated,
and accountable service systems that meet "local" requirements are
desperately needed to close the gaps between high school transitions,
post school outcomes in education and employment for youth with
disabilities and the general population. In too many communities,
transition to post school education and employment is largely uncoordinated
across the existing federal-state-local (including tribal community)
entity initiatives.
At the federal level few agencies demonstrate effective
internal communication translated into external collaboration with
other agencies to meet the needs of our nation's youth, whether
the current laws mandate such coordination or not. A shift away
from stovepipe methods of operation is needed. At the state and
local community levels, few entities that receive federal funding
to assist youth transition from secondary to post-secondary settings
(e.g., education, human and social services, and labor) are effectively
collaborating to meet individual needs. Local entities, in particular,
need to address the funding constraints, open methods of communication
and replace largely isolated agency functioning with realistic plans
for joint responsibilities.
High school staff, business, and community partners
need to work closely with youth and their families to prepare for
productive employment to the maximum extent possible. Youth with
disabilities need more intense efforts that help them participate
successfully in the general curriculum, large-scale assessments,
and workplace by providing them the necessary supports and appropriate
accommodations. Preparation for productive employment also needs
to include self-advocacy training and a sense of self-determination
that fit within the context of diverse cultural traditions. Under
IDEA, the Federal Government required in 1990, for the first time,
that all students with disabilities receive transition services
by the age of 16 and the IDEA 1997 amendments set the mandatory
age as 14 for including transition planning related to course work
for vocational preparation.
Also, no later than at age 14, teenagers on SSI/SSDI,
together with parents and other members of their IEP teams must
develop transition plans geared toward course content. Where appropriate,
they should begin to articulate and document career goals. The plan
would set a track for the child's educational goals for the remainder
of secondary school and should include: (1) academic preparation
for attending college; or (2) vocational preparation that includes
survey courses as well as concentration in the target vocational
goal; and (3) preparation for life skills and independent living
as adults. Transition services planning should also provide information
about Social Security work incentives that can be used to pursue
vocational goals. While they are pursuing their goals for work or
further education after high school, young people should have assurance
of SSI/SSDI benefit security until they reach age 18, even if they
begin to demonstrate work skills. Transition services planning should
include explaining the requirement that young people receiving SSI/SSDI
will have a continuing disability review, subject to the adult disability
criteria, when they reach age 18. Finally, transition services planning
and implementation should include explaining to students and families
the new features of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Investment
Act that apply to youth and young adults with disabilities.
In the spirit of hope and with the expectation that
many segments of American society have a stake in ensuring successful
transitions for youth and young adults, NCD makes the following
recommendations for actions at the national, state and local levels.
Recommendations to the President
and the U.S. Congress
- Establish a timeline for reports to Congress and
the public on the review, revision and/or refinement of all relevant
federal agency compliance and enforcement of programs that involve
youth and young adults with disabilities. Include that each agency
must provide clear and distinct incentives for compliance and
enforcement, and specific and immediate sanctions for noncompliance
and lack of enforcement, whenever necessary.
- Require that all federal agencies redesign and/or
redirect regional grants, contracts and/or cooperative agreements
that are not producing results for youth and young adults with
disabilities in secondary education, career training and employment
preparation, and post-secondary education areas. Establish a timeline
for carrying out the work and reporting the revisions.
- Direct the Department of Education and the Social
Security Administration to work together to: (a) set forth clear
guidelines on the interpretation of the definitions of common
terms in the federal laws impacting youth transitioning from high
school; and (b) jointly fund and commission a national study for
review and analysis of the SSI program purposes and the IDEA program
purposes in relation to transitioning youth and young adults.
One outcome of that study could be the design a of a combined
program with links to work incentive programs and other efforts
that can lead to greater self-sufficiency for youth and young
people with disabilities.
- Ensure that the Departments of Education, Health
and Human Services, Interior, and Labor, the Small Business Administration,
Health Care Financing Administration, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, and Social Security Administration develop and implement
actions needed to build and reinforce data-and information-sharing
crosswalks within and across executive, legislative, and judicial
branch agencies regarding the implementation of programs that
involve youth and young adults with disabilities.
