Accessing Services for Youth With Emotional Disturbances in and After High School

Abstract

This study uses data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 to examine the rates at which youth with emotional disturbances received services during and up to 8 years after high school. Parents’ efforts to obtain services, information sources accessed, problems encountered, and the perceived sufficiency of services to meet youths’ needs are described. Findings show a drop in receipt rates for several services in the first 2 years post high school, relative to those received during high school, and a continued decrease thereafter. An increase in the reported effort to obtain services accompanied this decline in receipt rates. Implications for transition planning to build a better bridge from high school to the adult service systems are discussed and aspects of a research agenda are outlined.

Keywords

behavioral/emotional disabilities support services

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Algozzine

Browder

Karvonen

Test

D. W.

Wood

W. M.

(2001). Effects of interventions to promote self-determination for individuals with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 71, 219–277. doi:10.3102/00346-543071002219

Arnett

J. J.

Tanner

J. L.

(Eds.). (2006). Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Aud

KewalRamani

Frohlich

(2011). America’s youth: Transitions to adulthood. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Beresford

(2004). On the road to nowhere? Young disabled people and transition. Child Care Health and Development, 30, 581–587.

Betz

C. L.

(2004). Transition of adolescents with special health care needs: Review and analysis of the literature. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 27, 179–241.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiment by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner

(1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742.

Cameto

Levine

Wagner

(2004). Transition planning for students with disabilities: A special topic report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Carter

E. W.

Lane

K. L.

Pierson

M. R.

Glaeser

(2006). Self-determination skills and opportunities of transition-age youth with emotional disturbance and learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 333–346.

10.

Carter

E. W.

Lunsford

L. B.

(2005). Meaningful work: Improving employment outcomes for transition-age youth with emotional and behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 49, 63–69.

11.

Cobb

Alwell

(2008). Transition planning/coordinating interventions for youth with disabilities: A systematic review. What works transition research synthesis. Retrieved from http://www.nsttac.org/pdf/what_works/2d_full_text.pdf

12.

Committee on Disability in America. (2007). Health care transitions for young people. In Field

M. J.

Jette

A. M.

(Eds.), Future of disability in America (pp. 98-135). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

13.

Grigal

Neubert

D. A.

Moon

M. S.

Graham

(2003). Self-determination for students with disabilities: Views of parents and teachers. Exceptional Children, 70, 97–112.

14.

Grob

Krings

Bangerter

(2001). Life markers in biographical narratives of people from three cohorts: A life span perspective in historical context. Human Development, 44, 171–190.

15.

Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation. (2008). Key federal legislation for people with disabilities and their families. Retrieved from http://www.jpkf.org/JPKF-Policy-Guide/index.htm

16.

Kohler

P. D.

Field

(2003). Transition-focused education: Foundation for the future. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 174–183.

17.

Levine

Marder

Wagner

(2004). Services and supports for secondary school students with disabilities: A special topic report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

18.

Levine

Wagner

(2005). Transition for young adults who received special education services as adolescents: A time of challenge and change. In Osgood

D. W.

Foster

E. M.

Flanagan

Ruth

G. R.

(Eds.), On your own without a new: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations (p. 399). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

19.

Mann

Stapleton

(March, 2012). A roadmap to a 21st-century disability policy (Issue brief). Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

20.

Marder

Levine

Wagner

Cardoso

(2003). Household characteristics of youth with disabilities. In Wagner

Marder

Levine

Cameto

Cadwallader

T. W.

Blackorby

(Eds.), The individual and household characteristics of youth with disabilities: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (pp. 3-1–3-18.). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

21.

Martin

J. A.

Hamilton

B. E.

Ventura

S. J.

Osterman

M. J. K.

Wilson

E. C.

Mathews

T. J.

(2012). Births: Final data for 2010. National Vital Statistics Reports, 61(1), 1–71.

22.

National Longitudinal Transition Study–2. (2001a). Table 46. Youth with respondent-reported disabilities take medications to alter behavior or mood. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

23.

National Longitudinal Transition Study–2. (2001b). Table 59. Description of school youth attended past year. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

24.

National Longitudinal Transition Study–2. (2007). Table 187. Youth takes a prescription medication to control behavior, attention, or mood. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

25.

National Longitudinal Transition Study–2. (2009). Table 109: If out of secondary school, young adult attended a postsecondary institution and reported a disability, when school was aware young adult has a disability. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

26.

National Longitudinal Transition Study–2. (2010). Table 3. Where young adult lives now. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

27.

