An Analysis of Collaboration in a State-Level Interagency Transition Team

Abstract

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.

Keywords

interagency collaboration research systems change/policy

Effective and dynamic collaboration among agencies, family members, and students is an ongoing process that is necessary for successfully preparing young adults with disabilities for their transition to adult life (Morningstar, Kleinhammer-Tramill, & Lattin, 1999; Kleinhammer-Tramill, Rosenkoetter, & Tramill, 1994; Noyes & Sax, 2004). Furthermore, collaboration is legally required by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, which mandates that transition services must be coordinated and must involve a results-oriented process. This provision implies the involvement of outside agencies in accessing services needed after leaving school. Transition services are focused on improving academic and functional achievement of students with disabilities to facilitate their movement from school to postschool activities (IDEA, 2004). These requirements support the notion that transition planning is an interagency endeavor (Agran, Cain, & Cavin, 2002) and “improved postschool outcomes are the driving force and focal point of a free, appropriate public education for students with disabilities” (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000, p. 510). The ultimate goal of collaboration is to produce a seamless transition for students from one agency to the next, thereby providing needed supports with minimum disruption of services (Halpern, 1994).

Prior research has identified elements of successful collaboration. It evolves over time through the involvement of multiple agencies, such as businesses, health care providers, social services, and educators (Johnson, Zorn, Yung Tam, Lamontagne, & Johnson, 2003). Each agency participates within its own system and at its own pace, while continually working toward providing better services in collaboration with others (Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 1994; Timmons, Cohen, & Fesko, 2004). Successful interagency collaboration needs to be sustained, systemic, and characterized by the following: (a) key positions jointly funded by education and adult services, (b) monthly interagency planning meetings, (c) cross-agency training opportunities, and (d) the use of a variety of practices with collaboration and team building (Benz et al., 2000; Hasazi, Furney, & DeStefano, 1999). One study identified seven interrelated factors related to successful interagency collaboration: (a) commitment, (b) communication, (c) strong leadership from key decision makers, (d) understanding the culture of other agencies, (e) engaging in serious preplanning, (f) providing adequate resources for collaboration, and (g) minimizing turf issues (Johnson et al., 2003). When agencies collaborate, they function as one entity and are actively engaged in problem solving, information sharing, and merging of resources (Cashman, 1995; deFur, 1997). Members of the transition team are able to make better decisions, as the collective knowledge of the group provides more alternatives than any single entity acting alone (deFur, 1997). Although we have a better understanding of elements of successful collaboration, there is a scarcity of research evaluating specific interventions to develop or increase collaboration, particularly at the state level.

State Transition Teams

One prominent model of transition teams (Wehman, 1998) suggests three levels: a state interagency task force, local-level interagency teams, and individual transition teams (i.e., Individualized Education Program [IEP] teams). These teams work together to change policy through responding to the needs at the local level and enable simultaneous problem solving at multiple levels. A striated use of teaming (e.g., student, district, state) appears to be important for changing policies and impacting change on a systemwide level (Blalock, 1996; Wehman, 1998).

A qualitative study of high-performing Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and State Education Agencies (SEAs) in interagency collaboration spanning five diverse State identified state transition teams as one possible strategy for increasing interagency collaboration (Noonan, 2004). State transition teams typically include state-level policy makers representing the broad array of agencies with which students with disabilities come into contact on a regular basis; they are a place to share resources, network, and develop state policy. Furthermore, such teams engage in collaborative activities through jointly planning activities and developing mutually beneficial goals for the various state agencies. Results suggest that the formation of a state transition team serves a number of purposes, including (a) providing expertise and partnerships, (b) acquiring external funding, (c) gaining local input, (d) providing ongoing support and training, and (e) disseminating information to a variety of stakeholders. In addition, state transition teams facilitate both state and local-level interagency collaboration with outside agencies, family representatives, and national experts (Noonan, 2004).

Although many states have developed state-level transition teams for the purposes of improving transition outcomes—efforts that have been facilitated by national organizations, such as the National Secondary and Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC, http://www.nsttac.org)—there is a lack of data evaluating their effectiveness in promoting interagency collaboration. Given the current state of limited resources and staffing at the state level, it is important to investigate the collaborative elements of state transition teaming.

