Summary of a GAO Conference: Helping California Youths with	 
Disabilities Transition to Work or Postsecondary Education	 
(20-JUN-06, GAO-06-759SP).					 
                                                                 
The federal government plays a significant role in supporting	 
youths with disabilities, many of whom research has shown are	 
less likely than other students to successfully transition from  
high school to postsecondary education or employment. Federal	 
programs make considerable investments in providing transition	 
services for youths with disabilities, often through state and	 
local agencies. GAO has previously reported problems in how these
programs support transition, such as difficulties youths with	 
disabilities may experience in accessing services. To better	 
understand how federal programs interact at the state and local  
levels to support transitioning youths with disabilities, on	 
November 15, 2005, GAO convened a conference of professionals and
state and local program experts who are directly involved with	 
transitioning youths with disabilities in California. While the  
perspectives offered were limited to one state's experience,	 
California has wide variation in population, industry, disability
rates, and employment rates among its counties, and thus may	 
offer lessons to other states about the challenges and successes 
in serving transitioning youths. This report summarizes the views
of panelists on challenges they experienced serving this	 
population during critical transition years, and identifies	 
several practices that they believe are helping to address those 
challenges in California.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-759SP					        
    ACCNO:   A55725						        
  TITLE:     Summary of a GAO Conference: Helping California Youths   
with Disabilities Transition to Work or Postsecondary Education  
     DATE:   06/20/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Aid for the disabled				 
	     Employment assistance programs			 
	     Employment of the disabled 			 
	     Higher education					 
	     Intergovernmental relations			 
	     Locally administered programs			 
	     Persons with disabilities				 
	     School-to-work transition programs 		 
	     State-administered programs			 
	     Vocational education				 
	     Youth						 
	     Youth employment programs				 
	     Conferences					 
	     California 					 
	     SSA Supplemental Security Income			 
	     Program						 
                                                                 
	     SSA Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency		 
	     Program						 
                                                                 
	     Vocational Rehabilitation Program			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-759SP

     

     * Background
     * Panelists Discussed Need for Additional Vocational Training,
     * Panelists Discussed How Limited Coordination among Programs
     * Panelists Identified Several Promising Practices That May Ad
     * List of Panel Participants
     * List of Observers from Federal and Other Agencies
     * GAO Contact
     * Acknowledgments
     * GAO's Mission
     * Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
          * Order by Mail or Phone
     * To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * Congressional Relations
     * Public Affairs

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

June 2006

SUMMARY OF A GAO CONFERENCE

Helping California Youths with Disabilities Transition to Work or
Postsecondary Education

GAO-06-759SP

Report to Congressional Committees

Contents

Introduction 1

Appendix I Summary of the Conference Discussion 5
Background 5
Panelists Discussed Need for Additional Vocational Training, Life Skills
Development, and Transition Preparation among Youths with Disabilities in
California 9
Panelists Discussed How Limited Coordination among Programs and
Differences in Program Structure Can Prevent the Seamless Provision of
Transition Services 12
Panelists Identified Several Promising Practices That May Address
Challenges in California 15
Appendix II List of Panel Participants and Observers 18
Appendix III Agenda, General Themes, and Questions 19
Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 21
Related GAO Products 22

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. However, 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.

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

June 20, 2006 June 20, 2006

The Honorable Michael B. Enzi The Honorable Michael B. Enzi

Chairman Chairman

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy

Ranking Minority Member Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions

United States Senate United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. "Buck" McKeon Chairman The Honorable Howard P.
"Buck" McKeon Chairman

The Honorable George Miller The Honorable George Miller

Ranking Minority Member Committee on Education and the Workforce House of
Representatives Ranking Minority Member Committee on Education and the
Workforce House of Representatives

The Honorable William M. Thomas The Honorable William M. Thomas

Chairman Chairman

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel The Honorable Charles B. Rangel

Ranking Minority Member Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Ways and Means Committee on Ways and Means

House of Representatives House of Representatives

The federal government plays a significant role in supporting youths with
disabilities, many of whom research has shown are less likely than other
students to successfully make the transition into postsecondary education
or employment once they leave high school. Although the amount spent to
support transitioning youths with disabilities is not known, the federal
government has a considerable investment in various programs to help
support these youths. For example, in 2005 the Department of Education
(Education) allocated over $10.5 billion in federal grants to states for
ensuring that 6.8 million youths with disabilities received a free and
appropriate public education, as required by the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA)-a key piece of legislation
pertaining to transition. The federal government plays a significant role
in supporting youths with disabilities, many of whom research has shown
are less likely than other students to successfully make the transition
into postsecondary education or employment once they leave high school.
Although the amount spent to support transitioning youths with
disabilities is not known, the federal government has a considerable
investment in various programs to help support these youths. For example,
in 2005 the Department of Education (Education) allocated over $10.5
billion in federal grants to states for ensuring that 6.8 million youths
with disabilities received a free and appropriate public education, as
required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEA)-a key piece of legislation pertaining to transition.

