Special Education
Federal Actions Can Assist States in Improving Postsecondary Outcomes for Youth Gao ID: GAO-03-773 July 31, 2003States receive federal funds under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to help students with disabilities reach their postsecondary goals, and various federal programs offer services that can assist these youth. However, research has documented that youth with disabilities are less likely to transition into postsecondary education and employment. Congress requested that GAO provide information on (1) the proportion of IDEA students completing high school with a diploma or alternative credentials, and their postsecondary status; (2) the transition problems being reported and state and local actions to address them; and (3) the types of transition services provided by the vocational rehabilitation, the Workforce Investment Act youth, and the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency programs, and the factors affecting participation of IDEA youth.
Of all IDEA youth who left high school during the 2000-01 school year, 57 percent received a standard diploma and an additional 11 percent received an alternative credential. High school completion patterns of IDEA youth have remained stable over recent years despite concerns that states' increasing use of exit examinations would result in higher dropout rates. Students with some types of disabilities were much less likely, however, to complete high school with a standard diploma, receiving an alternative credential or dropping out instead. IDEA youth without a diploma have some options for entering employment or postsecondary education, but national data on their post-school status are over a decade old. Twenty-one states routinely track students' post-school status, but these data have some limitations. While most states used post-school data for program improvement purposes such as monitoring service delivery, some officials indicated that guidance was needed on how to best collect and use these data. A variety of transition problems, such as lack of vocational training and poor linkages between schools and service providers, have been consistently reported by students, parents, and others. While state and local educational agencies have taken actions to address some of the problems, other problems such as lack of transportation are less likely to be addressed at the state level. While state Directors of Special Education reported being generally satisfied with assistance provided to them by the Department of Education in addressing transition issues, some expressed concerns about the timeliness of the federal feedback on their state improvement plans and inconsistency in the quality of technical assistance provided by the six federal Regional Resource Centers. The vocational rehabilitation (VR) program, the Workforce Investment Act youth program (WIA), and the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency (Ticket) program all offer an array of employment and education-related services that can aid some IDEA youth. However, several factors may impede participation by the IDEA populations that are eligible for services. The lack of participation may be explained in part by the insufficient capacity of the VR and WIA programs to serve eligible populations requesting services, and potential concerns of Ticket participants about losing public assistance because of employment income. A general lack of awareness by youth and families of these programs may also limit participation.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-773, Special Education: Federal Actions Can Assist States in Improving Postsecondary Outcomes for Youth
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-773
entitled 'Special Education: Federal Actions Can Assist States in
Improving Postsecondary Outcomes for Youth' which was released on July
30, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
July 2003:
Special Education:
Federal Actions Can Assist States in Improving Postsecondary Outcomes
for Youth:
GAO-03-773:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-773, a report to the Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
States receive federal funds under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) to help students with disabilities reach their
postsecondary goals, and various federal programs offer services that
can assist these youth. However, research has documented that youth
with disabilities are less likely to transition into postsecondary
education and employment. Congress requested that GAO provide
information on (1) the proportion of IDEA students completing high
school with a diploma or alternative credentials, and their
postsecondary status; (2) the transition problems being reported and
state and local actions to address them; and (3) the types of
transition services provided by the vocational rehabilitation, the
Workforce Investment Act youth, and the Ticket to Work and Self-
Sufficiency programs, and the factors affecting participation of IDEA
youth.
What GAO Found:
Of all IDEA youth who left high school during the 2000-01 school year,
57 percent received a standard diploma and an additional 11 percent
received an alternative credential. High school completion patterns of
IDEA youth have remained stable over recent years despite concerns
that states‘ increasing use of exit examinations would result in
higher dropout rates. Students with some types of disabilities were
much less likely, however, to complete high school with a standard
diploma, receiving an alternative credential or dropping out instead.
IDEA youth without a diploma have some options for entering employment
or postsecondary education, but national data on their post-school
status are over a decade old. Twenty-one states routinely track
students‘ post-school status, but these data have some limitations.
While most states used post-school data for program improvement
purposes such as monitoring service delivery, some officials indicated
that guidance was needed on how to best collect and use these data.
A variety of transition problems, such as lack of vocational training
and poor linkages between schools and service providers, have been
consistently reported by students, parents, and others. While state
and local educational agencies have taken actions to address some of
the problems, other problems such as lack of transportation are less
likely to be addressed at the state level. While state Directors of
Special Education reported being generally satisfied with assistance
provided to them by the Department of Education in addressing
transition issues, some expressed concerns about the timeliness of the
federal feedback on their state improvement plans and inconsistency in
the quality of technical assistance provided by the six federal
Regional Resource Centers.
The vocational rehabilitation (VR) program, the Workforce Investment
Act youth program (WIA), and the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency
(Ticket) program all offer an array of employment and education-
related services that can aid some IDEA youth. However, several
factors may impede participation by the IDEA populations that are
eligible for services. The lack of participation may be explained in
part by the insufficient capacity of the VR and WIA programs to serve
eligible populations requesting services, and potential concerns of
Ticket participants about losing public assistance because of
employment income. A general lack of awareness by youth and families
of these programs may also limit participation.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Department of Education
(1) gather and provide states with information on sound strategies to
collect and use postsecondary data, (2) develop a plan to provide
states with timely feedback and consistent quality of technical
assistance, and (3) coordinate with other federal agencies to provide
IDEA students and their families with information on federally funded
transition services.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-773.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact David Bellis at (415)
904-2272 or bellisd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
A Majority of IDEA Youth Complete High School, but Data on Transitions
Are Limited:
Problems Impeding Transition of IDEA Youth into Postsecondary Education
and Employment Remain Partially Addressed:
The VR, WIA, and Ticket Programs Provide Transition Services, but
Several Factors May Limit the Number of IDEA Youth Who Use Them:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Survey:
State Telephone Interviews and Analysis of State Data:
Site Visits:
Review of National Studies on Transition:
Analysis of Existing Data:
Appendix II: State Data Collection Efforts:
Appendix III: State Waiting Lists for Vocational Rehabilitation
Services in Fiscal Year 2001:
Appendix IV: Youth Eligible to Participate in the Ticket Program as of
June 2003:
Appendix V: Availability of Medicaid Buy-In to Working People with
Disabilities as of May 2003:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Social Security Administration:
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: High School Completion and Dropout Rates by Disability Type,
2000-01 School Year:
Table 2: Problems Reported by Stakeholders in the Transition Process:
Table 3: Education's Response Time as of March 26, 2003, to States
Submitting Improvement Plans in 2002:
Table 4: All Youth Ages 14 to 21 Served by Selected Federal Programs:
Table 5: Selected Services Provided to Youth through the VR Program in
Fiscal Year 2001:
Table 6: Selected Services Provided through WIA in Program Year 2001:
Table 7: Site Visit States and Local School Systems:
Table 8: State Approaches to Collecting Data on Postsecondary
Employment and Education Status of IDEA Youth:
Table 9: State Methods of Collecting Data on Postsecondary Employment
and Education Status of IDEA Youth:
Table 10: State Examples of Using Postsecondary Employment and
Education Status Data:
Figures:
Figure 1: Disability Characteristics of IDEA Youth Leaving High School
in School Year 2000-01:
Figure 2: Completion and Dropout Rates for IDEA Students from 1997-98
to 2000-01 School Years:
Figure 3: States That Collect Data on IDEA Youth Leaving High School:
Figure 4: Types of Postsecondary Employment and Education Data
Available in States:
Abbreviations:
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act:
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
IEP: individualized education program:
NCES: National Center for Education Statistics:
NLTS: National Longitudinal Transition Study:
NLTS2: National Longitudinal Transition Study-2:
OSEP: Office of Special Education Programs:
RSA: Rehabilitation Services Administration:
SIG: State Improvement Grant:
SLIDEA: Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
SPeNSE: the Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education:
SSA: Social Security Administration:
SSDI: Social Security Disability Insurance:
SSI: Supplemental Security Income:
VR: vocational rehabilitation:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act youth program:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 31, 2003:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Kennedy:
In 2003, states received nearly $9 billion for assuring that over 6
million children and youth identified as having a disability received a
free appropriate public education, as required by the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).[Footnote 1] Most youth had been
identified as having learning disabilities such as dyslexia, with a
smaller number having some type of emotional, mental, or physical
impairment. Research has documented that youth with disabilities--
especially those with some types of disabilities such as emotional
disturbances--are less likely to transition into postsecondary
education and employment once they leave high school. In the 1997
Amendments to IDEA, Congress required greater state and local
accountability for improving graduation rates and postsecondary results
for youth with disabilities. The law directed state education agencies
to include youth with disabilities in statewide achievement
assessments, and to begin including a statement of the transition
service needs in students' individualized education program (IEP) at
age 14, in addition to age 16. The Department of Education (Education)
monitors states' compliance with these requirements, as well as
provides technical assistance to enhance state and local capacity to
improve graduation rates and the postsecondary employment and education
status for youth with disabilities. In addition, other federal agencies
fund programs that can assist youth with disabilities during their
transition into the adult world.
In an effort to better ensure that all students have the necessary
academic preparation to successfully pursue postsecondary education or
employment, many states are now requiring that students pass exit
examinations to graduate from high school with a diploma. However,
concerns have been raised that states' use of exit examinations will
result in higher dropout rates for youth with disabilities or issuing
alternative credentials[Footnote 2] in lieu of diplomas that may limit
youths' options for postsecondary education and employment. While
federally funded transition services are available to help youth with
disabilities pursue postsecondary options, there are also concerns that
many may not be using these services. To address these concerns, you
asked that we provide information on: (1) the proportion of IDEA
students completing high school with a diploma or alternative
credentials, and what is known about their postsecondary education and
employment outcomes; (2) the types of transition problems that have
been reported and actions taken by state and local education agencies
to address them; and (3) the types of transition services provided by
the vocational rehabilitation (VR) program, the Workforce Investment
Act youth program (WIA), and the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency
(Ticket) program, and the factors affecting the number of IDEA youth
using them.
To provide this information, we administered and analyzed results from
a survey to 50 state Directors of Special Education, as well as
conducted phone interviews with state officials in the 21 states that
reported routinely collecting data on IDEA students' postsecondary
outcomes. We also visited 3 states and 6 school districts where we met
with state and local officials, school administrators, teachers,
parents, IDEA students, and service providers.[Footnote 3] In addition,
we synthesized the findings of nationally available studies on IDEA
students' transition experiences, interviewed federal officials
responsible for programs that can assist students during transition,
and analyzed program data from federal agencies administering these
programs. Appendix I explains our methodology in more detail.
We performed our work in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards between June 2002 and June 2003.