Thus, the present study was based on the following research questions:

Research Question 1: To what extent did collaboration change among members of the state transition team?

Research Question 2: What collaborative capacities and strategies account for the team’s change in collaboration?

Method

The purposes of this study were to examine changes in collaboration among members of a state-level transition team and to better understand the capacities and strategies that facilitate collaboration among such groups. The mixed-method study design included two procedures: social network analysis (Daly, 2010; Knoke & Yang, 2008) and focus group analysis (Krueger & Casey, 2000). First, social network analysis was used as a methodology to describe interconnections among a set of group members. It is typically used to detect and explain the occurrence of different communication structures and their consequences (Knoke & Yang, 2008). One of the important assumptions in social networking is that structural relations among different entities are often more important for observing behaviors than attributes such as age, gender, ethnicity, or other predicted variables. Rather than using a set of attributes for predicting outcome variables, social network analysis highlights the explanatory power of associations or relations between entities, either in a specific group or across different groups, to understand individual and group behavior. Therefore, social networking can model changes in associations among different entities.

Second, to better understand the change in collaboration, researchers conducted a focus group with the state transition team. Focus groups are considered a form of in-depth interview methodology (Krueger & Casey, 2000; Marshall & Rossman, 2010) and have been defined as “carefully planned discussions designed to obtain perceptions on a defined area of interest” (Krueger, 1988, p. 18). This method of group interview is based on the assumption that people often need to listen and communicate with others to form their own opinions (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). Focus groups also allow researchers flexibility to explore unanticipated issues that arise in the discussion, and the results have high face validity due to easily understood methods (Marshall & Rossman, 1995).

Participants

The state transition team in the present study is in a Midwestern state and was formed in 2008. The majority of members have participated continuously from the group’s inception. In January, 2011, 10 members of the team completed a pre–post rating scale on their level of collaboration and participated in a focus group. Participants represented 10 state agencies: Parent Training and Information Center, Higher Education, Department of Mental Health, Adult Education-Statewide Employment Assessment Program, Regional Professional Development Center, IDEA Compliance and Effective Practices, Extended Employment/Sheltered Workshops, Vocational Rehabilitation, Department of Corrections, and Guidance: Office of College and Career Readiness.

Data Collection Procedures

After gaining approval from state transition team representatives and the University Human Subjects Committee (HSCL#19190), researchers scheduled a time for data collection during the state transition team’s regular bimonthly meeting. Both quantitative social networking data and qualitative focus group data were collected during this time.

Social network procedures

Knoke and Yang (2008) defined a social network as a structure depicting interconnections among a set of members or actors. For the social network analysis, participants rated their level of collaboration with other agencies prior to joining the state transition team and their current level of collaboration after being on the team. Researchers in a variety of fields have argued that collaboration develops in distinct stages (deFur, 1997; Dunst & Bruder, 2002; Frey, Lohmeier, Lee, & Tollefson, 2006; Gajda, 2004; Hogue, 1993; Peterson, 1991). For this study, Frey et al.’s (2006) five-stage model was adopted: (a) networking, (b) cooperation, (c) coordination, (d) coalition, and (e) collaboration. The first stage, networking, is characterized by awareness of the organization, loosely defined roles, and low levels of communication for the purposes of referral only. Cooperation includes providing information to each other, having somewhat defined roles, and carrying out independent decision making and formal communication. Coordination involves the sharing of information and resources, defined roles, frequent communication, and some shared decision making. The fourth stage, coalition, can be characterized by shared ideas, shared resources, frequent prioritized communication, and shared decision making. The highest level is collaboration with members belonging to one system, frequent communication with mutual trust, and consensus reached on all decisions. The intensity or the strength of interaction between pairs of state team members was measured by a 6-point scale questionnaire from 0 (no interaction at all) through the five stages of collaboration (see Table 1 for the instrument).

Table 1.