A number of other federal programs-largely administered at the state and
local levels-endeavor to help youths with disabilities achieve successful
transitions. For example: A number of other federal programs-largely
administered at the state and local levels-endeavor to help youths with
disabilities achieve successful transitions. For example:

           o  Education's vocational rehabilitation (VR) program provides
           transition services to youths with disabilities through state VR
           agencies and in coordination with public education officials.

           o  The Department of Labor (Labor) helps eligible youths between
           14 and 21 years of age1 prepare for work or postsecondary
           education through its one-stop center system-a federally funded
           workforce investment system that is managed by states and
           localities.

           o  The Social Security Administration's (SSA) Ticket to Work and
           Self-Sufficiency program (Ticket) helps individuals who are
           receiving cash benefits from SSA's Supplemental Security Income
           Program and are between the ages of 18 and 64 to obtain
           services-from providers such as VR agencies-that are necessary to
           find, enter, and retain employment.

The success of these programs can play an important role in determining
whether vulnerable youths transition successfully to become independent
adults or face a lifetime of reliance on public assistance. However, GAO
has previously reported problems with how these programs support
transition, such as difficulties youths may experience in accessing
services.2

To better understand how federal programs support transitioning students
with disabilities, GAO held a conference on November 15, 2005, that
focused on such supports in one state-California.3 We chose to focus on
one state in order to better explore the complex interplay of the many and
varied federal programs that are administered at the state and local
levels and serve this population. California presents an interesting case
study because of the wide variation in population, industry, rate of
disability, and employment rates among its counties. As such, California's
experiences may provide a basis for identifying challenges and promising
approaches to serving transitioning youths with disabilities that could
apply to other states.

1 Youths generally must have a low income in order to be eligible for
one-stop services. However, some exceptions are made for a small
percentage of youths with disabilities.

2 GAO, Special Education: Federal Actions Can Assist States in Improving
Postsecondary Outcomes for Youth, GAO-03-773 (Washington, D.C.: July 31,
2003).

3 The conference took place in GAO's San Francisco field office and via a
video teleconference.

To identify discussion themes as well as panel participants for this
conference, we interviewed officials from federal, state, and local
disability programs; special education teachers and administrators;
researchers in this area; and disability advocates. We also reviewed
program guidance, published articles, and GAO reports relating to
disability and transitioning youths.4 In light of the many federal
programs that provide similar services in support of transitioning youths,
we invited to the conference officials from Education, Labor, and SSA to
observe the proceedings and engage in a direct dialogue with transition
professionals. We also invited congressional staff from committees with
jurisdiction over some of these federal agencies and programs to provide
their perspectives on the topic.

Recognizing the importance of this topic for policy makers, we have
summarized the conference proceedings in this report on behalf of
interested committees from both the U.S. Senate and the House of
Representatives. The discussion summarized in this report does not
necessarily represent the views of any individual participant or GAO, may
not be applicable to other parts of the country, and does not attempt to
provide a comprehensive treatment of the topic. For example, although the
topic of preparing for postsecondary education was included in the
conference agenda, the panelists' discussions focused primarily on
workforce preparation.

In summary, panelists generally agreed that challenges exist for
transitioning California youths with disabilities in two key areas. First,
they noted that the education system as they experience it in California
does not provide adequate training in vocational and life skills or
transition preparation for students with disabilities. While acknowledging
the importance of academic studies, the panelists noted that for those
youths who will not pursue postsecondary education, there are few
vocational programs in high school and inadequate time during school to
study vocational and life skills. Second, panelists indicated that lack of
coordination and differences in program structure between organizations
responsible for assisting these youths hinder the seamless provision of
services. For each challenge area, panelists identified suggestions for
improvement. Panelists also identified several ongoing practices that they
believe hold promise for addressing these challenges in California.

4 Most notably, GAO-03-773 .

Appendix I summarizes the collective discussion, as well as subsequent
comments we received from panel participants on the draft summary of the
conference proceedings. Appendix II lists our panel participants and
observers from federal agencies. Appendix III contains our
agenda-including a list of congressional staff who provided Hill
perspectives on this topic-as well as the general themes and questions
posed to panelists. Major contributors are acknowledged in appendix IV.

We are very grateful to all of the conference participants for taking the
time to share their knowledge, insights, and perspectives. The views
expressed will be of value to the community of federal, state and local
programs and professionals as they strive to improve employment and
postsecondary educational outcomes for youths with disabilities at a
critical juncture in their lives. In addition, the results of this
discussion may help Congress ensure that federal programs serve this
vulnerable population effectively and improve federal disability programs
to meet the needs of the 21st century.

Robert E. Robertson Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security
Issues

Appendix I: Summary of the Conference Discussion

Conference panelists offered a variety of perspectives on the challenges
they faced serving youths with disabilities transition from high school to
postsecondary education or employment. This appendix provides background
on the issues discussed by the panelists and a summary of their
discussion.