Results in Brief:
State data reported by Education show that in the 2000-01 school year,
about 70 percent of IDEA students completed high school with either a
standard diploma or an alternative credential. However, completion
rates ranged from 45 percent to 83 percent depending on disability
type. The high school completion rate was the lowest for youth with
emotional disturbances and the highest for youth with impairments
affecting hearing or eyesight. Despite concerns that states' increasing
use of exit examinations would result in more IDEA youth dropping out
of high school, high school completion patterns have remained fairly
stable, perhaps in part, because states have generally offered
alternative routes to high school completion for youth with
disabilities. However, what happens to IDEA youth after they leave high
school is difficult to determine. Less than half of the states
routinely collect data on students' employment or education status
after graduation, and existing data collection efforts have
limitations. Despite limitations of individual states' efforts, state
studies taken together show that IDEA youth were much more likely to
enter employment than postsecondary education or training programs. In
Wisconsin, for example, 80 percent of IDEA youth reported being
employed and 47 percent reported attending some type of postsecondary
education institution 1 year out of high school.[Footnote 4] While most
state officials reported using data on IDEA youth postsecondary status
for purposes such as monitoring service delivery or targeting schools
for technical assistance, some officials indicated that guidance was
needed on how to best collect and use these data. Education officials
in 2 states, for example, were unsure whether their survey questions
were appropriate to obtain the best information on outcomes, while
another state official had concerns that local school systems did not
have the expertise to use such data to improve transition outcomes for
IDEA youth.
During our site visits, students, parents, teachers, and others
consistently reported a variety of problems that impede youth
transition to postsecondary education and employment, including poor
linkages between schools and youth service providers and a lack of
community work experience while in high school. States and local
education agencies have taken various steps to address some of the
problems, including hiring transition coordinators and offering work
preparation experiences, such as job shadowing opportunities. Some
schools, however, have not yet benefited from these efforts and
continue to experience problems. For example, a number of schools still
rely on special education teachers to develop linkages with community
service providers according to the Study of State and Local
Implementation and Impact of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (SLIIDEA), although teachers indicated during our site
visits that they often do not have the time or training to do so.
Further, while research has shown work experience and vocational
education to be a significant factor in obtaining postsecondary
employment with higher earnings, findings from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) show that 60 percent of IDEA
youth had paid work experience and about 24 percent received vocational
services. Our survey of state Directors of Special Education shows that
states have developed action plans to increase services such as
vocational training, and community work experience for IDEA youth.
Other significant problems, however, are less likely to be addressed
because they are not considered by state officials to be within the
purview of the education system. For example, the 3 states we visited
did not include transportation problems for IDEA youth in their state
improvement plans, although it was one of the most cited problems by
parents and school and state officials. Education provides some
assistance to states in their efforts to address transition problems,
and most state Directors of Special Education found this assistance
useful. For example, states can use Education's Continuous Improvement
Monitoring Process to obtain feedback on state improvement plans for
addressing transition problems, and obtain related technical assistance
from Education's Regional Resource Centers for Special Education
(Regional Resource Centers). State officials expressed some concerns,
however, about the timeliness of Education's feedback on their state
plans and some inconsistency in the quality of assistance provided by
the Regional Resource Centers.
The VR, WIA, and Ticket programs all provide similar and complementary
services that can ease youth transition from high school to
postsecondary education and employment, but several factors may affect
how many IDEA youth use them. Services include tutoring and study
skills training, job coaching and placement, as well as necessary
support services such as transportation and counseling. However, IDEA
youth are not automatically eligible for these services. For example,
available data suggest that about 29 percent of IDEA youth meet
Workforce Investment Act's low-income requirement, and about 13 percent
of IDEA youth meet Ticket's age and benefit requirements. While not all
IDEA youth eligible for VR, WIA, or Ticket services may need or want to
use them, several factors may impede those that do. For example, WIA
officials from states we visited said that workforce centers often do
not have the expertise to serve youth with disabilities, and may refer
these youth to VR; Education officials report that a number of states
currently have waiting lists for VR services. The most recent data
available from fiscal year 2001 show that VR agencies in 25 states had
waiting lists for its services that may defer access for transitioning
youth. Further, youth may not access services because they are
concerned about losing access to public assistance, or are unaware that
these federal resources exist. For example, while all youth aged 18 or
older that qualify for Social Security disability benefits are eligible
for transition services under the Ticket program, less than 1 percent
participate, in part, due to concerns that employment income may
jeopardize their eligibility for other federal and state services such
as health insurance and subsidized housing according to parents and
service providers we spoke with. Finally, students, parents, and
teachers who are responsible for identifying transition service needs
were generally unaware of the universe of available federal transition
services and how to access them in the states we visited. While most
people we talked with were aware of VR services, many were unaware of
the Ticket program, and knowledge of the Workforce Investment Act
assistance centers varied widely, even though these programs all serve
overlapping populations.
We are making recommendations to Education to help state and local
education agencies improve transition outcomes for IDEA youth by
disseminating information on best practices for collecting and using
data on their postsecondary status, providing more timely and
consistent services to states seeking assistance, and identifying
strategies for informing students and families about federal transition
resources.
Background:
States that receive IDEA funding must comply with certain requirements
for special education and related services. These requirements include
the development of an IEP that spells out the specific special
education, related services, and supplementary aids and services to be
provided to each student based on the student's needs, including
transition services designed to help the student obtain the skills and
experiences to reach desired postsecondary goals.
During the 2000-01 school year, over 300,000 IDEA youth left high
school.[Footnote 5] Most youth had been identified as having learning
disabilities such as dyslexia, with a smaller number having some type
of emotional, mental, or physical impairment, as shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Disability Characteristics of IDEA Youth Leaving High School
in School Year 2000-01:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Disability types included in the "other" category are speech or
language impairments, multiple disabilities, hearing impairments,
orthopedic impairments, visual impairments, autism, deaf-blindness,
traumatic brain injury, and other health impairments. They have been
combined into a single category because each of these disability groups
represents less than 10 percent of IDEA youth population leaving high
school.
[End of figure]
In an effort to raise expectations for IDEA youth and to make school
systems accountable for their performance, IDEA Amendments of 1997
required that these students be included in state and district
assessments, to the extent possible. The No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 also required school systems to establish annual assessments in
order to demonstrate that all students, including those with
disabilities, made academic progress. Although federal law does not
mandate that school systems tie assessment results to graduation with a
standard diploma, current law does provide states with the flexibility
to implement exit examination policies that would require students to
pass an exit examination in order to graduate with a diploma.
Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) provides a
number of resources to assist state and local education agencies in
serving children and youth with disabilities. One such resource is
OSEP's Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process, whereby OSEP provides
feedback to state education officials on state improvement plans they
develop to address problems providing education and transition services
to IDEA youth at the state and local level. Another resource is
Education's six Regional Resource Centers for Special Education through
which OSEP facilitates networking and information sharing among states,
and helps state and local areas improve education programs by providing
technical assistance, consultation, and training.
In addition, the federal government funds other services that may offer
assistance to IDEA youth during their transition from high school into
postsecondary education or employment through programs administered by
agencies such as Education, the Department of Labor (Labor), and the
Social Security Administration (SSA).
The Department of Education. Education's Rehabilitation Services
Administration provides funds to state VR agencies to help persons with
disabilities prepare for and engage in gainful employment. The
regulations implementing the Rehabilitation Act require state VR
programs to develop an individualized plan for employment for students
eligible for vocational rehabilitation services before they leave
school. Furthermore, for a student with a disability who is receiving
special education services, this plan must be coordinated with the
student's IEP in terms of goals, objectives, and services.
The Department of Labor. Labor's Employment and Training Administration
oversees the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
The Workforce Investment Act promotes partnerships among diverse
programs and community representatives, including educational
institutions. For all youth, who are between 14 and 21 years of age,
WIA includes provisions for preparing them for the transition from high
school to employment and postsecondary education that may interrelate
to the transition requirements under IDEA.
The Social Security Administration. SSA implements the Ticket program,
established under the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement
Act of 1999. The goal of the Ticket program is to enable Social
Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries and disabled or
blind Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries, who are between
18 and 64 years of age, to obtain the services necessary to find,
enter, and retain employment.[Footnote 6]
A Majority of IDEA Youth Complete High School, but Data on Transitions
Are Limited:
During the 2000-01 school year, almost 70 percent of IDEA youth
completed high school with a standard diploma or an alternative
credential.[Footnote 7] Completion rates for IDEA youth remained stable
over recent years despite concerns that states' increasing use of high
school exit examinations would result in higher dropout rates. IDEA
youth who leave high school without a standard diploma have some
options for entering employment or postsecondary education, but
national data on their postsecondary status are over a decade old.
Nearly half of the states routinely collect such data, but states' data
collection systems are subject to a number of limitations. Most states
used these data for purposes such as monitoring or improving programs
that serve IDEA youth, but several officials involved with state data
collection efforts had concerns about whether states were employing the
best approaches to collecting and using these data.
A Majority of IDEA Youth Complete High School with a Diploma, but
Differences Exist among Disability Types:
During the 2000-01 school year, 57 percent of IDEA youth completed high
school with a standard diploma and an additional 11 percent completed
high school with an alternative credential. Students with some types of
disabilities were much less likely to complete high school with a
standard diploma, receiving alternative credentials or dropping out
instead. (See table 1.) For example, in 2000-01, about 28 percent of
high school graduates with mental retardation received an alternative
credential instead of a diploma, compared with about 11 percent for the
overall population of IDEA youth. Dropout rates for youth with
emotional disturbances were generally more than twice as high as for
youth with other disabilities; more than half of these students dropped
out during the 2000-01 school year compared with about one-fourth or
less of their peers with other disability types.
Table 1: High School Completion and Dropout Rates by Disability Type,
2000-01 School Year:
Disability: All IDEA students; Completion rate: Diploma: 57; Completion
rate: Alternative credential: 11; Completion rate: Total completion
rate: 68; Dropout rate: 29.
Disability: Emotional disturbances; Completion rate: Diploma: 39;
Completion rate: Alternative credential: 6; Completion rate: Total
completion rate: 45; Dropout rate: 53.
Disability: Learning disabilities; Completion rate: Diploma: 64;
Completion rate: Alternative credential: 8; Completion rate: Total
completion rate: 71; Dropout rate: 27.
Disability: Mental retardation; Completion rate: Diploma: 40;
Completion rate: Alternative credential: 28; Completion rate: Total
completion rate: 68; Dropout rate: 25.
Disability: Other cognitive disabilities; Completion rate: Diploma: 57;
Completion rate: Alternative credential: 20; Completion rate: Total
completion rate: 77; Dropout rate: 13.
Disability: Speech/language impairments; Completion rate: Diploma: 64;
Completion rate: Alternative credential: 8; Completion rate: Total
completion rate: 72; Dropout rate: 26.
Disability: Orthopedic impairments; Completion rate: Diploma: 64;
Completion rate: Alternative credential: 11; Completion rate: Total
completion rate: 76; Dropout rate: 18.
Disability: Sensory impairments; Completion rate: Diploma: 69;
Completion rate: Alternative credential: 14; Completion rate: Total
completion rate: 83; Dropout rate: 14.
Disability: Other health impairments; Completion rate: Diploma: 68;
Completion rate: Alternative credential: 7; Completion rate: Total
completion rate: 75; Dropout rate: 23.
Disability: Multiple disabilities; Completion rate: Diploma: 48;
Completion rate: Alternative credential: 20; Completion rate: Total
completion rate: 68; Dropout rate: 17.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the Department of Education, Office
of Special Education Programs.
Notes: Total completion rate may not equal the sum of diploma and
alternative credential rates because of rounding errors.
Total completion and dropout rates do not add to 100 because a small
percentage of students aged out of high school or died.