- Ensure that the interagency coordination among
the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Interior,
and Labor, the Small Business Administration, Health Care Financing
Administration, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Social
Security Administration promote the infusion of knowledge about
what works regarding transition and post-school services and supports
for youth and young adults within and across all areas of federal,
state, and local governments, public-private partnerships focusing
on school and workplace improvements, and among all of America's
citizens. Collect and disseminate timely and useful data and information
about successful and unsuccessful strategies for youth and young
adults with disabilities. Information needs to be meaningful to
youth with disabilities, their families and the general public.
Designate the President's Task Force on the Employment of Adults
with Disabilities Subcommittee on Expanding the Employment of
Youth with Disabilities for the leadership of this effort.
- Ensure that all Department of Education and Department
of Labor youth initiative grants, programs, and initiatives include
dollars and resources for individuals with disabilities. A first
step should authorize the Department of Education to implement
a post-secondary education initiative that incorporates targeted
scholarships and/or loans for youth and young adults with disabilities.
Require that the initiative will provide effective outreach recruitment,
relevant follow-along supports, and reasonable financial terms
for repayment, when necessary.
- Promote public policies through the Departments
of Commerce and Labor that are supportive of employers. This includes
setting policies and designing programs that employers perceive
as requiring the least amount of red tape, paperwork, and direct
government involvement into their business.
- Ensure that all federal agencies have viable procedures
that are implemented to provide cross-agency training on a consistent
and timely basis when new federally funded youth initiatives are
introduced.
Recommendations to State, Local,
and Community Entities
- Document successful examples of IDEA (transition
services) implementation at the individual-level, school-level,
and system-level, and share those examples with other educators,
students, parents, advocates, and other interested parties.
- Infuse real life work, volunteer opportunities,
and lifelong education information and experiences throughout
school systems' secondary curricula.
- Develop and implement reasonable transition plans,
per IDEA, for all students regardless of the nature and/or extent
of their services and support needs.
- Actively resist the temptation to judge IDEA's
transition services requirements as strictly technical compliance
activities. Use the service requirements and mandated time frames
as benchmarks for student planning, timing of local services,
and leveraging of community resources.
- Encourage the development of transitions, apprenticeships,
internships, and mentoring programs between schools and businesses-and
between out-of-school youths and businesses-that realistically
incorporate expectations of educational and industrial productivity
among participating youth and young adults with disabilities.
- Increase opportunities for 'local intermediaries'
as brokers or enablers that promote individualized transition
planning and implementation, as well as promoting transition partnerships
among relevant segments of communities.
- Provide increased access to relevant assistive
technology and telecommunications in schools, community centers,
libraries, and other neighborhood centers for youth and young
adults with disabilities.
- Provide incentives for success--in terms of transition
outcomes for youth--to schools, to Centers for Independent Living,
and to local intermediaries.
- Identify and remove state/local (policy) barriers
to, and disincentives for, successful transitions as youth with
disabilities move from secondary education programs to postsecondary
education and/or the world of work and visa versa.
Recommendations to the Disability
Community
- Expect that all publicly-funded education and employment
service systems will fully and faithfully comply, with fundamental
IDEA, Rehabilitation Act, School-to-Work Act, Higher Education
Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Work Investment Act, Ticket
to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, and other legislative
mandates as they relate to the education and/or employment of
youth and young adults with disabilities.
- Build coalitions both with other disenfranchised
populations and the larger population to promote the full inclusion
of all youth and young adults into the educational/ employment
mainstream of American society.
- Seek state legislature support for full funding
of all education services, including special education.
Implementation of the recommendations in this report
will move our country's youth with disabilities into the new millennium
as adults better prepared for independence and full participation
in society. NCD urges the President and the Congress to ensure that
the necessary tools are provided to today's youth who will shape
our nation's future.
REFERENCES
Anderson-Inman, L., Knox-Quinn, C. & Szymanski, M.,
(1999). Computer-supported studying: Stories of successful transition
to post-secondary education. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 22 (2): 185-212.