                                   Background

In 2003, we designated modernizing federal disability programs as a
high-risk area-one that requires urgent attention and organizational
transformation to ensure that programs function in the most economical,
efficient, and effective manner possible to meet the needs of individuals
in the 21st century. Federal disability programs were placed on the list
because many of these programs have yet to incorporate scientific advances
and economic and social changes that have redefined the relationship
between impairments and the ability to work.1 In addition, these programs
have faced long-standing challenges in ensuring the timeliness and
consistency of decisions related to benefits and services for people with
disabilities. As part of our work in this area, in 2005, we identified
more than 20 federal agencies and almost 200 programs that serve people
with disabilities, many of which play some role in serving transitioning
youths with disabilities.2

The array of programs supporting transitioning youths with disabilities,
in some ways, reflects the wide diversity of this population. For example,
youths with disabilities can have a wide range of physical and cognitive
disabilities that can affect their ability to learn. In addition, they may
demonstrate varying levels of academic aptitude and achievement in
different areas. Consequently, youths with disabilities may require
different strategies for transitioning from school to postsecondary
education or the workforce that address their unique needs.

One key piece of legislation pertaining to transitioning youths with
disabilities is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act (IDEA).3 In 2005, under IDEA, states received over $10.5 billion for
ensuring that 6.8 million youths identified as having a learning
disability or a disability such as mental retardation or autism received a
free and appropriate public education. Among other requirements, IDEA
requires all children with disabilities to be included in all general
state and districtwide assessments,4 including annual assessments under
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.5 IDEA also charges public education
authorities to develop an individualized education program6 (IEP) for each
eligible student that spells out the specific special education and
supplementary aids and services to be provided based on the student's
needs. Beginning no later than when a student is 16, the IEP must also
contain transition plans that include measurable postsecondary goals and
specify the transition services needed to assist the child in reaching
those goals.

1 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119 (Washington, D.C.: January
2003).

2 GAO, Federal Disability Assistance: Wide Array of Programs Needs to Be
Examined in Light of 21st Century Challenges, GAO-05-626 (Washington,
D.C.: June 2, 2005).

3 20 U.S.C. S: 1400 et. seq.

In addition, the federal government funds many other services that may
assist youths with disabilities during their transition period through
programs administered by agencies such as the Department of
Education(Education), the Department of Labor (Labor), and the Social
Security Administration (SSA). For example, the vocational rehabilitation
(VR) program, Workforce Investment Act youth program (WIA), and the Ticket
to Work and Self-Sufficiency program (Ticket) all provide services that
can ease youth transition from high school to postsecondary education and
employment. Youths who are eligible for special education services under
IDEA, however, are not automatically eligible for these education,
employment, and support services.

Education's Rehabilitation Services Administration provides significant
funds to state VR agencies in the form of a matching grant to help persons
with disabilities prepare for and engage in gainful employment. The
vocational rehabilitation services that state-run VR programs provide
include a variety of vocational services, including job training,
postsecondary education, and career counseling. Under the VR program, all
people with a physical or mental impairment are potentially eligible for
services, but states must serve those with the most significant
disabilities first in times of funding constraint.7 This means that
sometimes VR agencies are not able to serve all youths with disabilities,
including those eligible for special education services. However, federal
regulations under the Rehabilitation Act require state VR agencies to
coordinate with public education officials to facilitate the transition of
students with disabilities from school to work.8

4 20 U.S.C. S: 1412(a)(16).

5 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires school systems to
establish annual assessments in order to demonstrate that all students,
including those with disabilities, make academic progress. Pub. L. No.
107-110, S: 1111(b) (2002).

6 The term "individualized education program" refers to a written
statement that is developed for each student that specifies, among other
components, the services that the student will receive, the extent to
which the student will participate in the regular education setting with
peers without disabilities, and how the student will participate in
statewide assessments.

Labor oversees the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
WIA requires states and localities to bring together most federally funded
employment and training services into a single system, called the one-stop
center system. WIA requires one-stop centers to offer services to all
eligible youths between 14 and 21 years of age that prepare them for work
or postsecondary education. To be eligible for services under WIA, a youth
must have a low income and also meet at least one of six specific barriers
to employment, one of which is having a disability. Exceptions to the
income requirement, however, are available for a small percentage of
youths, including those with disabilities.9

SSA implements the nation's two largest cash benefit programs for
individuals with disabilities, one of which covers youths under 18.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a means-tested income assistance
program that provides monthly payments to adults or children who are blind
or have other disabilities and whose income and assets fall below a
certain level.10 Eligibility for SSI, in many states, entitles
beneficiaries to Medicaid insurance coverage. In addition to providing
cash benefits that may assist SSI-eligible youths in transition, 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 individuals with disabilities who are receiving cash benefits
from SSA and are between 18 and 64 years of age to obtain the services
necessary to find, enter, and retain employment.

7 As in the case with California, state VR agencies that are not able to
serve all eligible individuals applying for services are required to
develop criteria for ensuring that individuals with the most significant
disabilities will be selected first for services. Federal regulations do
not stipulate, however, the definition of "most significant disability,"
leading states to define the term in a variety of ways.