[End of table]
We found no data source that could be used to compare high school
completion rates for IDEA and general education students. The National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) had data from 33 states on all
youth who completed high school during the 1999-2000 school year, as
well as data from 36 states and the District of Columbia on all youth
who dropped out during that year. These data show that among the 33
states, high school completion rates for all youth ranged from about 63
percent to 89 percent. Among 37 states, dropout rates ranged from about
3 percent to 9 percent.[Footnote 8]
Graduation Rates Remained Stable Despite States' Use of High School
Exit Examinations:
Completion and dropout rates for IDEA youth remained stable between the
1997-98 and 2000-01 school years. As figure 2 illustrates, the rate of
IDEA students graduating from high school over that time period with a
standard diploma or completing high school with an alternative
credential fluctuated between 67 percent and 69 percent, while the
dropout rate remained at 29 percent in the latter 3 school years.
Figure 2: Completion and Dropout Rates for IDEA Students from 1997-98
to 2000-01 School Years:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Completion and dropout rates among IDEA youth remained stable despite
states' increasing use of exit examinations for students to graduate
from high school with a standard diploma. While states' use of exit
examinations addressed concerns over whether students obtaining a
diploma are able to demonstrate evidence of academic achievement, it
also generated concerns that dropout rates will rise among youth unable
to pass such examinations, particularly among youth with disabilities.
A study of 1998-99 completion and dropout rates sponsored by Education
did not show higher dropout rates in states with exit examinations, or
among the various disability groups.[Footnote 9] We updated that
analysis using states' completion and dropout rates from the 2000-01
school year, and found similar results.[Footnote 10]
Despite these study results, the effect of exit examinations on IDEA
graduation rates has not been fully tested because most states have
been providing IDEA youth with different options, such as exempting
them from the examinations, modifying the examinations to various
extents, or offering alternative exit credentials that do not require
students to pass the exit examinations.[Footnote 11] For example, IDEA
students in Georgia can petition for an exemption from the state's exit
examination and still receive a diploma. New York allows students with
disabilities who are unable to pass state's exit examinations to take a
modified and less rigorous version. Other modifications available to
IDEA youth in some states include using different scoring criteria or
allowing IDEA students to retake the examination. In addition, more
than half of the states with exit examinations also offered alternative
credentials. For example, Alabama allows IDEA students to obtain an
occupational diploma based on completion of courses incorporating
certain career and technical education standards, such as Consumer
Mathematics and Employment English in lieu of traditional Mathematics
and English. A state official from Alabama stated that offering such
alternative credentials assists the state in raising academic standards
for all students without increasing IDEA youth's dropout rate.
IDEA Youth Transitioning from High School without Standard Diplomas
Have Some Options for Entering Employment or Postsecondary Education:
IDEA youth completing high school with alternative credentials or
dropping out do have some opportunities to immediately enter
employment. State and local officials, as well as employer
representatives in states we visited, indicated that some employers
place higher value on the prospective applicant's job skills, such as
willingness to learn and ability to interact with others, than on a
specific graduation document. For example, New York officials from the
State Workforce Investment Board and a local Employment and Training
Center said that employers would be willing to hire youth with
disabilities without a standard diploma and provide job related
training as long as they had the necessary communication skills and
basic work ethic.
Options for pursuing postsecondary education include programs focusing
on vocational education and skills training, as well as academic
programs. In California, for example, IDEA youth can enter Regional
Occupational Programs that lead to vocational certificates in a wide
range of fields. While high school diplomas may not be necessary for
such programs, other prerequisites, such as entrance examinations, may
be required. Community colleges are another option for youth wishing to
pursue a college degree. In many states, community colleges have an
open enrollment policy, admitting students regardless of high school
diploma status. Some community colleges, however, may require youth to
pass an entrance examination to determine if they have the ability to
benefit from the college's academic programs. Youth who do not pass the
entrance examination may enroll in remedial adult education courses to
prepare for the examination or obtain a high school equivalency degree.
State Data Showing Transition of IDEA Youth into Employment and
Postsecondary Education Have Limitations:
Data from Education's National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS),
showing the proportion of IDEA youth who obtain jobs or pursue
postsecondary education after high school, are over a decade
old.[Footnote 12] Education is currently funding NLTS2, but information
on the long-term transition outcomes of students included in the study
is not yet available since they are only now beginning to complete high
school.[Footnote 13] These national studies are not representative at
the state level. However, according to our national survey of state
Directors of Special Education, nearly half of the states routinely
collect data on students' transition for their own use.[Footnote 14]
(See fig. 3.):
Figure 3: States That Collect Data on IDEA Youth Leaving High School:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Costs and funding sources for the data collection efforts varied among
states. (See app. II, table 8.) To fund their data collection efforts,
most states used federal funds such as those provided under IDEA, and
some states also used state funding.[Footnote 15] For example, New York
is using IDEA discretionary funds for a $2.75 million 7-year follow-up
study, while Florida is spending approximately $400,000 for the state
fiscal year 2002-03 effort, using primarily general state revenues.
Despite state efforts to collect information on the postsecondary
employment and education status of IDEA youth, state methodologies have
limitations that preclude using the data to represent the status of
IDEA youth in the state, or decrease the usefulness of the data in
other ways. (See app. II, table 9 and fig. 4 for information on state
methodologies and type of data states have available.):
* Selection of students. Ten states did not design their follow-up
efforts to include a representative sample of IDEA youth. For example,
Alabama and California collected data only on students in those school
districts participating in the states' model transition initiatives. In
addition, approximately half of the states collecting data did not
include IDEA youth who had dropped out of high school.
* Adjusting for nonresponse bias. At least 8 states had a response rate
of less than 50 percent. For example, Texas had a response rate of less
than 12 percent. Moreover, none of the states reported that they
conducted analyses comparing the characteristics of respondents and
nonrespondents to identify possible sources of bias in the results.
* Ability to disaggregate data. Six states did not collect information
on IDEA students' disability type. In addition, 2 states collected
information on the outcomes of all students without the ability to
differentiate between outcomes for IDEA youth and their peers.
* Timing and number of student follow-ups. All but 1 state followed up
within 2 years of students leaving high school to obtain information on
their immediate transition outcomes. For example, Delaware conducted
its follow-up after 6 months, while Alabama collected information 1
year after graduation. However, only 8 states collected data at more
than one point in time to examine students' long-term transition
outcomes.
* Type of data available. Only 6 states had data on how many students
were both employed and attending postsecondary school. These data are
necessary to determine the overall proportion of IDEA youth
transitioning to these activities after high school. Only 11 states
collected information on reasons why some students failed to
successfully transition into employment or postsecondary education.
While studies from most of the states with routine data collection
efforts, by themselves, are of insufficient methodological quality to
be cited alone, together they show that the majority of IDEA youth were
working or going to school within a year of leaving high school, and
that they were more likely to be employed than to be enrolled in
postsecondary education programs. For example, in Wisconsin, a state
with one of the more sound approaches to data collection and analysis,
88 percent of IDEA youth who left high school between December 1999 and
2000 participated in an employment or educational activity 1 year
later. Of these youth, 80 percent reported being employed and 47
percent reported attending some type of postsecondary education
institution.[Footnote 16] These results are consistent with the
national survey findings from the early 1990s.
Most states that collected data have been using them for purposes such
as monitoring school districts or targeting schools for technical
assistance. (See app. II, table 10 for examples of state uses of data.)
For example, Idaho looked at the transition outcomes of students in
order to select school districts for focused monitoring, and New York
prioritized its technical assistance to school districts that appeared
to be struggling with transition. Nearly one-third of these states,
however, did not regularly share the results with local school systems.
Finally, while more than half of the states do not routinely collect
data on postsecondary employment and education status of IDEA youth,
most expressed interest in doing so. However, officials familiar with
state data collection efforts indicated that state and local school
systems did not always have appropriate guidance on how data could be
collected, analyzed, and used to improve programs and outcomes for
youth with disabilities. For example, officials in 2 states reported
that they were not certain whether their surveys included appropriate
questions related to students' postsecondary status. In another state,
an official reported that local school systems did not have the
necessary expertise to use data available to them for purposes such as
improving programs for IDEA youth.
Problems Impeding Transition of IDEA Youth into Postsecondary Education
and Employment Remain Partially Addressed:
A variety of problems that impede IDEA youth transition to
postsecondary education and employment have been consistently reported
by youth, parents, teachers, and others. States and local education
agencies are addressing some of the reported problems related to
education and work experiences youth receive while in school; however,
transportation problems are less likely to be addressed at the state
and local level. State Directors of Special Education are generally
satisfied with assistance provided to them by Education in addressing
transition issues at the state and local level, but some expressed
concerns about the timeliness of federal feedback on their state
improvement plans and inconsistency in the quality of technical
assistance provided by federal Regional Resource Centers.
Poor Linkages between Schools and Youth Service Providers and Other
Problems Impeding IDEA Youth Transition Have Been Partially Addressed
at the State and Local Level:
Discussions with students, parents, teachers, and others during our
site visits revealed that a variety of transition problems still remain
that have been consistently reported by these groups in past surveys
and published studies. Transition problems affecting IDEA youth include
those related to self-advocacy training and insufficient information
about the transition process. For example, youth responding to a
national survey by a youth association,[Footnote 17] reported problems
identifying and learning how to ask for specific accommodations they
need to succeed in school and the workplace. In addition, parents we
interviewed said they did not have information about the spectrum of
education and employment service providers that were available. Other
problems included an absence of linkages to adult service providers,
insufficient vocational education and work-related experiences
obtained during high school, and lack of transportation after high
school to the job site or postsecondary school. (See table 2.):
Table 2: Problems Reported by Stakeholders in the Transition Process:
Transition problem: Lack of self-advocacy training; Stakeholders:
Youth.
Transition problem: Insufficient information about transition process;
Stakeholders: Parents.
Transition problem: Absence of linkages between school systems and
service providers; Stakeholders: Teachers.
Transition problem: Lack of vocational education and community work
experience; Stakeholders: Researchers.
Transition problem: Lack of transportation; Stakeholders: Federal,
state, and local officials.
Source: National Youth Leadership Network 2001-02 Youth Survey, site
visits, Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE), NLTS2,
and our interviews.
[End of table]
Self-advocacy training. Youth with disabilities responding to a
national survey by a youth association, reported problems obtaining
knowledge about their rights under laws like IDEA and the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990,[Footnote 18] and identifying and
learning how to ask for specific accommodations they need to succeed in
school and the workplace. Research shows that many youth with
disabilities have difficulties developing the necessary attitudes and
skills to prepare for their lives after graduation, but suggest that
youth who obtain self-determination skills are more likely to achieve
positive education and employment outcomes. State Directors of Special
Education in 24 states reported that less than half of IDEA students
received self-advocacy training while in high school.
Many states and local education agencies have taken various actions to
provide and promote self-advocacy training. For example, 3 states
passed legislation or developed regulations mandating self-advocacy
curriculum in schools according to our survey of state Directors of
Special Education, and 44 percent of local education agencies include
self-advocacy training for IDEA youth in their curriculum according to
a national survey by Education.[Footnote 19] While a national survey of
personnel serving students with disabilities[Footnote 20] shows that
less than two thirds of special education teachers frequently teach
self-determination skills, Directors of Special Education in about half
of the 50 states we surveyed reported introducing programs to train
teachers on how to teach self-advocacy skills.
