Interagency collaboration facilitates strong linkages to adult agencies, which improves adult outcomes among youth with disabilities (Kohler & Field, 2003; Repetto, Webb, Garvan & Washington, 2002). State-level transition teams increase collaboration, reduce duplication of resources, improve professional development, and heighten the cross-flow of information (Blalock, 1996; Wehman, 1998). Using social network (Daly, 2010) and focus group analysis (Krueger & Casey, 2000), this mixed methods study examined changes in collaboration, as well as collaborative characteristics and activities, among members of one state-level transition team. Analysis of the social network indicated a significant increase in the network density. Furthermore, focus group results indicated a range of collaborative strategies that built group cohesion and facilitated movement toward improving transition and student outcomes.
AgranM.CainH. M.CavinH. (2002). Enhancing the involvement of rehabilitation counselors in the transition process. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 141–155.
2.
AndersonB. (1993). The stages of systemic change. Educational Leadership, 51(1), 14–17.
3.
AnfaraV. A.Jr.BrownK. M.MangioneT. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31, 28–38.
4.
BenzM. R.LindstromL.YovanoffP. (2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children, 66, 509–529.
5.
BlalockG. (1996). Community transition teams as the foundation for transition services for youth with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 148–159.
6.
CashmanJ. (1995). Collaboration and reform: The role of interagency linkages in developing a coherent strategy for transition. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 17, 103–107.
7.
DalyA. J. (Ed.). (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
8.
DefurS. H. (1997). Collaboration as a prevention tool for youth with disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 41, 173–178.
9.
DunstC. J.BruderM. B. (2002). Valued outcomes of service coordination, early intervention, and natural environments. Exceptional Children, 68, 361–375.
10.
DurlandM. M.FredericksK. A. (2005). An introduction to social network analysis. New Directions for Evaluation, 2005(107), 5–13.
11.
EllsworthJ. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. (ED No. 443417)
12.
FreyB. B.LohmeierJ. H.LeeS. W.TollefsonN. (2006). Measuring collaboration among grant partners. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 383–392.
13.
GajdaR. (2004). Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 65–77.
14.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
15.
GubaE. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 29, 75–91.
16.
HalpernA. S. (1994). The transition of youth with disabilities to adult life: A position statement of the Division on Career Development and Transition, the Council for Exceptional Children. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 17, 115–124.
17.
HasaziS.FurneyK.DeStefanoL. (1999). School and agency implementation of the IDEA transition mandates: Perspectives from nine sites. Exceptional Children, 65, 555–567.
18.
HogueT. (1993). Community-based collaboration: Community wellness multiplied. Bend, OR: Chandler Center for Community Leadership. Retrieved from http://crs.uvm.edu/nnco/collab/wellness.html
19.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (2004).
20.
JohnsonL. J.ZornD.Yung TamB. K.LamontagneM.JohnsonS. A. (2003). Stakeholders’ views of factors that impact successful interagency collaboration. Exceptional Children, 69, 195–209.
21.
Kleinhammer-TramillP. J.RosenkoetterS. E.TramillJ. L. (1994). Early interventions and secondary/transition services: Harbingers of change in education. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27, 1–14.
22.
KnokeD.YangS. (2008). Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
23.
KruegerR. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. London, England: SAGE.
24.
KruegerR. A.CaseyA. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). London, England: SAGE.
25.
MarshallC.RossmanG. B. (2010). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26.
MorningstarM. E.Kleinhammer-TramillP. J.LattinD. L. (1999). Using successful models of student-centered transition planning and services for adolescents with Disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31, 2–20.
27.
NoonanP. M. (2004). Developing interventions to improve interagency collaboration in providing transition services for youths with disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence.
28.
NoonanP. M.MorningstarM. E.EricksonA. G. (2008). Improving interagency collaboration: Effective strategies used by high-performing local districts and communities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 132–143.
29.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1995). Facilitating systemic change in science and mathematics education: A toolkit for professional developers. Retrieved from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/
30.
NoyesD. A.SaxC. L. (2004). Changing systems for transition: Students, families, and professionals working together. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 35–44.
31.
PetersonN. L. (1991). Interagency collaboration under Part H: The key to comprehensive, multidisciplinary, coordinated infant/toddler intervention services. Journal of Early Intervention, 15, 89–105.
32.
RepettoJ. B.WebbK. W.GarvanC. W.WashingtonT. (2002). Connecting student outcomes with transition practices in Florida. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 123–139.
33.
SpillaneJ. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 33–63.
34.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–431.
35.
SpillaneJ. P.ZeuliJ. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Evaluation, 21, 1–27.
36.
TimmonsJ. C.CohenA.FeskoS. L. (2004). Merging cultural differences and professional identities: Strategies for maximizing collaborative efforts during the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. Journal of Rehabilitation, 70, 19–27.
37.
WehmanP. (1998). Editorial. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 10, 1–2.