8 Specifically, federal regulations require state VR programs to develop
an individualized plan for employment for all clients accepted into the VR
program. For VR clients who are also students receiving special education
services, VR is required to have this plan in place before they leave
school, and to develop VR goals, objectives, and services that are
consistent with those stipulated in their IEP.

9 Under WIA, youths are eligible for services if they have a low income
and they fall within one or more of the following categories: deficient in
basic skills; school dropout, homeless, runaway, or foster child; pregnant
or parenting; offender; or individual (including a youth with a
disability) who requires additional assistance to obtain employment.
Income qualification can be waived for up to 5 percent of youths in a
local area. A 2003 GAO report found that about 29 percent of IDEA youths
meet WIA's low-income requirement. See GAO-03-773 .

A number of nonfederal agencies play a role in providing many of these
federally funded services as well as additional transition services to
youths with disabilities. For example, California Departments of
Education, Rehabilitation, Employment Development, Developmental Services,
Mental Health, and Social Services provide a wide range of federally
supported transition services including education, vocational skills
training, and supported employment and independent living services. In
addition, local education authorities and other local and nongovernmental
organizations obtain funding from a variety of sources to provide
transition services, including vocational training, assisting with job
searches, and making referrals for services.

10 The other SSA program is the Social Security Disability Insurance
(SSDI) program, which provides monthly payments to workers with
disabilities (and their dependents or survivors) under the age of 65 who
have enough work experience to qualify for disability benefits.

    Panelists Discussed Need for Additional Vocational Training, Life Skills
Development, and Transition Preparation among Youths with Disabilities in
                                   California

Panelists raised concerns that California's education system does not
provide students with disabilities with adequate training in vocational
and life skills or in transition preparation. While acknowledging the
importance of academic studies, they noted that for those youths who will
not pursue postsecondary education, there are few vocational programs in
high school and inadequate time during school to study vocational and life
skills.11 They also suggested several ways that schools and service
providers could improve the provision of these services.

According to the panelists, the education system in California does not
adequately emphasize vocational skills, leaving many youths unprepared for
the workforce. While some students with disabilities continue on to
postsecondary education, this is not a realistic option for many others
who either transition into the workforce immediately after high school or
remain at home pursuing neither postsecondary education nor work. These
youths might want to enter the workforce but might not be prepared for
work because they may not have received adequate vocational instruction
during high school, such as supervised work experience or training in
skills for a specific career, like the culinary arts.12 Panelists noted
that while most students with disabilities entering the workforce will
need the academic skills emphasized in schools, vocational skills and
training that these students may also need currently receive little
attention in the education system. For example, vocational training is
mostly offered through adult education providers, such as community
colleges, and vocational high school diplomas are not widely available.
Consequently, youths desiring vocational instruction might drop out of
high school. Federal policy emphasizes accountability for academic
achievement for all students, including those with disabilities.13 Most
students with disabilities are expected to meet the same academic
standards as those without disabilities. Panelists noted that since some
students with disabilities require more instruction time to meet those
standards, there is less time for teachers and students to spend on
vocational coursework. In some cases, this has led schools to offer fewer
vocational courses.

11 The panelists' discussion was limited to youths with disabilities,
although it may be true that vocational programs are not widely available
and could be beneficial for all high schools students, not just those with
disabilities.

12 A 2003 GAO report also found that while vocational training and
experience in high school lead to more successful transitions for some
youths with disabilities, many do not receive these services. See
GAO-03-773 .

13 Over the past decade, Congress has passed laws that emphasize greater
state and local accountability for improving graduation rates and
postsecondary results for youths, including the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001.

In addition to discussing vocational skills, panelists said that students
with disabilities need more training in life skills, such as self-advocacy
and interpersonal communication, to help them pursue postsecondary
education, secure employment, or obtain necessary services as adults. For
example, panelists noted that without self-advocacy training, youths with
disabilities might fail to seek out the support services they need after
high school, either because they do not understand the programs and
eligibility rules or are hesitant to come forward about their
disabilities. Another panelist said that youths with disabilities are
sometimes reluctant to speak up in groups or initiate conversations. This
might lead them to miss out on job opportunities if they are unable to
effectively communicate with employers to alleviate any concerns about
their abilities or discuss needed accommodations. Further, the panelists
said that employers sought out employees with life skills or soft skills,
such as willingness to learn and to work hard and appropriate behavior.
However, panelists found that learning life skills, similar to vocational
skills, were often de-emphasized in favor of learning academic content.
One panelist said that students in his school must study life skills
either before or after the regular school day because there was no other
time left in their schedules for such study.