Transition process. Parents interviewed during our site visits reported
problems helping their child navigate the transition process as
students prepare to leave high school for the adult world. Research
shows that when parents participate in their child's education, their
child improves academically and has higher aspirations for school and
career development. However, parents from our site visits and family
support groups said that they did not have the necessary information to
adequately participate in their child's transition from high school.
Parents we interviewed said they did not have information about where
to go for assistance after high school, the spectrum of education and
employment service providers that were available, and the type and
level of support that may be offered by providers. Moreover, they were
unaware of the ADA or other laws protecting their children's rights,
and family support resources available to them in the community such as
Parent Training and Information Centers.[Footnote 21]
States have taken some actions to provide this knowledge to parents.
Eight states indicated in our survey that they have passed legislation
or regulations to include parents or advocacy groups in transition
planning while youth are in high school.[Footnote 22] In addition, at
least three-fourths of the states are funding parent centers or other
family advocacy groups, establishing task forces and workgroups, and
providing technical assistance to local school systems. Ongoing efforts
also exist in over half of the states to increase parent participation
through developing culturally diverse transition materials.
Linkages between schools and service providers. Teachers responding to
a national survey by Education[Footnote 23] reported that in the area
of IDEA youth transition, more than half rarely, if ever, coordinate
referrals to adult service providers. National data from NLTS show that
more than 85 percent of IDEA youth received services that were sought
after high school, and IDEA legislation requires that a student's IEP
include a statement of interagency responsibilities or any needed
linkages, if appropriate, to ensure that IDEA youth will receive the
services needed to achieve their postsecondary education or career
goals. Twenty-one state Directors of Special Education reported in our
survey that many local school systems do not have designated
intermediaries to establish such linkages, and 18 Directors of Special
Education said that their agency also had difficulty coordinating with
other state agencies outside of the school system. Teachers from our
site visits cited lack of time and knowledge about available service
providers as part of the problem.
All states are taking some action to provide direction and resources
for improving linkages between schools and service providers. Ten
states reported in our survey that they passed legislation or
regulations providing for greater coordination between schools and
service providers. In addition, according to Education's survey of
state and local education areas, while less than half of school
districts reported having a transition coordinator at each high school,
all but 3 states reported hiring state transition coordinators who can
assist teachers in their efforts to link students with providers after
high school. All states reported providing technical assistance or
training to local education agencies on interagency coordination, with
Connecticut also developing policies and procedures for students to
access adult services, and Utah providing training to other state
agencies on IDEA transition requirements.
Vocational education and community work experience. Findings based on
parent interviews from NLTS2 show that 24 percent of youth received
vocational services and 60 percent had paid work experiences while in
high school, despite findings from the SLIIDEA study that about 90
percent of high schools reported offering prevocational training and
work experience to IDEA students. Past research has shown that IDEA
youth who received these services experienced higher rates of
successful transition. For example, NLTS researchers reported that
youth with disabilities obtaining vocational education and community
work experience had been less likely to drop out of school, and
achieved greater success in obtaining employment with higher
earnings.[Footnote 24] Those conducting more recent state and local
studies reported similar results. State and local education officials
from 3 states we visited indicated that school districts have
difficulties offering an appropriate mix of vocational programs that
reflect the job market demands as well as meet the students' career
interests.
States and local education agencies have taken various actions to
provide and promote vocational education and career preparation
opportunities for IDEA youth. Nine Directors of Special Education in
our state survey said that their state had passed legislation or
regulations requiring vocational education and career preparation for
IDEA students, and most Directors of Special Education said that they
disseminated best practices in the area of vocational education and
career preparation. Other actions taken by half of the states included
funding outreach and collaboration efforts of local education agencies
to create vocational education and work opportunities.
Transportation. Federal, state, and local officials in 3 states we
visited all said that many youth may not have access to transportation
they need to pursue employment and postsecondary education. In rural
areas, public transportation may be very limited, or may not be
available during the time needed to get to their job site or college.
Availability of transportation is not always the only issue. One parent
told us that using public transportation was not feasible because her
child suffered from seizures. While private providers may be better
prepared to serve youth with disabilities, parents and advocacy groups
said that private providers were often unreliable and their services
were not coordinated with public transportation systems. An advocacy
official indicated that one reason why these providers are unreliable
is because they generally operate on a priority system that gives
medical needs a higher priority than employment needs.
The 3 states we visited had not addressed transition issues related to
the lack of reliable transportation in their state improvement
plans.[Footnote 25] State education officials said these types of
problems are outside their area of responsibility. In New York and
California, however, some local areas are taking initiative to address
this problem. In western New York, a collaborative endeavor involving
30 agencies provides transportation, as well as other services, to
youth with disabilities to help them in career preparation activities.
In California, youth workforce development centers work with the
Sacramento Regional Transit District to provide complementary transit
tickets to youth with disabilities so they can come to the centers for
educational and employment services.
Education Provides Some Assistance to States in Addressing Transition
Problems, but Concerns Remain about Timeliness and Consistency of
Assistance:
Over half of state Directors of Special Education reported that federal
assistance was very helpful in assisting states address transition
problems, but some stated that the timeliness or consistency of
assistance could be improved. One of the ways Education provides
assistance to states is by providing feedback on state improvement
plans that states develop and use to show how they plan to address
areas of weakness in implementing IDEA, including transition
requirements.[Footnote 26] While 39 state Directors of Special
Education found this feedback useful, some expressed dissatisfaction
over Education's timeliness in providing the feedback. For example, of
21 state plans submitted to Education in 2002, only one-fourth received
feedback within 6 months, and at least another one-fifth did not
receive formal written feedback for a year or more. (See table 3.):
Table 3: Education's Response Time as of March 26, 2003, to States
Submitting Improvement Plans in 2002:
Response received:
State: Minnesota; State submission date: Response received: February-
02; Federal response date: Response received: March-03; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 14.
State: Illinois; State submission date: Response received: January-02;
Federal response date: Response received: February-03; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 14.
State: Connecticut; State submission date: Response received: February-
02; Federal response date: Response received: December-02; Elapsed time
in months: Response received: 10.
State: Delaware; State submission date: Response received: February-02;
Federal response date: Response received: October-02; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 8.
State: Idaho; State submission date: Response received: April-02;
Federal response date: Response received: December-02; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 8.
State: Nevada; State submission date: Response received: July-02;
Federal response date: Response received: January-03; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 7.
State: Oklahoma; State submission date: Response received: July-02;
Federal response date: Response received: January-03; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 6.
State: Wyoming; State submission date: Response received: May-02;
Federal response date: Response received: October-02; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 4.
State: Virginia; State submission date: Response received: October-02;
Federal response date: Response received: February-03; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 4.
State: Michigan; State submission date: Response received: July-02;
Federal response date: Response received: October-02; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 3.
State: New Hampshire; State submission date: Response received: August-
02; Federal response date: Response received: October-02; Elapsed time
in months: Response received: 2.
Response pending:
State: South Carolina; State submission date: Response received:
February-02; Federal response date: Response received: Pending; Elapsed
time in months: Response received: 14+.
State: Texas; State submission date: Response received: March-02;
Federal response date: Response received: Pending; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 13+.
State: Oregon; State submission date: Response received: June-02;
Federal response date: Response received: Pending; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 9+.
State: North Carolina; State submission date: Response received: June-
02; Federal response date: Response received: Pending; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 9+.
State: Tennessee; State submission date: Response received: July-02;
Federal response date: Response received: Pending; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 9+.
State: Rhode Island; State submission date: Response received: July-02;
Federal response date: Response received: Pending; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 9+.
State: Kentucky; State submission date: Response received: July-02;
Federal response date: Response received: Pending; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 9+.
State: Indiana; State submission date: Response received: July-02;
Federal response date: Response received: Pending; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 9+.
State: Georgia; State submission date: Response received: September-02;
Federal response date: Response received: Pending; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 7+.
State: Iowa; State submission date: Response received: October-02;
Federal response date: Response received: Pending; Elapsed time in
months: Response received: 6+.
Source: Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
[End of table]
Education does not have a standard response period and has not set a
performance goal for providing feedback to states on their improvement
plans. While Education officials stated that they provide extensive
informal feedback to states prior to issuing a formal written response,
they also stated that they are taking action to try and expedite the
agency's formal written responses. To preclude delays on the formal
written feedback resulting from the agency's internal review process,
Education has developed standard language and written review procedures
to be used in preparing feedback. According to Education officials,
having standard language and review procedures will decrease the time
necessary to write and review the feedback report. They also hope these
actions will reduce the response time to states.
Another way Education provides assistance to states is by funding 6
Regional Resource Centers that states can use to obtain technical
assistance for addressing transition issues.[Footnote 27] Services
provided to states by the centers include guidance, training,
information dissemination, assistance with state development of
training materials, and facilitation of meetings states convene to
address problems. Directors of Special Education in 29 states reported
in our survey that assistance obtained from the centers was very
helpful, but there are some concerns that the quality of services was
sometimes inconsistent among the centers. One center, for example,
consistently received high marks from the states in that region, while
the remaining 5 centers received mixed reviews.
State and center officials attributed the inconsistent quality of
services to variation in the expertise available at each center, an
observation also reported in a previous performance evaluation of the
centers.[Footnote 28] This evaluation recommended that Education
provide training to alleviate the disparity in staff expertise,
particularly with regard to transition issues. In response to this
issue, Education officials said that the agency offers periodic
professional development opportunities and encourages the centers to
operate as a network by sharing knowledge and expertise. Despite these
efforts, however, some states still have concerns about service quality
and are turning to private consultants to obtain help with transition
issues.
The VR, WIA, and Ticket Programs Provide Transition Services, but
Several Factors May Limit the Number of IDEA Youth Who Use Them:
The VR, WIA, and Ticket programs all offer services that can aid some
IDEA youth in their transition to postsecondary education or
employment. While the federal agencies administering these programs are
not required to track how many IDEA youth use them, several factors may
impede participation by the IDEA populations that are eligible for
services. One factor limiting services under VR and WIA is insufficient
program capacity to serve all eligible populations requesting services.
Another factor affecting participation under the Ticket program is
family concerns about whether finding employment would result in youth
losing public assistance. A factor that may affect IDEA youth
participation in all programs to various extents is a general lack of
awareness by youth and families that these federal resources are
available for transition assistance.
The VR, WIA, and Ticket Programs Provide a Variety of Education and
Employment Transition Services:
The VR, WIA, and Ticket programs all offer an array of similar and
complementary education, employment, and support services for certain
population groups.
Education services. These services can support youth who are trying to
complete their high school education as well as those youth furthering
their education in postsecondary institutions, such as community
colleges. Services for youth at all education levels can include those
that prepare them for learning by providing tutoring and study skills
training as well as providing access to educational programs through
tuition support. Education services support both out of school youth,
as well as those at risk of dropping out. We observed a tutoring
program in an Alabama school district, for example, that used WIA funds
to assist high school youth who are struggling academically.
Employment services. These services can assist IDEA youth that are
trying to obtain a job or obtain job skills necessary to increase
potential wages. Services for youth in either situation can include
those that prepare them for employment by providing job coaching and
training, as well as direct placement with an employer. A service
provider under the Ticket program in New York, for example, said that
in addition to employment preparation services, they help find jobs for
enrollees.
