Children with disabilities often require a variety of services to develop to their full potential. Currently, centralized services and residential institutions have become less accepted as a matter of course. Interagency Coordinating Councils (ICCs) were created to lead integration of services for children with disabilities in the context of decentralized service provision and a growing preference for person-centered, community-based services. In this article, the authors examine the federal ICC and several state ICCs in a case study of the challenges associated with orchestrating multilevel interagency collaboration. Emergent themes of interorganizational infrastructure, the shaping of participation, and service purposes and priorities are discussed as important elements of the ongoing creation of a new governance of services for children with disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abernethy, A. (2000). [Review of Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research]. Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 79.
2.
Alkema, G.E., Shannon, G.R., & Wilbur, K.H. (2003). Using interagency collaboration to serve older adults with chronic care needs: The Care Advocate Program. Family and Community Health, 26, 221—230.
3.
Angelique, H.L., & Culley, M.R. (2000). Searching for feminism: An analysis of community psychology literature relevant to women's concerns. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 793—813.
4.
Bardach, E. (2001). Developmental dynamics: Interagency collaboration as an emergent phenomenon. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 149—164.
5.
Bennington, A.J., Shetler, J.C., & Shaw, T. (2003). Negotiating order in interorganizational communication: Discourse analysis of a meeting of three diverse organizations. The Journal of Business Communication, 40, 118—143.
6.
Boutain, D.M. (1999). Critical language and discourse study: Their transformative relevance for critical nursing inquiry. Advances in NursingScience, 21(3), 1—8.
7.
Brabant, S., & Mooney, L.A. (1999). The social construction of family life in the Sunday comics: Race as a consideration. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 30(1), 113—134.
8.
Chandler, D., & Griffiths, M. (2000). Gender-differentiated production features in toy commercials. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media , 44, 503—520.
9.
Craswell, E., & Davis, G. (1994). The search for policy coordination: Ministerial and bureaucratic perceptions of agency amalgamations in a federal parliamentary system. Policy Studies Journal, 21(1), 59—74.
10.
Federal Interagency Coordinating Council. ( 2002). Vision statement. Retrieved February 13, 2002, from http://www.fed-icc.org/vm.htm
11.
Federal Interagency Coordinating Council. ( 2004). Past quarterly meetings (transcripts and minutes). Retrieved January 27, 2004, from http://www.fed-icc.org/quarterly-meetings/past-meetings
12.
Garner, C. (1997, June). The history of the federal interagency coordinating council. Retrieved on September 24, 2001, from http://www.nectas.unc.edu/ficc/ficcintr.htm.
13.
George, M.P., Valore, T., Varisco, R., & Quinn, M.M. (1997). Preparing to go home: A collaborative approach to transition. Preventing School Failure, 41, 168.
14.
Harley, D.A., Donnell, C., & Rainey, J.A. (2003). Interagency collaboration: Reinforcing professional bridges to serve aging populations with multiple service needs. TheJournal of Rehabilitation, 69(2), 32—38.
15.
Huhmann, B.A., & Brotherton, T.P. (1997). A content analysis of guilt appeals in popular magazine advertisements. Journal of Advertising , 26(2), 35—45.
16.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
Johnson, L., Zorn, D., Tam, B.Y.T., LaMontagne, M., & Johnson, S. (2003). Stakeholders' views of factors that impact successful interagency collaboration. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 195—210.
18.
Jones, K. (1985). Preschoolers benefit from interagency collaboration . Children Today, 14, 18—23.
19.
Lucas, S. (2002). From Levittown to Luther Village: Retirement communities and the changing suburban dream. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 11(2), 323—342.
20.
Milburn, S.S., Carney, D.R., & Martinez, A.M. (2001). Even in modern media, the picture is still the same: A content analysis of clipart images. Sex Roles, 44, 277—294.
21.
Morris, R. (1994). Computerized content analysis in management research: A demonstration of advantages and limitations. Journal of Management, 20, 903—931.
22.
Page, S. (2003). Entrepreneurial strategies for managing interagency collaboration. JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory ,13, 311—340.
23.
Riley, A.L. (1994). Interagency coordination: The key to mainstreaming children with special needs into day care. Pediatrics, 94, 1059—1062.
24.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
25.
Schlenker, J., Caron, S., & Halteman, W. (1998). A feminist analysis of Seventeen Magazine: Content analysis from 1945 to 1995. Sex Roles, 38, 135—149.
26.
Stroman, D.F. (2003). The disability rights movement: From deinstitutionalization to self-determination. New York: University Press of America.
27.
Thompson, D., Socolar, R., Brown, L., & Haggerty, J. (2002). Interagency collaboration in seven North Carolina counties. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice , 8(5), 55—64.
28.
Walter, U.F., & Petr, C.G. (2000). A template for family-centered interagency collaboration. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services , 81, 494—503.
29.
Zeeman, L., Poggenpoel, M., Myburgh, C.P.H., & Van der Linde, N. (2002). An introduction to a postmodern approach to educational research: Discourse analysis. Education, 123(1), 96—102.