Panelists also said that in a variety of ways, the education system does
not provide many students with disabilities with adequate preparation for
their transition into the workplace or postsecondary education. For
example, California credential programs for teachers, including special
educators, do not require training in transition preparation, such as how
to teach students to connect with employment services or how to integrate
career preparation into an academic curriculum. Panelists also said that
teachers have few professional development days available to take training
in transition preparation. Another problem that many panelists brought up
was that recent federal legislation increased the age-from 14 to 16-that
students are required to begin planning for their transitions in their IEP
meetings. Several panelists stated that increasing the minimum age sent a
message to administrators, teachers, and parents that transition planning
is unimportant. Two panelists noted that while schools can begin planning
for transition at an earlier age, scarce monetary and time resources make
it unlikely that transition services would be offered earlier than
required. Others suggested that birth or kindergarten was not too early to
start thinking about a student's transition period, noting that many
students with disabilities are in danger of dropping out before age 16.
Further, one panelist pointed out that students with disabilities,
especially younger students, often do not attend their IEP meetings.
Others said that the IEP process, including transition planning, could be
more successful if students were given more opportunities to advocate for
their own needs in their IEP meetings and to work toward long-term goals
linked to adult outcomes from an early age.

Panelists suggested several ways that schools could improve the
vocational, life skills, and transition preparation that students
received. Some panelists said that students should be taught the basic
skills that employers value and that correlate with essential job duties.
Others suggested that students needed more vocational training and
interaction with the working world while in high school. They noted that
mentors from the business world get students interested in careers, serve
as successful role models, and help students succeed in transitioning to
work.14 They also praised the value of internships and other
school-sponsored workplace learning opportunities and suggested that
students with disabilities needed more of these opportunities before they
finished high school.15 Panelists suggested that students could learn
self-advocacy skills by educating other youths about their disabilities,
as well as by becoming more involved in their IEPs. Regarding transition
preparation, panelists recommended that transition training should be
incorporated into the first level of credential requirements for teachers,
and that federal agencies could recommend that states add this requirement
to their credentials. Finally, panelists agreed that transition planning
should begin before age 16.

14 For more information on mentoring programs, see GAO, At-Risk Youth:
Student Mentoring Programs: Education's Monitoring and Information Sharing
Could Be Improved, GAO-04-581 (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2004).

15 For more information on school-community collaboration, see GAO,
At-Risk Youth: School-Community Collaborations Focus on Improving Student
Outcomes, GAO-01-66 (Washington, D.C.: Oct 10, 2000).

 Panelists Discussed How Limited Coordination among Programs and Differences in
  Program Structure Can Prevent the Seamless Provision of Transition Services

Panelists indicated that the lack of coordination and differences in
program structure among organizations that assist transitioning youths
with disabilities prevent the seamless provision of services. They had
several ideas for improving coordination among these organizations.

The panelists noted that limited coordination among the multiple
organizations involved in providing services to youths with disabilities
hinders the transition process for youths in California. Many thought that
collaboration between school districts and outside organizations needs to
be improved.16 One panelist noted, for example, that schools do not always
involve government agencies or community-based organizations in the
development of a student's IEP, thereby missing an opportunity to educate
youths and outside programs on issues related to transition. Other
panelists noted that students generally are not able to retain
school-provided assistive technology equipment, such as voice-to-text
software, after they leave school; as a result, the support of other
service providers may be required to help these students reacquire
technology to assist them with postsecondary education or employment.
Panelists said that after youths leave school, no single agency is in
charge of providing services to all youths. Instead, one panelist said,
youths are expected to manage the services they receive on their own, but
might not have adequate information on the availability of benefits or
program eligibility requirements.17 Further, the panelist said,
organizations that provide services to youths with disabilities after they
leave school are often responsible for assisting a broader population and
might lack the expertise and sensitivity for serving individuals with
disabilities.

The panelists indicated that differences in the structure of
programs-including their eligibility criteria, disability definitions, and
performance measures-hinder the provision of seamless service to youths
with disabilities. For example, according to panelists, differences in
eligibility criteria can create conflicting incentives for youth who
participate in more than one program and can create gaps in service
provision. One panelist noted that the eligibility criteria for SSA's
Supplemental Security Income program, which require youths to maintain low
income and asset levels in order to continue receiving cash benefits and
medical insurance, deter youths from fully utilizing employment assistance
programs.18 Another panelist mentioned that not all youths with
disabilities meet the income eligibility criteria to receive services from
WIA one-stops.19

16 A 2003 GAO report found that students, parents and teachers also
thought schools needed to improve coordination with outside service
providers. See GAO-03-773 . More generally, other GAO reports have
highlighted the need for improved coordination among all federal
disability programs. See, for example, GAO-05-626 and GAO, People with
Disabilities: Federal Programs Could Work Together More Efficiently to
Promote Employment, GAO/HEHS-96-126 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 3, 1996).

17 A 2005 GAO report found that 38 percent of federal programs assisting
individuals with disabilities reported that making clients aware of their
programs' services and benefits was a challenge. Similarly, 30 percent of
these programs reported that interpreting complex eligibility requirements
was a challenge. See GAO-05-626 .