Support services. These services can assist IDEA youth pursue their
education and employment goals as well as achieve goals for independent
living. These services can include mentoring and counseling, childcare,
and transportation, as well as any other services that might be needed.
In California, for example, the VR agency has cooperative agreements
with education agencies to provide support services to youth with
disabilities, including financial assistance for assistive technology,
such as wheelchairs and adapted computers, conducting vocational
assessments for students, and providing information on options for both
independent and supported living facilities.
IDEA youth are not automatically eligible for these education,
employment, and support services, and the VR, WIA, and Ticket programs
serve populations that are both different and overlapping. Of the
approximately 2 million IDEA youth ages 14 to 21, only some of these
youth are eligible for these federally funded services.
* Under the VR program, all people with a physical or mental impairment
are potentially eligible for services, but states may only serve those
with the most significant disabilities in times of funding constraint.
The former administrator of Oregon's VR program said that in the past
the state was unable to serve some youth with psychiatric disorders due
to funding constraints.
* WIA primarily limits services to low-income youth that have some type
of barrier to employment.[Footnote 29] While disabilities under IDEA
may qualify as barriers for WIA purposes, available data suggest that
only about 29 percent of IDEA youth meet WIA's low-income
requirement.[Footnote 30]
* To qualify for the Ticket program, individuals must be at least 18
years old, and qualify for disability benefits from SSA.[Footnote 31]
Available data suggest that about 13 percent of the IDEA youth
population meets Ticket's age and benefit requirements.[Footnote 32]
Education, Labor, and SSA are not required to track the number of IDEA
youth who are enrolled and obtaining transition services provided
through the VR, WIA, and Ticket programs.[Footnote 33] However,
available data for all youth show that over 550,000 were enrolled and
received services during the time frames outlined in table 4.
Table 4: All Youth Ages 14 to 21 Served by Selected Federal Programs:
Program: VR; Time frame: 10/1/01-9/30/02; Youth served: 175,000[A].
Program: WIA; Time frame: 7/1/01-6/31/02; Youth served: 376,014.
Program: Ticket; Time frame: 2/02-11/02[B]; Youth served: 496.
Program: Total; Youth served: 551,510.
Source: The Department of Education's Rehabilitation Services
Administration, the Council for State Administrators of Vocational
Rehabilitation, the Department of Labor's Employment and Training
Administration, and the Social Security Administration.
[A] The estimate of the number of youth served is based on the
proportion of youth (ages 14-21) who exited the VR program in fiscal
year 2001.
[B] This time period reflects the first 9 months that Ticket was
implemented in 13 states.
[End of table]
While federal agencies are not required to collect data on the type of
education, employment, and support services actually provided to IDEA
youth under the VR, WIA, and Ticket programs, Education and Labor do
collect information on services provided to all youth ages 14 to
21.[Footnote 34] Education data on the approximately 94,000 youth who
received services and exited the VR program in fiscal year 2001 show
that three-fourths of youth obtained vocational, medical, and social
counseling, and more youth obtained employment services than services
to further their education or training. (See table 5.):
Table 5: Selected Services Provided to Youth through the VR Program in
Fiscal Year 2001:
Employment services:
Type of service: Job finding services; Percent of youth ages 14 to 21
served: 36.
Type of service: Job placement services; Percent of youth ages 14 to 21
served: 29.
Training services:
Type of service: Business/vocational training; Percent of youth ages 14
to 21 served: 12.
Type of service: On-the-job training; Percent of youth ages 14 to 21
served: 8.
Type of service: Educational services:
Type of service: Postsecondary educational training; Percent of youth
ages 14 to 21 served: 21.
Type of service: Educational training below postsecondary level;
Percent of youth ages 14 to 21 served: 19.
Type of service: Support services:
Type of service: Counseling and guidance[A]; Percent of youth ages 14
to 21 served: 74.
Type of service: Transportation services; Percent of youth ages 14 to
21 served: 23.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Department of Education,
Rehabilitation Services Administration.
[A] Counseling and guidance includes personal adjustment counseling,
counseling that addresses medical, family, or social issues, vocational
counseling, and any other form of counseling necessary for an
individual to achieve an employment outcome.
[End of table]
Labor data on the approximately 80,000 youth who received services and
exited the WIA program in fiscal year 2001 show that about 40 percent
of youth obtained employment and education services, but less than one-
fourth received support services. (See table 6.)[Footnote 35]
Table 6: Selected Services Provided through WIA in Program Year 2001:
Type of service: Employment services; Percent of youth ages 14 to 21
served: 41.
Type of service: Summer employment opportunities; Percent of youth
ages 14 to 21 served: 50.
Type of service: Educational services; Percent of youth ages 14 to 21
served: 38.
Type of service: Support services; Percent of youth ages 14 to 21
served: 18.
Type of service: Leadership development opportunities; Percent of youth
ages 14 to 21 served: 15.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Department of Labor.
[End of table]
Lack of Awareness and Other Factors May Impede IDEA Youth Participation
in Federally Funded Transition Services:
While IDEA youth vary in their need and desire to use federal
transition services, there are several factors that may impede their
access to them. Three factors that may limit IDEA youth participation
include (1) limitations in program capacity to serve the eligible
population seeking services, (2) youth and family fears that employment
income may jeopardize access to other public assistance, and (3) a lack
of awareness about the availability of the transition resources.
Program capacity. In regard to program capacity, the VR, WIA, and
Ticket programs face different issues in serving IDEA youth eligible
for their services. These problems include a lack of expertise to serve
youth with disabilities, a lack of resources to serve all those seeking
services, and unavailability of services in some states. For example:
* Under the VR program, IDEA youth compete with all adults and youth
with disabilities for services. Education officials report that a
number of states have waiting lists for VR services. At the end of
fiscal year 2001, for example, VR agencies had more people seeking
services than resources to serve them, and about 30,000 people in 25
states were on waiting lists for services. (See app. III.)[Footnote 36]
Of this total, Education reported that about 20 percent, or about 6,000
individuals, were on a waiting list for VR services in Washington
state.
* Under WIA, IDEA youth compete with all youth facing some type of
barrier to employment, and older youth also compete with adults for
services under the WIA adult program.[Footnote 37] WIA officials told
us that WIA providers generally do not have the expertise to serve
youth with disabilities,[Footnote 38] and in some cases facilities do
not have the appropriate physical accommodations. In light of these
deficiencies, WIA officials told us that this population is often
referred to VR agencies for assessment and services.
* The Ticket program has resources to serve all eligible youth seeking
services; however, this new program has not yet been implemented in all
states. SSA plans to complete its rollout of the program to the final
17 states and the U.S. territories by 2004, which will increase access
to the program for over half of the approximately 257,000 youth
receiving assistance from SSA.[Footnote 39] (See app. IV.):
Fear of losing public assistance. A second contributing factor may be
that some youth and families that receive public assistance are afraid
that employment income will jeopardize their access to other federal
and state public assistance benefits such as health insurance and
subsidized housing. SSA reports that less than 1 percent of eligible
youth had signed up for the Ticket program to increase self-
sufficiency. In the 3 states we visited, SSA officials, school
administrators, teachers, advocacy groups, and others involved in the
transition process said that fear of losing federal and state benefits
is a common reason why individuals are hesitant to participate in
federal work incentive programs such as the Ticket program. While some
of these fears may be unfounded, others are not, and working and
receiving income can affect youth's ability to retain services such as
health insurance benefits through Medicaid.[Footnote 40] For example,
while SSA has encouraged states to offer beneficiaries the opportunity
to retain Medicaid benefits while earning wages, only about half of the
states have established such policies. (See app. V.) While some
programs allow youth to earn a certain amount of income and retain
benefits, amounts allowed under the various assistance programs can
differ, and many families are not aware of the contingencies. Although
youth unable to sustain employment can re-enroll in public assistance
programs, parents we spoke with stated that enrollment in the various
programs is a lengthy and difficult process that they do not want to
repeat.
Lack of awareness of available federal services. Finally, a third
factor that may limit IDEA youth participation in federal programs is
that many youth and families are unaware that they exist. While IDEA
legislation requires schools to provide youth with transition services
and information about available transition resources, students,
parents, and teachers we spoke with in the 3 states visited were
generally uninformed about the continuum of available federal
transition services and how to access them. Most of those we talked
with were familiar with the VR program and the types of services it
provides.[Footnote 41] However, many were unfamiliar with the Ticket
program, and familiarity with the services provided through the
Workforce Investment Act assistance centers varied dramatically within
and among states. In one California suburban community, a high school
we visited had a close working relationship with the local assistance
center, and school administrators, teachers, and students were aware of
the services available there. However, teachers, parents, and students
we talked to at an urban New York school were unfamiliar with the
assistance centers that provide WIA services, even though a center was
located only a few miles away.
Education, Labor, and SSA recognize that action is needed to reach out
to youth and families and tell them about federal resources such as the
VR, WIA, and Ticket programs. While these agencies have several efforts
underway to publicize or increase awareness of available resources,
these efforts may not include information on all federal transition
resources, or reach youth, families, and teachers involved in
developing transition plans for youth leaving high school. For example:
* Education's Regional Resource Center in the Southeast developed a
guide to inform students and families about available resources, but
this guide does not include information about WIA services. The guide
is available on the Web, but there is no consistent distribution
process to provide the guide to all youth and families in all states
served by the center.
* Labor partnered with SSA and other federal agencies to identify more
than 200 federal programs among 12 federal agencies that serve persons
with disabilities. A Labor official said that once the report is
finalized, it will be available to the public, including IDEA youth and
families; however, this report is primarily targeted to policymakers
and program officials.
* SSA has several efforts underway to increase awareness of the Ticket
program among other federal and state agencies, service providers, and
advocacy groups. While the agency is conducting local outreach using
benefits planning, assistance, and outreach centers as well as
protection and advocacy partners, these efforts do not consistently
target youth and families through high schools.[Footnote 42]
Conclusions:
Youth served under IDEA are not a homogeneous population, and
graduation patterns and postsecondary education and employment status
can differ significantly among those with physical, sensory, emotional,
or cognitive disabilities. IDEA requires individualized education
programs that address needed transition services that recognize the
unique challenges each youth with a disability must face. These
programs can best be developed when states and schools have the
necessary information to evaluate how well existing programs are
working to assist youth during and after graduation. State education
officials increasingly show interest in collecting data on what happens
to IDEA youth after they leave high school, and nearly half of the
states voluntarily collect such data. Many states, however, are still
searching for ways to develop cost-effective and sound data collection
systems and there is no central information point to share alternative
methodologies that may be most useful for identifying which groups of
IDEA youth are behind their peers and whether programmatic changes are
needed to eliminate performance gaps. In the absence of guidance and
information on how to collect and use postsecondary data, state and
local education agencies and schools will continue to experience
difficulties in evaluating the effectiveness of existing programs for
students with disabilities, initiating program improvements, and
targeting resources to areas or groups that need them most.
Although state and local education agencies are taking steps to
minimize transition problems for youth with disabilities, challenges
such as developing linkages between schools and community youth service
providers still remain that need to be addressed both inside and
outside of the education system. While Education provides some federal
resources to help state and local education agencies address these
problems, the usefulness of the assistance may be compromised because
of delays and inconsistent quality of some services. Some transition
challenges are likely to remain unless federal assistance is
strengthened and used to help states take a more holistic approach to
dealing with transition issues.