Aspel, N., Bettis, G., Test, D.W., & Wood, W.M. (1998).
An evaluation of a comprehensive system of transition services.
Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21 (2): 203-222.
Benz, M.R., Doren, B., and Yovanoff, P. (1997). School-to-work
components that predict postschool success for students with and
without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63 (2): 151-164.
Blackorby, J., Hankock, G.R., & Siegel, S. (1993).
Human capital and structural explanations of post-school success
for youth with disabilities: A latent variable exploration of the
National Longitudinal Transition Study. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Atlanta, GA.
Blackorby, J. & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool
outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62 (5):
399-413.
Blank, W.E. and Harwell, S. (Eds.) (1997). Promising
practices for connecting schools with the real world. University
of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Chadsky-Rusch, J., Rusch, F., & O'Reilly, M.F. (1991).
Transition from school to integrated communities. Remedial and
Special Education, 12(6), 23-33.
Dejong, G. and O'Day, B (1997). Crosscutting issues
in disability policy and services and their implications for disability
research. Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research.
Donovan, M.R., & Tilson, G.P., Jr. (1998). The Marriott
Foundation's 'Bridges . . . from school to work' program - a framework
for successful employment outcomes for people with disabilities.
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 10 (1): 15-21.
Doren, B., & Benz, M.R. (1998). Employment inequality
revisited: predictors of better employment outcomes for young women
with disabilities in transition. The Journal of Special Education,
31 (4): 425-442.
Dykacz, J.M. (1998). Return of Disabled-Worker Beneficiaries
to the DI Program: Some Insights From the New Beneficiary Follow-up.
Social Security Bulletin, 61, (2), pp. 3-11.
Fabian, E.S., Lent, R.L. & Willis, S.P. (1998). Predicting
work transition outcomes for students with disabilities: Implications
for counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 76: 311-315.
Fisher, S.K., & Gardner, J.E., (1999). Introduction
to technology in transition.113-128. Career Development for Exceptional
Individual, 22(2) 131-151.
Gajar, A. (1998). Postsecondary education. In Rusch,
F.R., & Chadsey, J.G. Beyond high school: Transition from school
to work, Chapter 16 (pp. 383-405). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Co.
General Accounting Office (1993). Report to Congressional
Requesters, U.S. Senate. Vocational Education: Status in 2-Year
Colleges in 1990-91 and Early Signs of Change. (GAO/HRD-93-89).
Washington, DC: Author.
General Accounting Office (1993). Report to the Chairman,
Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights. Vocational
Rehabilitation: Evidence for Federal Program's Effectiveness Is
Mixed. (GA/PEMD-93-19). Washington, DC: Author.
General Accounting Office (1993). The Job Training
Partnership Act: Potential for Program Improvements but National
Job Training Strategy Needed. (GAO/T-HRD-93-18). Washington,
DC: Author.
General Accounting Office (1994). Testimony Before
the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Is Needed.
(GAO/T-HEHS-94-109). Washington, DC: Author.
General Accounting Office (1996a). SSA Disability:
Return-to-work strategies from other systems may improve federal
programs. GAO/HEHS-96-133. Washington, DC: Author.
Gold, V., & Williams, E. (1998). The entrepreneurial
curriculum: Rural school-community process for vocational training
of adolescents with disabilities. In Montgomery, D. (Ed.) Coming
together: Preparing for rural special education in the 21st Century.
Conference Proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special
Education at Charleston, South Carolina. (Eric Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 417 880)
Halloran, W. & Austin, J. (1998). Transcript of Conference
Call Presentation, National Transition Alliance. SSI Work Incentives
Accessing Employment Supports for Youth with Disabilities Transitioning
from School to Work.
Harrington, S.A. (1997). Transition programming for
students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Vocational
Special Needs Education, 20 (1): 22-24.
Hasazi, S.B., Furney, K.E., & Destefano, L., (1999).
Implementing the IDEA Transition Mandates. Exceptional Children,
65 (4) 555-566.