Other panelists noted that differences in the definitions of disability
lead to gaps in service provision. For example, one panelist said that
California high schools and community colleges use different definitions
of learning disabilities. Similarly, another panelist said that many
youths eligible for IDEA are not eligible to receive services from
California's Department of Rehabilitation because the department,
constrained for funding, generally restricts its caseload to individuals
that meet its definition for "significant" or "most significant"
disability. These differences in eligibility criteria and definitions, at
best, might result in youths having to be reevaluated or not knowing
whether they are eligible to continue receiving services after high
school. At worst, they could prevent youths from receiving needed services
from postsecondary education institutions, VR, or WIA one-stops.

Another panelist added that some program performance measures deter
programs assisting broader populations from serving youths with
disabilities. For example, the performance measures for WIA, including
measures of the number of clients finding employment, do not distinguish
between individuals with and without disabilities. Since assisting
individuals with disabilities generally requires more effort and resources
than assisting those without disabilities, program staff may choose not to
serve individuals with disabilities in order to more easily meet or exceed
their performance goals.20

18 Similarly, a 2003 GAO report also found that some 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. See GAO-03-773 .

19 However, up to 5 percent of youth served in a local area do not have to
meet the income criteria so long as they fall within certain other
categories, such as having a disability.

The panelists offered several ideas on ways to improve coordination among
organizations involved in serving youths with disabilities. One panelist
suggested that primary service providers convene a regional conference to
identify roles and responsibilities of different agencies and to develop a
comprehensive plan for assisting youths with disabilities. Others thought
that school systems could enhance cooperation by designating professional
development days for teachers to coordinate with public and private
providers and family members. They also thought that schools needed to
make a more concerted effort to include provider staff and family members
in IEP meetings. Other panelists proposed the designation of a single
agency or person to coordinate the provision of services for all youths
with disabilities, both in school as well as after students have left high
school. Another suggestion, currently implemented at one school district,
was to set up agreements between the local education authority and other
service providers to reimburse the school system for allowing students to
retain their assistive technology.

The panelists also suggested improvements to the ways that programs are
structured that may lead to seamless service provision. For example, one
panelist suggested that programs be encouraged to provide comprehensive
services to youths over a broader age range so that youths could receive
many services from a single place. Another panelist proposed that programs
use common assessment materials and, whenever possible, common definitions
of disability to improve coordination among programs and make it easier
for youths to receive needed services. For example, youth should not have
to be subjected to different tests in order to establish their eligibility
for services being provided by different agencies. Finally, one panelist
thought that the federal government, in choosing which programs to fund,
should reward programs that have collaborative structures.

20 A 2004 GAO report similarly found that WIA performance measures can
create disincentives for one-stops to serve clients with disabilities. See
GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to
Facilitate Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These
Efforts May Not Be Sufficient, GAO-05-54 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 14,
2004). We also recommended that WIA performance measures be changed to
take different populations into account. See GAO, Workforce Investment
Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to Assess
Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help, GAO-04-657 (Washington,
D.C.: June 1, 2004).

Panelists Identified Several Promising Practices That May Address Challenges in
                                   California

Panelists shared examples of programs-available to a limited number of
youths-that have the potential to address some of the challenges they
identified. Most of these programs operate only in California, but one
operates nationwide. These programs are administered either by government
entities or nonprofits, and are supported by both public and private
funds. They provide such services as vocational training, job placement,
case management to help coordinate with different service providers, and
leadership opportunities for youths with disabilities. Panelists suggested
that if resources were available, expanding and replicating these
practices could improve the transition outcomes for youths with
disabilities.

           o  WorkAbility I: WorkAbility I is a California program for
           special education students aged 16 to 22 that is designed to
           promote career awareness and exploration while students complete
           their secondary education program. While it is not available in
           many schools, the program has grown to over 300 sites in all 58
           counties in California since its inception in 1981. WorkAbility I
           provides students with opportunities for job shadowing, paid and
           nonpaid work experience, and ongoing support and guidance from
           vocational personnel, as well as coordination of state and local
           services. The program is funded and administered by the California
           Department of Education, Special Education Department. Panelists
           considered WorkAbility I to be a successful vehicle for career
           preparation and for helping to train special educators in
           transition planning. One panelist said that this program has
           increased graduation rates and decreased dropout rates for
           students with disabilities. Panelists agreed that this program
           should be expanded so that it is more available to California
           students with disabilities and that many of its practices should
           be incorporated into the education system rather than restricted
           to a separate program.

           o  Marriott Foundation Bridges from School to Work: Bridges works
           with youths exiting special education to develop job placement
           with local employers. Operating primarily in major urban centers
           nationwide, the program serves more than 1,000 people annually.
           Since its inception in 1990, Bridges has placed more than 7,800
           youths in competitive employment nationwide with over 1,500
           different employers, and 89 percent of those who successfully
           complete the program receive offers of ongoing employment. One
           panelist considered Marriott Bridges to be an excellent example of
           a transition service provider that collaborates with other
           programs to help students get good jobs that fit their interests.
           Another noted that this program helps some youths with visual
           impairments obtain assistive technology.