Federal assistance provided under the VR, WIA, and Ticket programs can
help augment transition services provided by state and local education
agencies, or fund transportation or other services that are otherwise
unavailable. While these services are intended to help youth overcome
barriers to a successful transition, this assistance cannot be provided
if youth, parents, and education officials are unaware that these
services exist. In the absence of improved coordination among federal
agencies to provide these customers with information on the array of
available federal resources, youth eligible for such services will not
be able to use them in their efforts to achieve a successful education
or employment outcome.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To expand the availability and use of data on the postsecondary
employment and education status of IDEA youth, we are recommending that
Education collect and disseminate information to states on sound
strategies for collecting these data and appropriately using these data
for program improvement.
To enhance federal assistance provided to states to help them address
existing transition problems, we are recommending that Education
develop an action plan with specific time frames to:
* provide states with feedback on state improvement plans to address
education and transition problems of IDEA youth and:
* ensure consistency in the quality of technical assistance provided to
states by its regional resource centers.
Finally, to increase awareness of available federal transition
services, we are recommending that Education take the lead in working
with other federal agencies to develop strategies for using the
federally mandated high school transition planning process to provide
IDEA youth and their families with information about the full
complement of federally funded transition services.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Education, Labor, and SSA
officials for their review and comment. Agency comments are reprinted
in appendixes VI, VII, and VIII, respectively. While we made specific
recommendations to the Department of Education, all agencies agreed
with the recommendations for executive action and discussed their plans
to address them.
Education plans to take steps to implement our recommendations to
provide information to states on sound data collection strategies,
improve feedback and technical assistance to states, and work with
other federal agencies to provide IDEA youth with information about
federal transition services. Education noted that its plans and actions
will depend on legislative changes made to the IDEA and the
Rehabilitation Act, and that action to implement our recommendations
will be taken after reauthorization of these laws is completed.
Education also cautioned that because of variations in the collection
and reporting of state data on student graduation, dropouts, and exit
examination policies, it is difficult to draw valid conclusions about
high school completion outcomes and the effect of exit examinations.
Labor stated that our findings and recommendations substantiated the
issues and concerns that it has with regard to transition challenges
for youth with disabilities. Labor also described the steps it has
taken to address WIA youth program concerns related to program
capacity, lack of awareness, and eligibility.
SSA noted that it would continue to work with Education to provide IDEA
youth and their families with information about SSA programs, work
incentives, and employment supports. SSA also cited its planning
efforts that are aimed at promoting employment and economic self-
sufficiency involving youth with disabilities.
Education and SSA also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated where appropriate.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretaries of Education and
Labor, SSA, relevant congressional committees, and other interested
parties. Copies will be made available to others upon request. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site
at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (415) 904-2272 if you or your staff has any
questions about this report. Other major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix IX.
Sincerely yours,
David D. Bellis
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Signed by David D. Bellis:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
In conducting our work, we administered a mail survey to state
Directors of Special Education in all states, conducted telephone
interviews with state officials, and visited 3 states. We also reviewed
the findings of nationally available studies on transition experiences
of students covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), interviewed officials from the U.S. Department of Education
(Education), U.S. Department of Labor (Labor), and the Social Security
Administration (SSA), who are responsible for programs that can assist
students during transition, and analyzed data from these programs. In
addition, we interviewed disability advocates and national experts from
organizations such as the National Organization on Disability, Parent
Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights, and Council for Exceptional
Children, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, and
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. We
performed our work in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards between June 2002 and June 2003.
Survey:
To document state graduation and examination policies pertaining to
IDEA youth, challenges experienced by these youth during transition,
actions taken by the states to address these challenges, states'
assessments of federal resources, as well as to obtain information on
state efforts to routinely collect data on these students'
postsecondary status, we conducted a mail survey, sending
questionnaires to state Directors of Special Education in 50 states.
All 50 states responded to our survey. In many states, Directors of
Special Education forwarded the survey to other individuals, such as
state transition coordinators or education specialists, that they
believed to be most knowledgeable about the issues covered in the
survey. We analyzed the survey data by calculating descriptive
statistics, as well as performing content analysis of the responses to
open-ended survey questions.
State Telephone Interviews and Analysis of State Data:
To obtain information on states' efforts to collect data on
postsecondary employment and education status of IDEA students, we
conducted telephone interviews with state officials from 21 states who
indicated on our survey that their states routinely collected these
data. We contacted individuals in those states that the survey
respondents identified as being most knowledgeable about data
collection efforts in their states, such as state education officials
or university researchers responsible for data collection in the state.
To obtain additional information on the data collection methodologies
used by the states, as well as to learn about postsecondary status of
IDEA students in those states, we also requested all states
participating in the telephone interviews provide their survey
instruments and any published materials or other available information
reporting students' outcomes.
To obtain information on states' utilization and assessment of federal
resources available to assist them in addressing transition problems
experienced by IDEA youth, we conducted telephone interviews with state
officials in 11 states. We used our survey results to select states
that had opposing views on how helpful they believed federal resources
were in providing assistance to address transition problems.
Site Visits:
To obtain in-depth information on transition experiences of IDEA youth,
the challenges they are facing in the course of their transition, the
extent to which federal and other programs are available to serve them,
and actions taken at the state and local level to address existing
transition challenges, we made site visits to 3 states--Alabama,
California, and New York. We selected these states to obtain a mix
based on differences in geographic location, the size of the IDEA
population in the state, high school completion patterns, exit
examination policies for IDEA youth in the state, postsecondary data
collection efforts, and state monitoring processes, as well as
recommendations of experts in transition. We visited 2 local school
systems in each state, representing a combination of urban, suburban,
and rural areas. (See table 7.) In addition, we consulted with state
officials in helping us select local school systems with exemplary
transition practices, as well as those that appeared to be struggling
in the transition area.
Table 7: Site Visit States and Local School Systems:
State: Alabama; Local school systems: Jefferson, Auburn.
State: California; Local school systems: Elk Grove, San Francisco
Unified.
State: New York; Local school systems: Gowanda, Buffalo City.
Source: GAO data.
[End of table]
On each visit, we interviewed various stakeholders in the transition
process at the state and local levels. At the state level, we typically
interviewed Special Education, vocational rehabilitation (VR), and
Labor officials, as well as members of the state Steering Committees
established as part of the federal Continuous Improvement Monitoring
Process.[Footnote 43] At the local level, we interviewed school
district officials responsible for special education services, school
administrators and special education teachers, transition-age IDEA
students and parents, community service providers and advocates, and
VR, Workforce Investment Act youth program (WIA), and SSA officials
responsible for local-level implementation of the VR program, WIA, and
the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency (Ticket) program, respectively.
Review of National Studies on Transition:
To obtain information on transition problems as well as state and local
efforts to address them, we reviewed and summarized the findings of
nationally available studies that addressed these issues, including the
Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the IDEA, the
Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE), the National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2, and the National Youth Leadership
Network 2001-02 Youth Survey. We used a statistician to evaluate these
studies for methodological rigor, as well as to determine the extent to
which these data could be used to offer a nationwide perspective on
transition problems experienced by IDEA youth and on the actions taken
by state and local education agencies to address these problems. We
determined that the results from SPeNSE might be subject to bias since
the nonresponse evaluation for this study was not available at the time
of our request. The results of the youth survey presented the views of
over 200 youth but did not reflect a nationally representative
perspective because respondents were not randomly selected. We included
the youth survey in our review because it was reported as the only data
collection effort in the country designed and implemented by youth with
disabilities.
Analysis of Existing Data:
To determine high school completion rates for IDEA students, we
obtained data collected from the states by the Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) and summarized in Education's Annual Reports
to Congress. We used the 22nd and 23rd Annual Reports to obtain data
for 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years. We used OSEP-administered Web
site (http://www.ideadata.org) to obtain data for 1999-2000 and 2000-01
school years. In calculating graduation and dropout rates for IDEA
youth, we relied on the method in use by OSEP. Specifically, OSEP
reports what percentage of IDEA students leave high school with a
standard diploma or drop out during a given school year out of the
total number of IDEA students who leave high school with a standard
diploma or a certificate, drop out, age out, or die during that year.
OSEP does not report the certificate rate, but using OSEP's data, we
calculated the rate of youth completing with a certificate in the same
manner.
To determine high school completion and dropout rates for all students,
we looked at an August 2002 published report from the National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES), presenting rates of students
completing public school with a standard diploma or an alternative
credential and dropping out (among states that reported dropouts) for
school year 1999-2000. These data were collected by NCES for public
school completers and dropouts through its Common Core of Data system.
We obtained information on states' exit examination policies from the
National Center on Secondary Education and Transition and the National
Center on Education Outcomes. We used that information to update
Education's analysis of completion and dropout rates for IDEA students
in states with and without exit examinations. Education's analysis did
not differentiate between states that had exit examination policies in
general and those that had fully implemented those policies by
requiring all graduating seniors to participate in the examination in
order to graduate. When we repeated Education's analysis, we defined
exit examination states only as those that had required all graduating
seniors to fully participate in the exit examination by 2000-01. These
states were: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, South
Carolina, and Texas.
To determine how many youth participated in the VR, WIA, and Ticket
programs, we analyzed data provided by Education's Rehabilitation
Services Administration (RSA), Labor's Employment and Training
Administration, and SSA. Because VR participation data only reflected
the number of youth exited, we obtained from RSA and the Council for
State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation an estimated number
of youth enrolled for services. We also analyzed data from RSA on types
of services provided to youth.
[End of section]
Appendix II: State Data Collection Efforts:
Table 8 shows various entities responsible for collecting data, costs
of data collection efforts, and funding sources used by 21 states that
routinely collected data on postsecondary employment and education
status of IDEA youth.
Table 8: State Approaches to Collecting Data on Postsecondary
Employment and Education Status of IDEA Youth:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Information provided by state officials, December 2002 through
April 2003.
[End of table]
Table 9 presents various methods used by 21 states to routinely collect
data on postsecondary employment and education status of IDEA youth.
The table provides information on characteristics of students and
school systems that states included in their data collection efforts
and the time periods at which data were collected.
Table 9: State Methods of Collecting Data on Postsecondary Employment
and Education Status of IDEA Youth:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Information provided by state officials, December 2002 through
April 2003.
[A] Florida does not collect data through surveying. Data are matched
across several administrative databases, including: state departments
of Education, Corrections, Children and Families; state Agency for
Workforce Innovation; and the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Office
of Personnel Management, and U.S. Postal Service. The follow-up effort
does not include students who leave the state.
[B] Maryland collects data on all students, not specifically on
students with disabilities, although it was possible to identify
students with disabilities for the class of 2002. Beginning with the
class of 2003, only IDEA students will be included in the follow-up
effort. In addition, an Anticipated Services Survey is administered to
all special education students when they leave high school.
[C] Missouri adds the total numbers of students who are working and who
are attending postsecondary school without accounting for those who may
be participating in both activities, potentially overestimating the
successful transition rate. In addition, nonresponses are often put
into the "other" category, thus boosting the response rate.
[D] New York Post School Indicators study is scheduled to last for 7
years. Thereafter, some aspects of the effort may continue.