Hasazi, S.B., Gordon, L.R., & Roe, C.A. (1985). Factors
associated with the employment status of handicapped youth exiting
high school from 1979 to 1983. Exceptional Children, 52 (6),
455-469.
HEATH Resource Center (1999). Update on college
freshmen with disabilities. Washington, DC: American Council
on Education.
HEATH Resource Center (1999). College freshmen
with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile. Washington,
DC: American Council on Education.
Hebel, S. (2000). Duke reaches settlement with Justice
Department on access for people with disabilities. The Chronicle
of Higher Education, 46 (26), A34.
Hennessey, J.C. (1996). Job Patterns of Disabled Beneficiaries.
Social Security Bulletin, 58, (4), 3-11.
Hennessey, J.C. (1997) Factors Affecting the Work
Efforts of Disabled-Worker Beneficiaries. Social Security Bulletin,
60, (3), 3-20.
Horn, L., & Bobbitt, L. (1999). Students with disabilities
in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation,
and outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Kazdis, R. and Barton, P. (1993). Improving the
transition from school to work in the United States. Washington,
DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
Kohler, P.D. and Troesken, B.J. (1999). Improving
student outcomes: Promising practices and programs. National
Transition Alliance for Youth with Disabilities, Chicago, IL.
Leach, L.N., & Harmon, A.S. (1993). Annotated bibliography
on secondary special education and transitional services, v.8.
(H158T00001). By the Transition Research Institute of Illinois,
for the U.S. Department of Education. Champaign, IL: Author.
Lehmann, J.P. (1998). Mother's roles: Comparison between
mothers of adolescents with severe disabilities and mothers of vocational
students. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21(2),
129-144.
Lehmann, J.P., Denniston, T.L., Tobin, R., & Howard,
D. (1996). Sharing the journey: An individual and integrated systems
approach to self-determination. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 19(1), 1-14.
Luecking, R.G. (2000). Analyzing work outcomes
for youth with disabilities participating in a standardized internship
program. Doctoral Dissertation. Washington, DC: Author.
Luecking, R.G., & Fabian, E.S. (1997). Transition
from school to work. In S.M. Pueschel, & M. Sustrova (Eds.)
Adolescents with Down syndrome: Toward a more fulfilling life
(pp. 235-243). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.
Mank, D. (1994). The underachievement of supported
employment: A call for reinvestment. Journal of Disability Policy
Studies, 5(2), 13-17.
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (1999).
Career academics report. New York: NY: Author
Martin, D.S., Conley, R. & Noble, J. (1995). The Americans
with Disabilities Act and disability benefits policy: Some research
topics and issues. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 6 (2),
1-16.
Mathematica Policy Research (1999). National STW
evaluation report. Princeton, NJ: Author.
Mithaug, D.E., Horiuchi, C.N., & Fanning, P.N. (1984).
A report on the Colorado statewide follow-up survey of special education
students. Exceptional Children, 51(6), 397-404.
Mithaug, D.E., Martin, J.E., Agran, M., & Rusch, F.
(1988). Why special education graduates fail: How to teach them
to succeed. Colorado Springs, CO: Ascent Publications.
MPR Associates (1999). Progress measures survey.
Princeton, NJ: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics (2000). What
are the barriers to the use of advanced telecommunications for students
with disabilities in public schools? U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (NCES 2000-042).
National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Dropout
rates in the United States: 1998. U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (NCES 2000-022).
National Conference of State Legislatures (1999).
The future of School-to-Work. Legisbrief.
National Council on Disability, (1993). Meeting
the unique needs of minorities with disabilities. Washington,
DC: Author
National Council on Disability (1989). The education
of students with disabilities: Where do we stand? Washington, DC:
Author.
National Council on Disability (1993). Serving
the nation's students with disabilities: Progress and prospects.
Washington, DC: Author.
National Council on Disability (1995). Improving
the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act: Making schools work for all of America's children. Washington,
DC: Author.
National Council on Disability (1996). Cognitive
impairments and the application of Title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Author.
National Council on Disability (1996). The challenge
for the 21st Century - A decade of progress in disability policy-
Setting an agenda for the future. Washington, DC: Author.