           o  Jewish Vocational Services (JVS): JVS's Youth Programs help
           youths with disabilities in the San Francisco area aged 14 to 24
           prepare for employment through vocational assessment, internships,
           case management, educational and career counseling, computer and
           life skills classes, and job placement services. JVS also partners
           with schools to provide vocational education classes and with
           other government and nonprofit entities to coordinate services. In
           2004, JVS worked with 700 youths, including 400 still in school,
           and helped 346 youths find jobs. Founded in 1973, JVS's nonprofit
           programs are funded through multiple revenue streams, including
           federal, state, and local government funds, among other sources.
           One panelist described JVS programs as providing case management
           and help with obtaining and coordinating services throughout the
           youth's entire transition, including after leaving school.

           o  Transition Partnership Project (TPP): The TPP, created by the
           California Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) in 1987, encourages
           partnerships between schools and the department to work toward a
           seamless transition from school to work or postsecondary
           education. Most students whom the department classifies as having
           a significant disability are eligible for the TPP and can begin
           receiving guidance from department vocational counselors in their
           junior year of high school. In 2005, there were 85 TPP programs
           statewide. In 2005, the TPP served 17,524 of the 38,917 DOR
           consumers who are 24 years of age or younger. (Because of
           budgetary constraints, DOR cannot serve all 200,000 special
           education students enrolled in California's high schools.)
           Panelists said that the TPP is involved in the bulk of successful
           job placements for youths with disabilities in California, and
           that its strengths included providing a case manager who works
           with students from high school until they finish their education
           and enter the workforce.

           o  Youth Leadership Forum for Students with Disabilities: The
           Youth Leadership Forum for Students with Disabilities is an annual
           career leadership training program for approximately 60 high
           school juniors and seniors with disabilities in California, who
           serve as delegates from their communities at a 4-day event in
           their state capital. Delegates create a personal leadership plan
           and gain access to resources related to assistive technology,
           community support, and employment opportunities, with successful
           adults with disabilities serving as role models. The program is
           funded and organized by the California's Governor's Committee on
           Employment of People with Disabilities, Department of
           Rehabilitation, Employment Development Department, California
           State Independent Living Council, California Department of
           Education, Sonoma State University, California Workforce
           Investment Board, State Council on Developmental Disabilities,
           California Foundation for Independent Living Centers and Friends
           of the California Governor's Committee on Employment of People
           with Disabilities, Inc. This program is being replicated across
           the nation by the U.S. Department of Labor. One panelist suggested
           that the model set forth by the Youth Leadership Forum be followed
           at the county and city levels to provide students with
           disabilities more opportunities to learn self-advocacy through
           leadership.

           Appendix II: List of Panel Participants and Observers

                           List of Panel Participants

           o  Pauline Aughe, NOVA One Stop
           o  Dr. Diana Blackmon, Director, Special Services, Washington
           Unified School District
           o  Lana Fraser, Assistant Deputy Director, Department of
           Rehabilitation, CA
           o  Paul Gibson, Director, Youth Department, Jewish Vocational
           Services
           o  Dr. Phyllis Harris, Executive Director, Special Education,
           Oakland Unified School District
           o  Dr. Angela Hawkins, Commissioner, California Advisory
           Commission on Special Education
           o  Dr. Dennis Kelleher, Transition Coordinator, Department of
           Education, CA
           o  Chris Leroy, Program Specialist, San Bernadino City Unified
           School District
           o  Fran Lopez, Associate Dean, Disability Resource Center, Gavelin
           College
           o  Jodee Mensik, Transition Specialist, Los Angeles Unified School
           District
           o  Jeff Riel, Chief, Transition Programs, Department of
           Rehabilitation, CA
           o  Richard Rosenberg, Vocational & Training Coordinator, Whittier
           Union High School District
           o  Caren Sax, Professor, Interwork Institute at San Diego State
           University
           o  Vicki Shadd, Director, Vocation & Transitional Services, Glenn
           County School District
           o  Zoey Todd, Children and Family Services Policy Unit, Department
           of Mental Health, CA
           o  John Weber, ITOP Coordinator, Support for Families
           o  Marcia Yamamoto, Manager, Workforce Inclusion Section,
           Employment Development Department, CA

               List of Observers from Federal and Other Agencies

           o  Rhonda Basha, Department of Labor
           o  Sandra Beckley, Social Security Administration
           o  Chris Button, Department of Labor
           o  Joyanne Cobb, Social Security Administration
           o  Rachel Dorman, Department of Labor
           o  Melodie Johnson, Department of Education
           o  Jamie Kendall, Social Security Administration
           o  Margaret Mack, California Workforce Investment Board
           o  Laurel Nishi, Department of Labor
           o  Linda Rogaski, California Department of Education
           o  Jennifer Sheehy, Department of Education
           o  Marlene Simon-Burroughs, Department of Education

Appendix III: Agenda, General Themes, and Questions

Appendix IV: A Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Robert E. Robertson, Director, (202) 512-7215 or [email protected] .