[E] North Dakota is planning to drop the 5th year of data collection
because of a low response rate.
[F] Ohio's current effort is seen as a pilot project. The Ohio Board of
Education has called for statewide surveying of IDEA students beginning
in 2004.
[G] Texas's follow-up survey effort in 2002 included both the class of
1999 and 2001. The state used three different survey versions to
shorten the length of each and encourage student participation.
[H] Washington encourages districts to participate by requiring them to
submit information on students' postsecondary status in order to
quality for Local Education Area grants.
[End of table]
Figure 4 presents the types of data on IDEA youth's postsecondary
employment and education status available in 21 states with routine
data collection efforts.
Figure 4: Types of Postsecondary Employment and Education Data
Available in States:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Table 10 identifies possible uses of data on IDEA students'
postsecondary employment and education status, and provides examples
from state education officials on how data are being used at the state
and local levels for each data use category identified.
Table 10: State Examples of Using Postsecondary Employment and
Education Status Data:
Type of data use: Providing regular reports on students' outcomes to
school systems; State example: Washington's postsecondary
outcome survey is conducted by a university contractor who sends 2 page
outcome summaries to each school district participating in the student
follow-up effort. The summaries include comparisons between student
outcomes in the district and in the state, as well as results
disaggregated by gender, race, and disability type.
Type of data use: Providing feedback to school systems on their
performance; State example: Florida produces annual reports of
studentsí outcomes that are then used to provide feedback to school
districts and schools on the success of their programs. The reports are
also used by parents and students in helping them choose local programs
that show the greatest success.
Type of data use: Setting baseline for future transition efforts;
State example: Missouri's improvement plan places a priority
on improving postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities. As
a consequence, the state will use current postsecondary data to set a
baseline to measure future progress.
Type of data use: Monitoring compliance with IDEA requirements and
delivery of special education services in the state; State
example: Alabama uses postsecondary outcome data for conducing self-
assessment and developing self-improvement plan as part of the state's
monitoring effort. A statewide task force of transition experts and
transition stakeholders was created to use the outcome data for
identifying areas for further improvement and implementing the
improvement plan.
Type of data use: Conducting program planning or budgeting at the state
level; State example: Indiana's Director of the Division of
Exceptional Learners uses postsecondary outcome data when negotiating
the state budget and determining state appropriations.
Type of data use: Rewarding local school systems; State
example: Kentucky holds schools accountable for students' transition
from high school, and schools with high rates of students experiencing
a successful transition outcome may receive financial rewards.
Type of data use: Targeting technical assistance to school districts or
schools; State example: New York redesigned the technical
assistance provided by its seven Transition Coordination Sites, based
in part on data from its postsecondary outcome survey. As a result,
technical assistance activities were shifted from training conferences
to more individualized strategic planning with teams from individual
schools. Data are used to identify struggling school districts in order
to direct assistance to them.
Type of data use: Assessing or improving transition programs;
State example: Virginia has incorporated postsecondary outcome data
into a study aimed at assessing transition services across the state.
When completed, the study will include responses from consumers of
transition services (both parents and students), transition
specialists, and adult service providers. Outcome data will also be
used in a statewide evaluation of middle and secondary education
programs for students with disabilities with the goal of improving
their academic achievement and postsecondary outcomes.
Type of data use: Conducting monitoring or program planning at the
local school system level; State example: Wisconsin began
collecting postsecondary outcome data in response to a state statute
requiring the reporting of student outcomes. By collecting data, school
districts not only are able to fulfill this requirement, but also
identify specific needs and develop their special education plans to
address those needs.
Type of data use: Adding, sustaining, or improving programs at the
local school system level; State example: Maryland's
postsecondary follow-up study helps local school systems develop more
effective transition services that are targeted to addressing students'
needs. For example, one county found that few students were connected
with postsecondary education institutions. In response, county
officials established a transition program that emphasizes linkages
with community colleges for students while they are still in high
school. As a result, students ages 18 to 21 who are still attending
high school are able to attend community college computer and physical
education courses to help prepare for employment.
Type of data use: Establishing linkages with adult service providers;
State example: California's transition program staff are able
to reconnect with former students while following-up to collect data on
their postsecondary status. Students who are not participating in
productive work or learning activities or who report other problems are
provided with information on potentially beneficial services in the
course of the follow-up process.
Source: GAO analysis of data from interviews with state officials,
December 2002 through April 2003.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: State Waiting Lists for Vocational Rehabilitation Services
in Fiscal Year 2001:
The table below lists the states that, at the end of fiscal year 2001,
had waiting lists for vocational rehabilitation services because the
state did not have sufficient funds to serve all individuals who were
determined eligible for the program.
State: Washington; Number of individuals: 6,245.
State: Wisconsin; Number of individuals: 5,098.
State: California; Number of individuals: 3,602.
State: Tennessee; Number of individuals: 3,166.
State: Pennsylvania; Number of individuals: 2,949.
State: Kansas; Number of individuals: 2,855.
State: Louisiana; Number of individuals: 2,127.
State: Ohio; Number of individuals: 1,578.
State: New Jersey; Number of individuals: 1,498.
State: Oklahoma; Number of individuals: 298.
State: Maine; Number of individuals: 276.
State: Nebraska; Number of individuals: 135.
State: Kentucky; Number of individuals: 132.
State: Illinois; Number of individuals: 51.
State: Maryland; Number of individuals: 43.
State: Rhode Island; Number of individuals: 41.
State: Minnesota; Number of individuals: 39.
State: Oregon; Number of individuals: 34.
State: Arkansas; Number of individuals: 33.
State: Connecticut; Number of individuals: 16.
State: Georgia; Number of individuals: 4.
State: Delaware; Number of individuals: 4.
State: Michigan; Number of individuals: 3.
State: Mississippi; Number of individuals: 1.
State: Idaho; Number of individuals: 1.
State: Total; Number of individuals: 30,229.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Department of Education,
Rehabilitation Services Administration.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Youth Eligible to Participate in the Ticket Program as of
June 2003:
The table below shows the number of youth ages 18 to 21 eligible to
participate in the first two phases of the Ticket program's
implementation.
State: Phase one states: February 2002:
State: Arizona; Number: 3,480.
State: Colorado; Number: 1,837.
State: Delaware; Number: 541.
State: Florida; Number: 11,265.
State: Illinois; Number: 10,096.
State: Iowa; Number: 2,261.
State: Massachusetts; Number: 4,427.
State: New York; Number: 12,184.
State: Oklahoma; Number: 2,868.
State: Oregon; Number: 2,240.
State: South Carolina; Number: 2,951.
State: Vermont; Number: 516.
State: Wisconsin; Number: 3,999.
Phase one total; Number: 58,665.
Phase two states: November 2002:
State: Alaska; Number: 417.
State: Arkansas; Number: 2,499.
State: Connecticut; Number: 1,949.
State: Georgia; Number: 5,612.
State: Indiana; Number: 4,017.
State: Kansas; Number: 1,847.
State: Kentucky; Number: 4,540.
State: Louisiana; Number: 5,179.
State: Michigan; Number: 7,505.
State: Mississippi; Number: 3,143.
State: Missouri; Number: 4,346.
State: Montana; Number: 602.
State: Nevada; Number: 1,023.
State: New Hampshire; Number: 719.
State: New Jersey; Number: 4,187.
State: New Mexico; Number: 1,466.
State: North Dakota; Number: 341.
State: South Dakota; Number: 569.
State: Tennessee; Number: 4,290.
State: Virginia; Number: 4,382.
State: District of Columbia; Number: 519.
Phase two total; Number: 59,152.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Social Security
Administration.
Note: The Social Security Administration plans to implement the program
in the remaining 17 states and the U.S. territories by 2004.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Availability of Medicaid Buy-In to Working People with
Disabilities as of May 2003:
The map below shows which states offer working people with disabilities
the opportunity to maintain Medicaid benefits while receiving income
from work.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Education:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES:
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY:
JUL 7 2003:
Mr. David D. Bellis Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
United Sates General General Accounting Office Washington D.C. 20548:
Dear Director Bellis:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on your
draft report entitled SPECIAL EDUCATION: Federal Actions Can Assist
States in Improving Postsecondary Outcomes for Youth (GAO-03-773). I am
responding to you on behalf of the Department of Education.
We agree in principle with the draft report's recommendations for
Executive Action and we plan to take steps to implement them. In
summary, the recommendations for Executive Action by the Department of
Education are: (1) provide information to States on sound strategies
for the collection of data on the educational status and postsecondary
outcomes of IDEA youth in order to expand the availability and use of
these data for program improvement; (2) develop a plan to improve
feedback on State action plans to address transition problems and
ensure consistent technical assistance to States; and (3) take a lead
role in working with other Federal agencies to develop strategies using
the transition planning process to provide IDEA youth and their
families with information about Federally funded transition services.
As you are aware, both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
and the Rehabilitation Act are in the process of being reauthorized.
Transition is an area that is receiving attention in this process and
the Department is working with the Congress to improve transition
services and postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities.
Obviously, our plans and actions for improved feedback and technical
assistance to States and other Federal agencies will be to a large
extent dependent upon legislative changes now underway. Revisions in
program data collection will be made as needed after these laws are
reauthorized. This process will provide an opportunity to consider how
best to use transition data for program improvement purposes as you
have recommended.
As is customary, we are also providing our detailed technical and
editorial comments and suggestions for your consideration as an
enclosure to this letter. We believe that the report summary, Results
in Brief, should caution the reader that variations in the collection
and reporting of State data on student graduation, dropouts, and exit
exam policies make it difficult to draw valid conclusions about high
school completion outcomes and the effect of exit examinations.
Sincerely,
Robert H. Pasternack, Ph.D.
Signed by Robert H. Pasternack, Ph.D.:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training
Washington, D.C. 20210:
JUL 17 2003:
Mr. David D. Bellis:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues United
States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 10548:
Dear Mr. Bellis:
On behalf of the Secretary of Labor, we thank you for the opportunity
to review the draft of your proposed report, Special Education: Federal
Actions Can Assist States in Improving Postsecondary Outcomes for Youth
(GAO-03-773).
We agree with the report's Recommendation for Executive Action,
proposing that federal agencies, including the Department of Labor,
work with the Department of Education, to develop strategies for using
the federally mandated high school transition planning process to
provide youth and their families with information about various
federally funded transition services. The findings and recommendations
cited in the report substantiate the issues and concerns that we have
with regard to transition challenges for youth with disabilities.
The report also cites several areas of concern regarding the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) youth programs. The issue areas are: (1) program
capacity; (2) lack of awareness of available federal services; and (3)
eligibility. This letter elaborates the steps that the Department has
taken to address the issues identified in the report; our response to
each specific issue is articulated below.
Program Capacity:
Recently, the Department's Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
and the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) implemented three
technical assistance centers - National Collaborative on Workforce and
Disability for Youth (NCWD/ Youth), National Center on Workforce and
Disability for Adults (NCWD/ Adults), and the Training and Technical
Assistance to Providers (T-TAP). Each technical assistance center
includes partners with expertise in disability, education, employment,
employer linkages and workforce development issues. The technical
assistance centers were
awarded in 2001-2002, and are in their beginning phases of operations.