National Council on Disability (1997).Removing
barriers to work: Action proposals for the 105th Congress. Washington,
DC: Author.
National Council on Disability, (1999). Lift every
voice: Modernizing policies and programs to serve a diverse nation.
Washington, DC: Author
National Council on Disability, (2000). Back to
school on civil rights. Washington, DC: Author
National Council on Disability, (2000) Federal
policy barriers to assistive technology. Washington, DC: Author
National Transition Network (1998). Meeting the
Needs of Youth with Disabilities: Handbook on Supplemental Security
Income Work Incentives and Transition Students. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota, Institute On Community Integration.
National Transition Network (1999). State graduation
requirements for students with and without disabilities. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota, Institute On Community Integration.
National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation
Research/Social Security Administration (1999): Washington, DC:
Author.
National Organization on Disability and Harris Interactive
(1998). NOD/Harris survey of Americans with disabilities. New
York, NY: Author.
O'Day, B. (1999). Policy barriers for people with
disabilities who want to work. American Rehabilitation, 25 (1),
8-19.
Office of the Inspector General (1999). Report from
Office of the Inspector General regarding employment programs for
persons with developmental disabilities. Report #OEI-07-98-00260,
Washington, DC.
Phelps, L.A. and Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1997). School-to-work
transitions for youth with disabilities: A review of outcomes and
practices. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 176-226.
Presidential Task Force on the Employment of Adults
with Disabilities (1999). Report from the Subcommittee on Expanding
Employment Opportunities for Young People with Disabilities to the
Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities.
Washington, DC: Author.
Revell, G., Inge, K.J., Mank, D., & Wehman, P. (1999).
The Impact of Supported Employment for People with Significant Disabilities.
Richmond: Virginia Commonwealth University Rehabilitation Research
& Training Center on Workplace Supports.
Ross, J.K. (1996). Social Security: Disability
programs lag in promoting return to work. Testimony before the
Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate. (GAO/T-HEHS-96-147). Washington,
DC: United States General Accounting Office.
Schalock, R.L., Wolzen, B., Feis, P., Werbel, G.,
& Peterson, K. (1984). Post-secondary committee placement of individuals
with mental retardation: A five-year follow-up analysis. Paper presented
at the American Association on Mental Deficiency. Annual Convention,
Minneapolis, MN.
Selingo, J. (1998). States and colleges wrangle over
paying students for services to disabled students. The Chronicle
of Higher Education, 44 (41), A37.
Stanford Research International (1989). National
Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo
Park, CA: Author.
Social Security Administration, (1999, November 24).
The ticket to work and work incentives act of 1999. (Legislative
Bulletin). Washington, DC.
Stansfield, J.S. (1976). Graduation: What happens
to the retarded child when he grows up? Exceptional Children,
39, 548.
Thomas, D.F., & Bottersbusch, K.F. (1997). The vocational
assessment protocol for school-to-work transition programs. Journal
of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 12 (2): 48-66.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Report (1998).
Nineteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of
Public Law 101-476: The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Report (1999).
). Twentieth annual report to Congress on the implementation
of Public Law 101-476: The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Report (2000).
Twenty-first annual report to Congress on the implementation
of Public Law 101-476: The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Waddell, Cynthia D. (2000) The growing digital divide
in access for people with disabilities: Overcoming barriers to participation
in the digital economy. Paper presented at the U.S. Department of
Commerce Conference on Understanding the Digital Economy, Data,
Tools and Research. Washington, DC.
Wagner, M. & Blackorby, J. (1996). Transition from
high school to work or college: How special education students fare.
The Future of Children, 6 (1): 103-120.
Wehman, P. & Revell, W.G. (1997). Transition into
supported employment for young adults with severe disabilities:
current practices and future directions. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 8 (1): 65-74.
Wehmeyer, M., & Schwartz, M.A. (1997). Self-determination
and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental
retardation and learning disabilities. Exceptional Children,
63, 245-255.
Will, M. (1983). OSERS programming for the transition
of youth with severe disabilities: Bridges from school to work life.
Washington, DC: OSERS.
|