Supported employment for people with disabilities has been a national policy since the late 1980s. Because its implementation usually requires the resources of at least 2 funding and service state agencies, written interagency agreements have been a formal strategy for policy implementation. This qualitative study analyzes interagency agreements for supported employment and the resulting collaborations of 6 states to identify the crucial characteristics that reinforce their utility and value. Commonalities and differences indicated three broad categories: outcomes, characteristics of the written agreements, and characteristics of the midlevel staff. Specific elements are discussed to improve creation and implementation of interagency agreements to expand supported employment for people with disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
2.
Conley, R.W., Noble, J.H., Jr., & Elder, J.K. (1986). Problems with the service system. In W. Kiernan & J. Stark (Eds.), Pathways to employment for adults with developmental disabilities (pp. 67—83). Baltimore: Brookes.
3.
Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
Delgado, M., & Humm-Delgado, D. (1980). Interagency collaboration to increase resources in serving Hispanics. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2, 269—285.
5.
Elder, J.O. (1980). Essential components in development of interagency collaboration. In J. O. Elder & P. R. Magrab (Eds.), Coordinating services to handicapped children (pp. 181—201). Baltimore: Brookes.
6.
Foley, S.M., Butterworth, J., & Heller, A. (2000). Vocational rehabilitation interagency activity improving supported employment for people with severe disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15, 37—42.
7.
Foley, S.M., & Green, J. (1999). Interagency agreements encouraging supported employment for people with disabilities: Preliminary report on exemplary practices. In W. G. Revell, K. I. Inge, D. Mank, & P. Wehman (Eds.), The impact of supported employment for people with significant disabilities (pp. 99—106). Richmond, VA: VCU-RRTC on Workplace Supports.
8.
General Accounting Office. (1994). Multiple employment training programs: Conflicting requirements hamper delivery of services (GAO/HEHS-94-78). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
9.
General Accounting Office. (1996). Federal programs could work together more efficiently to promote employment (GAO/HEHS-96-126). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
10.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldinede Gruyter.
11.
Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration . Human Relations, 38, 911—936.
12.
Hanley-Maxwell, C., Whitney-Thomas, J., & Pogoloff, S.M. (1995). The second shock: A qualitative study of parents' perspectives and needs during their child's transition from school to adult life. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 3—15.
13.
Hart, D., Zimbrich, K., & Ghiloni, C. (2001). Interagency partnerships and funding: Individual supports for youth with significant disabilities as they move into postsecondary education and employment options. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 16, 145—154.
14.
Hill, C.J., & Laurence, E.L. , Jr. (2003). Producing human services: Why do agencies collaborate?Public Management Review, 5(1), 63—82.
15.
Homeward Bound, Inc. v. Hissom Memorial Center. 1987 WL 27104 N.D.Okl. 1987.
16.
LaCour, J.A. (1982). Interagency agreement: A rational response to an irrational system. Exceptional Children, 49, 265—267.
17.
Martinson, K. (1999). Literature review on service coordination and integration in the welfare and workforce development systems. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
18.
Mattessich, P.W., & Monsey, B.R. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work. St. Paul, MN: The Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
19.
Mazzella, B. (2000). Collaboration, challenge, risk and reward: The dynamics of working together—A review of barriers and strategies shaping interagency collaborations. Boston: The Governor's Commission on Mental Retardation.
20.
Mazzella, B. (2001). Opportunities to address common concerns: A national study of single point entry. Boston: The Governor's Commission on Mental Retardation.
21.
Morrison, T. (1996). Partnership and collaboration: Rhetoric and reality . Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 127—140.
22.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, PL 93-112.
23.
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986, PL 99-506.
24.
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, PL 102-569.
25.
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, PL 105-220.
26.
Revell, W.G. (1992). Regulations and guidelines for the state supported employment services program. In S. L. Griffin & W. G. Revell, Jr. (Eds.), The rehabilitation counselor's desk guide to supported employment (Rev. ed., pp. 23—34). Richmond, VA: Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, Virginia Commonwealth University.
27.
Sandfort, J. (1999). The structural impediments to human service collaboration: Examining welfare reform at the front lines [Electronic version]. The Social Service Review, 73, 314—329.
28.
Strauss, A.L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
29.
U.S. Department of Education, Code of Federal Regulations, 34 CFR 363.11.
30.
Whitney-Thomas, J., Cuilla Timmons, J., Thomas, D.M., Gilmore, D.S., & Fesko, S.L. (1997). Changes in vocational rehabilitation practice since the 1992 Rehabilitation Act Amendments. Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion.
