Enhancing School to Career Placement and Success

for a learning disabled population making the

transition from a Residential Treatment Setting

By Susanne Beier, PhD., LPC, NCCC

High school graduation is a strong indicator of educational achievement for individuals and educational agencies. The importance of the high school graduation rate as an indicator of educational progress is stressed in several pieces of national legislation. Specifically, attention has focused on educating youths with disabilities. The Office of Special Education Program, in its 21st Annual Report to Congress, stated that during the school year 1998-99 a total of 184,075 disabled children aged 6-21 received special education services. Out of that total, .01% were placed in residential treatment facilities at a cost of $ 10,410.00 per student, not including another $ 30,000.00+ for residential expenses.

This focus on high school completion is driven by research showing that students with disabilities who complete high school are more likely to be employed and to enroll in post-secondary education and training and to earn higher wages (Wagner, Blackorby, Cameto, & Newman, 1993). According to Marder and D’Amico (1992), unemployment rates for dropouts with disabilities are up to 40% higher than rates for high school graduates without disabilities.

In the Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services of the U.S. Department of Education reported on students with disabilities exiting the education system. The report covered the school years 1997-98 and 1998-99 and included types of disabilities and reasons for leaving the system . The results showed that high school graduation rates for students with disabilities vary considerably by disability.

Among those least likely to graduate in 1998-99 were students with serious emotional disturbance. Only 16.2% of students with serious emotional disturbance graduated; students graduating with mental retardation were 26.1% and students graduating with multiple disabilities were 27%. The study indicates that the percentage of students with disabilities graduating with a standard diploma has increased gradually, from 23.5% in 1994 to 25.5% in 2000 (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System, 2001). These youths report a greater need for transitioning services that focus on career counseling and in obtaining and maintaining employment (Wright & Wright, 1999).

The role of the federal government in youth policy, particularly in residential education policy, has been limited to targeted programs. State and local governments have been considered the most appropriate units to develop and implement residential policies. Residential treatment programs have received the broadest financial support, but developmentally oriented residential education programs are still isolated (Goldsmith & Hahn, 1996).

Adolescents with disabilities transitioning from institutional care to independent living are assisted by multiple agencies. Indicators are that these transitional services are fragmented and do not adequately meet the needs of students who need to develop self-reliance in order to operate outside of the residential system. The career counselor, or other professionals with the training and expertise, could provide the coordination needed to assist students transitioning from the security of residential services to the complex world of career and independence.

Although federal and state mandates require that transition services include a variety of activities in addition to academics and must include vocational goals, most secondary programs that serve students with special needs focus almost exclusively on academics within general education graduation requirements. In a rehabilitative residential setting such as the United Residential Treatment Center (fictitious name), there is a strong tendency to address mainly the residents’ lack in academic skills and provide them with psychotherapeutic support. Transition plans for these students provide few, if any, recommendations for other types of transition services such as vocational or career counseling (Collet-Klingenberg, 1998).

While the participants of a descriptive case study, conducted by this author, received multiple system intervention, ultimately the systems failed 7 of the 10 students. A total of 37 case managers (not including this career counselor) provided services to the senior class of 1999. Throughout each client’s stay, any focus related to treatment and post-agency transitional goals was primarily centered on stabilizing behaviors and making arrangements for family reunification or independent living situations. However, job and educational program decisions were not considered until 3 months prior to graduation.

Based on the data collected, including the peer reviewer’s perspective, it appears that, although there were numerous agencies and systems in place, the fragmentation of services provided and the lack of interagency services coordination ultimately failed the majority of the participants.

It is a significant loss to the community when dollars and time are spent on programs and services with no viable returns to society, especially the individuals receiving the services. This case study showed that there were 37 different agents involved in providing final year transitional services to a group of 10 graduating seniors. Out of the 10 graduates, only 3 transitioned successfully. Although there were many people involved in providing services, there was no critical central coordination of those services. A career counselor, or someone equally qualified, would be the perfect person to serve as a central agent coordinating services and programs.

The study included parents and grandparents as participants. From a potential of eight parents and two grandparents, only one parent and the two grandparents followed through and became participants. The low parental participation reinforces the urgency of having a career counselor, or someone equally qualified, provide career and life skills training (a role normally assumed by the parent) to this population.

One member of the class of 1999, coupled with the findings of the study conducted by this author, offers evidence for the urgency of having a central agent, the career counselor or someone equally qualified, serve as the central coordinator of school to career transition services. Jenna K. was left without a residential place or a job to which to transition. She had been scheduled to reunify with her family and move back home. The week before graduation, her mother changed her mind and withdrew her offer for Jenna to move home. As a result, Jenna remained on campus for 3 months without a program. She could not participate in the educational program at the facility because she had already graduated and there was no job available to her on-site. She had reached age 18 and therefore was considered emancipated. Her DYFS case manager told her that she had to have a job to be able to live independently and continue receiving any monetary supplemental support. She was told that she could not receive DVR supported employment services because she did not have a permanent address which was necessary to determine which local DVR office would be providing job assistance services. None of the agencies was able to budge on the rules applicable to qualification for their established program procedures.

Jenna is one of many examples that demonstrate the societal-wide impact of not properly planning and coordinating final year school-to-career transition services. Instead of experiencing the success of becoming self-sufficient and a productive member of society, she had nowhere to go. She moved from the Public Education System to the Social Welfare System instead of experiencing the personal pride of being able to support herself and becoming self-sufficient. Her experience demonstrates that there exists a fragmentation of services mandated by federal and state law designed to assist with a smooth final-year transition for students such as the ones examined in this study.

Additionally, Jenna’s case study shows that there is a need to centralize transition systems and case managers responsible for implementing federal and state final year school to career transition services. This is necessary not only for the emotional health of the students transitioning but also for the financial health of the agencies mandated to provide those services. Agencies such as the Department of Education are ultimately financially accountable to their local community and its taxpayers who are paying for these services out of their real estate taxes. For example, in 1999, the cost per pupil was

$ 10,410.00 per year (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). This figure does not include per client cost spent by the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). Since there was a total of 10 members in the senior class of 1999, out of which 7 did not successfully transition from residential treatment to independent living, over $70,000 was unproductively spent for the school year 1998-1999. Clearly, this means that the stakeholders examined in this descriptive study, the Department of Education, (DOE), the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), and the residential treatment centers need to improve the service delivery system. However, this is only possible if the systems involved better coordinate and identify one agent to centralize services as an integral part of the overall transition mandates.