Newman

Wagner

Huang

Shaver

Knockey

Greene

. . . Contreras

(2012). Secondary school programs and performance of students with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

28.

Newman

Wagner

Knokey

Marder

Nagle

Shaver

Wei

(2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

29.

Osgood

D. W.

Foster

E. M.

Flanagan

Ruth

G. R.

(2005a). On your own without a net: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

30.

Osgood

D. W.

Foster

E. M.

Flanagan

Ruth

G. R.

(2005b). Introduction: Why focus on the transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations? In Osgood

Foster

E. M.

Flanagan

Ruth

G. R.

(Eds.), On your own without a net: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

31.

Revell

Miller

L. A.

(2009). Navigating the world of adult services and benefits planning. In Wehman

Smith

M. D.

Schall

(Eds.), Autism and the transition to adulthood: Success beyond the classroom (pp. 139–162). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

32.

Stewart

Freeman

Healy

Burke-Gaffney

Forhan

Young

Guenther

(2012). Transition to adulthood for youth with disabilities: Evidence from the literature. In Stone

J. H.

Blouin

(Eds.), International encyclopedia of rehabilitation. Buffalo, NY: Center for International Rehabilitation Research Information and Exchange. Available at: Ahttp://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/110/.

33.

Stewart

Law

Rosenbaum

Willms

D. G.

(2001). A qualitative study of the transition to adulthood for youth with physical disabilities. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 21(4), 3–21.

34.

Tanner

J. L.

(2006). Recentering in emerging adulthood: A critical turning point in life span human development. In Arnett

J. J.

Tanner

J. L.

(Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 21-55). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

35.

Test

D. W.

Fowler

C. H.

Richter

S. M.

Mazzotti

White

Walker

A. R.

. . . Kortering

(2009). Evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 128–155. doi:10.1177/0885728809336859

36.

Trainor

A. A.

(2008). Using cultural and social capital to improve postsecondary outcomes and expand transition models for youth with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 148–162.

37.

Vander Stoep

Davis

Collins

(2000). Transition: A time of developmental and institutional clashes. In Clark

H. B.

Davis

(Eds.), Transition to adulthood: A resource for assisting young people with emotional or behavioral difficulties (pp. 3–28). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

38.

Wagner

(1995). Outcomes for youths with serious emotional disturbance in secondary school and early adulthood. The Future of Children, 5, 90–112.

39.

Wagner

(2005). Characteristics of out-of-school youth with disabilities. In Wagner

Newman

Cameto

Garza

Levine

(Eds.), After high school: A first look at the postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (pp. 2/1–2/8). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

40.

Wagner

Davis

(2006). How are we preparing students with emotional disturbances for the transition to young adulthood? Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14, 86–96.

41.

Wagner

Kutash

Duchnowski

A. J.

Epstein

M. H.

(2005). The Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS2): Study designs and implications for children and youth with emotional disturbances. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13, 25–41.

42.

Wagner

Marder

Levine

Cameto

Cadwallader

T. W.

Blackorby

. . . Newman

(2003). The individual and household characteristics of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

43.

Wagner

Newman

Cameto

Garza

Levine

(2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

44.

Wagner

Newman

Javitz

(2014). The influence of family socioeconomic status on the post-high school outcomes of youth with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 37, 5–17.

45.

Walters

Zanghi

Ansell

Armstrong

Sutter

(2011). Transition planning with adolescents: A review of principles and practices across systems. Tulsa, OK: National Resource Center for Youth Development.

46.

Ward

Mallett

Heslop

Simons

(2003). Transition planning: How well does it work for young people with learning disabilities and their families? British Journal of Special Education, 30, 132–137.

47.

Warger

(2003). Current research in post-school transition planning (ERIC/OSEP Digest, E652). Retrieved from http://eric.hoagiesgifted.org/e652.html

48.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

(2003). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive disabilities three years after high school: The impact of self-determination. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 131–144.

49.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Shogren

K. A.

Zager

Smith

T. E. C.

Simpson

(2010). Research-based principles and practices for educating students with autism: Self-determination and social interactions. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 475–486.

50.

Whittenburg

Golden

Fishman

(2002). Transition options for youth with disabilities: An overview of the programs and policies that affect the transition from school. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 17, 195–206.

51.

Young

N. L.

(2007). The transition to adulthood for children with cerebral palsy: What do we know about their health care needs. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics, 27, 476–479.

52.

Huang

Newman

(2008). Facts from NLTS2: Substance use among young adults with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.