It is the intention of the Department that these technical assistance
centers will provide training, information, and research to help
workforce development systems serve adults and youth with disabilities
more effectively and appropriately. The centers' program design
includes ongoing assessment among key constituent groups to ensure
maximum appropriateness and effectiveness of technical assistance as
well as training. The effective practices gathered from the centers
will serve as models for providing quality services to youth with
disabilities.
In addition, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 and Fiscal Year (FY) 2002,
through its Innovative Demonstration Grants for Youth Initiative, ODEP
awarded approximately $7.5 million to fund model demonstration programs
designed to enhance the capacity of WIA youth programs to better serve
youth with disabilities. ODEP also funds High School,/ High Tech (HS/
HT), a series of nationally established model programs designed to
provide young people with disabilities opportunities to explore their
interest in pursuing further education leading to technology-related
careers. New HS/HT programs must be operated either in partnership
with, or led by, a WIA youth program. In addition, states are provided
funds to develop statewide HS/HT infrastructures and operations for
youth services provided through the One-Stop Center system.
Lack of Awareness:
NCWD/Youth has a Youth and Family Practice Network whose membership is
comprised of youth and parents of youth with disabilities. The Network
receives information on federal programs that provide services to youth
with disabilities in addition to being involved in the development of
policy and information disability briefs that are disseminated to the
workforce investment system.
Furthermore, the Department has conducted peer to peer training on
serving youth with emotional, mental and learning disabilities for the
Youth Opportunity grantees. ETA continues to work with ODEP on
increasing the knowledge base and providing technical assistance on the
provision of services to youth with disabilities in the WIA youth
programs.
Eligibility:
Though WIA services are primarily designed to serve low income
populations, the Act does allow up to five percent of the youth
participants served by WIA youth programs to be individuals who do not
meet the income criterion for eligible youth, provided that they are
within one of several categories, which include those youth that have
one or more disabilities, including learning disabilities. The
Department remains committed to improving services to youth with
disabilities under the current law and the proposed WIA reauthorization
legislation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report on how to
improve postsecondary outcomes for youth with disabilities.
Sincerely,
Emily Stover DeRocco:
Signed by Emily Stover DeRocco:
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Social Security Administration:
SOCIAL SECURITY The Commissioner
July 2, 2003:
Mr. David D. Bellis:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues U.S. General
Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Bellis:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report
"SPECIAL EDUCATION: Federal Actions Can Assist States in Improving
Postsecondary Outcomes for Youth" (GAO-03-773).
We agree with the report's major findings and recommendations. In
particular, we agree with the recommendation that the Department of
Education (DOE) coordinate with other federal agencies to provide
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) students and their
families with information on federally funded transition services.
SSA will continue to work with DOE to provide information to IDEA
students and families on SSA programs, work incentives and employment
supports. In addition, we are planning demonstration projects involving
youth with disabilities that will focus on postsecondary outcomes
including employment and economic self-sufficiency.
As part of the strategy to support the President's New Freedom
Initiative goal of increasing employment of people with disabilities,
SSA will award cooperative agreements to a number of States for the
purpose of helping youth with disabilities to maximize their economic
self-sufficiency as they transition from school to work. These projects
will focus on youth who are Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
beneficiaries or who are otherwise likely to become SSI beneficiaries
at age 18. The projects will be designed to increase the coordination
of various service, education and benefit programs for such youth and
to promote youth participation in activities that prepare them for
independence, result in school completion and lead to workforce
participation.
We believe that these efforts will significantly improve the
coordination among the many federally funded transition services.
Enclosed, please find our technical comments. If you have any
questions, please have your staff contact Mark Zelenka at (410) 965-
1957.
Sincerely,
Jo Anne B. Barnhart:
Signed by Jo Anne B. Barnhart:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Lacinda Ayers (206) 654-5591 Tranchau Nguyen (202) 512-2660:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Natalya Bolshun, Julianne Hartman
Cutts, Molly Laster, and Adam Roye made key contributions to this
report. Barbara Alsip, Carl Barden, Carolyn Boyce, Stefanie Bzdusek,
Patrick DiBattista, Behn Kelly, and John Smale also provided key
technical assistance.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The data on the number of children covered under IDEA are for the
2001-02 school year, the latest year for which data are available.
[2] Alternative credentials may be issued based on various criteria,
including completion of an IEP, attendance, or occupational skill
attainment.
[3] We conducted fieldwork in New York, Alabama, and California. We
selected these states to obtain a mix based on differences in
geographic location, the size of the IDEA population in the state, high
school completion patterns, exit examination policies for IDEA youth,
postsecondary data collection efforts, and state monitoring processes,
as well as recommendations of experts in transition.
[4] Percentages do not add to 100 since some youth were both employed
and in postsecondary school.
[5] This includes those students that graduated with a diploma or
alternative credential, dropped out, died, or aged out.
[6] SSDI is provided to workers who become disabled for as long as they
cannot work due to their medical condition, and the amount of the
benefit is based on past earnings. SSI is provided to individuals who
can demonstrate financial need and have a disability affecting their
ability to participate in any substantial gainful activity, whether or
not they have worked in the past.
[7] An OSEP official said that students leaving high school without a
standard diploma are still eligible to receive special education
services until they receive a diploma or age out.
[8] Officials from OSEP and NCES cautioned that there are large
differences in the methodologies used by the two entities to calculate
students' completion and dropout rates. For example, OSEP's rate is
based on the total number of students who left high school in a given
year, while NCES' s rate is based on the total number of students
enrolled in grades 9 through 12 in a given year. In addition, NCES did
not provide national totals for completion or dropout rates because not
all states reported the number of dropouts to NCES.
[9] Berry, Hugh and William Halloran, Graduation Exam Requirements and
Students with Disabilities: A Correlational Study of Disability, Race,
and Outcomes (Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, February 2003).
[10] We updated Education's analysis for all IDEA students, but not for
individual disability groups.
[11] Education's analysis of 1998-99 completion rates showed that the
percentage of IDEA youth receiving a certificate in states with exit
examination requirements was approximately 16 percent, compared with
about 6 percent for states without such requirements. We updated that
analysis for the 2000-01 school year and found that about 14 percent of
IDEA youth in states that have implemented the exit examination
requirement received a certificate compared with about 9 percent of
IDEA youth in states that did not have such requirement or have not
fully implemented it.
[12] Education funded NLTS in the late 1980s and early 1990s, providing
information on a nationally representative sample of students ages 13
to 21 enrolled in special education programs in the 1985-86 school
year.
[13] Education plans to conduct the study until 2010 and release
reports annually. The study involves a nationally representative sample
of special education students who were 13 to 16 years old as of
December 2000.
[14] In addition, state education officials from Kansas, Maine, and
Minnesota reported to us that they are in the process of developing and
implementing a routine data collection system.
[15] IDEA funds included state discretionary grants and State
Improvement Grants (SIG). Discretionary funds are awarded to states on
the basis of a competitive review process. SIGs are provided by
Education to assist state education agencies and their partners in
reforming and improving systems for providing educational, early
intervention, and transitional services, including systems for
professional development, technical assistance, and dissemination of
knowledge about best practices to improve results for children with
disabilities.
[16] Percentages do not add to 100 since some youth may have been both
employed and in school; the results are unweighted.
[17] The survey was conducted by the National Youth Leadership Network
during 2001-02 and included responses from 202 youth with disabilities
between the ages of 16 and 24. Survey respondents came from 34 states
and the District of Columbia but were not randomly selected and survey
results cannot be generalized to the national population of youth with
disabilities.
[18] The ADA prohibits discrimination in employment, public services,
and public accommodations against qualified individuals with
disabilities.
[19] SLIIDEA collected transition data in 1999-2000 from the 50 states
and a nationally representative sample of districts and schools that
serve children with disabilities.
[20] SPeNSE surveyed personnel from a nationally representative sample
of districts, intermediate education agencies, and state schools for
students with vision and hearing impairments.
[21] Parent centers are funded by Education and serve families of
children and young adults with disabilities. The centers provide
training and information to parents and connect children with
disabilities to community resources that address their needs. Each
state has at least one parent center, and states with large populations
may have more. There are approximately 100 parent centers in the United
States.
[22] IDEA also requires that parents be given the opportunity to attend
meetings discussing the child's individualized education program,
provide consent to any provision of services to the child when given
the first time, and be informed of the child's progress toward annual
goals.
[23] SPeNSE.
[24] NLTS showed that vocational education has a positive impact on
both education and employment outcomes for the majority of students,
while work experience has a positive impact on education for all
students with disabilities and on employment for students with
orthopedic or health impairments.
[25] We previously reported on federal, state and local actions needed
to coordinate transportation services, U.S. General Accounting Office,
Transportation - Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts
Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles
Persist, GAO-03-697 (Washington D.C.: June 30, 2003).
[26] For more information on Education's oversight process, see U.S.
General Accounting Office, Special Education: Clearer Guidance Would
Enhance Implementation of Federal Disciplinary Provisions, GAO-03-550
(Washington D.C.: May 20, 2003).
[27] Education also funds the National Center on Secondary Education
and Transition to coordinate national resources, offer technical
assistance, and disseminate information related to secondary education
and transition for youth with disabilities in order to create
opportunities for youth to achieve successful futures.
[28] The performance evaluation of the Regional Resource Centers was
conducted by Education's Federal Resource Center of Special Education-
-June 2001.
[29] Under WIA, youth are eligible for services if they fall within one
or more of the following categories: deficit in basic skills, school
dropout, homeless, runaway, or foster child, pregnant or parent, has
disability, offender, or requires additional assistance to obtain
employment. Income qualification can be waived for up to 5 percent of
youth in a local area.
[30] To estimate the percentage of IDEA youth eligible for WIA
programs, we used data reported in the NLTS2 survey on income of IDEA
youth's families.
[31] Benefits are provided under the SSI program and the SSDI program.
[32] We determined the percentage of IDEA youth eligible for the Ticket
program by using data provided by SSA on the number of youth ages 18 to
21 receiving Social Security and SSI disability benefits.
[33] In fiscal year 2002, Education began collecting data on IDEA
youth.
[34] SSA does not collect data on services provided to participants in
the Ticket program.
[35] These data may be incomplete as the data set had a number of
missing records.
[36] Moreover, Education officials informed us that the presence of
waiting lists might keep additional individuals from seeking VR
services.
[37] WIA does allow local areas to waive income qualification criteria
for up to 5 percent of youth served.
[38] SSA has partnered with Labor to place disability navigators at all
WIA assistance facilities. The navigators will have expertise in Social
Security disability programs, disability law, and other relevant
issues.
[39] As of December 2002, about 244,000 youth between ages 18 to 21
were SSI recipients and about 13,000 youth 21 and under were SSDI
recipients.
[40] Medicaid is a jointly funded, federal-state entitlement program
that finances health care coverage for low-income individuals.
[41] VR agencies are required by law to conduct outreach to special
education students while they are in high school.
[42] Under the Benefits Planning, Assistance, and Outreach Program, SSA
has established cooperative agreements with entities across the nation
to provide benefits counseling and assistance, and conduct ongoing
outreach efforts to inform beneficiaries of available work incentives.
SSA also established the Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of
Social Security Program to serve SSI and SSDI beneficiaries who want to
work.
[43] We did not interview Steering Committee representatives in
California because California did not fully participate in the federal
monitoring process.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