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact above, Director Marnie S. Shaul; Assistant
Directors Harriet Ganson and Michele Grgich; and team members Erin
Godtland, Arthur T. Merriam, and Brittni Milam made major contributions to
this report. In addition, Laurie Latuda and Jonathan McMurray advised on
report preparation. Jessica Botsford and Richard Burkard provided legal
advice. Danielle Bosquet, Ramona Burton, Shannon Groff, Robert Marek, and
Elizabeth Sirois also made important contributions to organizing the
conference held November 15, 2005, in San Francisco.

Related GAO Products Related GAO Products

Vocational Rehabilitation: Better Measures and Monitoring Could Improve
the Performance of the VR Program. GAO-05-865 . Washington, D.C.:
September 23, 2005.

No Child Left Behind Act: Education Could Do More to Help States Better
Define Graduation Rates and Improve Knowledge about Intervention
Strategies. GAO-05-879 . Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2005.

No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated in
Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved. GAO-05-618
. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005.

Federal Disability Assistance: Wide Array of Programs Needs to Be Examined
in Light of 21st Century Challenges. GAO-05-626 . Washington, D.C.: June
2, 2005.

Social Security Administration: Better Planning Could Make the Ticket
Program More Effective. GAO-05-248 . Washington, D.C.: March 2, 2005.

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate
Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts May
Not Be Sufficient. GAO-05-54 . Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2004.

No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process for
Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734 .
Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.

Student Mentoring Programs: Education's Monitoring and Information Sharing
Could Be Improved. GAO-04-581 . Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2004.

Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination Needed
among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher
Requirements. GAO-04-659 . Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004.

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies
to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-04-657 .
Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.

Special Education: Federal Actions Can Assist States in Improving
Postsecondary Outcomes for Youth. GAO-03-773 . Washington, D.C.: July 31,
2003.

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information
Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725 . Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-03-119 . Washington, D.C.: January 2003.

Business Tax Incentives: Incentives to Employ Workers with Disabilities
Receive Limited Use and Have an Uncertain Impact. GAO-03-39 . Washington,
D.C.: December 11, 2002.

At-Risk Youth: School-Community Collaborations Focus on Improving Student
Outcomes. GAO-01-66 . Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2000.

(130564)

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

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. Government Accountability 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: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-759SP .

To view the full product, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Robert E. Robertson, Director, (202)
512-7215, [email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-759SP a report to congressional committees

June 2006

SUMMARY OF A GAO CONFERENCE

Helping California Youths with Disabilities Transition to Work or
Postsecondary Education

The federal government plays a significant role in supporting youths with
disabilities, many of whom research has shown are less likely than other
students to successfully transition from high school to postsecondary
education or employment. Federal programs make considerable investments in
providing transition services for youths with disabilities, often through
state and local agencies. GAO has previously reported problems in how
these programs support transition, such as difficulties youths with
disabilities may experience in accessing services.

To better understand how federal programs interact at the state and local
levels to support transitioning youths with disabilities, on November 15,
2005, GAO convened a conference of professionals and state and local
program experts who are directly involved with transitioning youths with
disabilities in California. While the perspectives offered were limited to
one state's experience, California has wide variation in population,
industry, disability rates, and employment rates among its counties, and
thus may offer lessons to other states about the challenges and successes
in serving transitioning youths. This report summarizes the views of
panelists on challenges they experienced serving this population during
critical transition years, and identifies several practices that they
believe are helping to address those challenges in California.

Panelists offered a variety of perspectives on the challenges they faced
serving youths with disabilities making the transition from high school to
postsecondary education or employment. Participants reached general
agreement in two broad areas.

           o  Panelists generally agreed youths with disabilities in
           California do not receive sufficient training in vocational
           preparation, life skills, and transition planning. While
           acknowledging the recent emphasis on learning academic skills and
           its importance for all youths with disabilities, panelists noted
           that for those who will not pursue postsecondary education, there
           are too few vocational programs in high school and inadequate time
           during school to study vocational and life skills. They suggested
           many ways to address these challenges, including beginning
           transition planning at a younger age, creating internship programs
           during high school, and bringing in mentors from the working
           world.

           o  Panelists generally agreed that limited coordination among
           programs and differences in program structure prevented the
           seamless provision of services. For example, several panelists
           noted that students are generally not able to retain
           school-provided assistive technology equipment that could help
           them with postsecondary school or employment, and often need to
           reacquire such technology through the support of another service
           provider after they graduate. Panelists also cited specific
           differences in the structure of programs-such as the use of
           different definitions of learning disabilities between high
           schools and community colleges-that they thought hindered the
           seamless provision of services. Panelists suggested ideas for
           improving coordination among programs, including designating days
           outside of the classroom for teachers to coordinate with other
           programs and adopting common assessment materials and, where
           feasible, common definitions of disability.

Panelists also shared examples of programs currently available to a
limited number of youths in California that had the potential to address
some of the challenges they identified. For example, some programs provide
work experience and career counseling. Other programs provide a case
manager to work with students throughout their transition and help
coordinate their services. Panelists suggested that expanding and
replicating these practices could improve the transition outcomes of
youths with disabilities.
*** End of document. ***