State Community Transition Team Levels of Collaboration Scale

	Five levels of collaboration and their characteristics
Please review these descriptions of different levels of collaboration.
• On the response section at the bottom of the page, please circle the name of the organization or group with which you are associated.
• Using the scale provided, please indicate the extent to which you currently interact with each partner.
	Networking 1	Cooperation 2	Coordination 3	Coalition 4	Collaboration 5
Relationship characteristics	• Aware of organization	• Provide information to each other	• Share information and resources	• Share ideas	• Members belong to one system
	• Loosely defined roles	• Somewhat defined roles	• Defined roles	• Share resources	• Frequent communication is characterized by mutual trust
	• Little communication	• Formal communication	• Frequent communication	• Frequent and prioritized communication	• Consensus is reached on all decisions
	• All decisions are made independently	• All decisions are made independently	• Some shared decision making	• All members have a vote in decision making
Partners	No interaction at all	Networking	Cooperation	Coordination	Coalition	Collaboration
Higher Education	0	1	2	3	4	5
Department of Mental Health	0	1	2	3	4	5
State Office of College and Career Readiness	0	1	2	3	4	5
Regional Professional Development Center	0	1	2	3	4	5
Division of Workforce Development	0	1	2	3	4	5
State Special Education	0	1	2	3	4	5
Sheltered Workshops	0	1	2	3	4	5
Vocational Rehabilitation	0	1	2	3	4	5
Department of Corrections	0	1	2	3	4	5
Adult Education	0	1	2	3	4	5
State Guidance and Counseling Office	0	1	2	3	4	5

Note: IDEA = Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act. Adapted from “Levels of Collaboration Survey,” by B. B. Frey, J. H. Lohmeier, S. W. Lee, and N. Tollefson, 2006, p. 387.

Focus group procedures

To better understand the change in the level of collaboration, researchers gathered data on the collaborative capacities and strategies of the state team. Recommended practices in conducting focus groups were followed by (a) having participants introduce themselves, (b) calling on respondents who were not participating, (c) periodically asking for round robin responses, and (d) including broad, overarching questions (Krueger, 1988). Although Krueger calls for limiting the number of participants to a maximum of seven, it was determined that the group would be most comfortable interacting in the typical format of their meetings; thus, the entire team of 10 members took part in the focus group. It lasted 85 min and was recorded. Interview questions were designed to elicit thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973) of (a) the origins, structure, and activities of the state transition team and (b) collaborative capacities and strategies (see Table 2 for focus group questions). Probes and follow-up questions were used to clarify and expand on specific issues as they emerged from the discussion.

Table 2.

State Transition Team Focus Group Questions

Part 1: Describing the state transition team

1. What are the goals of your state transition team? What is its purpose?

2. What has the team accomplished so far?

3. Describe how you collaborate with entities outside of the state transition team. How has collaboration changed/increased with staff/agencies/entities not formally included in the state transition team?

Part 2: Collaboration in the state transition team

1. Think back to before the state transition team started (or before you became involved in the group). Describe the collaboration among members before. How has collaboration changed since then (or since you first joined)?

2. Describe examples of collaboration within the state transition team. Prompts for different realms of collaboration: How do members share information, ideas, and resources? (awareness of organization, sharing of information and resources, belonging to one system)

• How are members’ roles defined within the state transition team? (loosely defined, somewhat defined, completely defined)

• Describe how much communication occurs among members? (little communication, formal communication, frequent communication, prioritized communication, communication characterized by mutual trust)

• How are decisions made within the state transition team? (decisions made independently, some shared decision making, all members have a vote in decision making, consensus is reached on all decisions)

3. What is the process that the state transition team has adopted to encourage collaboration? What are the procedures? Is there a formal structure in place to support collaboration?

Analysis

The social networking data and focus group data were analyzed separately. Analysis of focus group data was used to explain changes in collaboration uncovered by the social network analysis.

Social network analysis

For the social networking data, Ucinet 6 was applied to conduct the univariate and descriptive analyses before and after participation in the state transition team. Analysis was directed at assessing change in collaboration over time as a group as well as at understanding two fundamental relational forms: (a) the intensity, frequency, or strength of interaction between pairs of team members and (b) the direction of relations between dyad members (Durland & Fredericks, 2005; Knoke & Yang, 2008). Analyses were conducted for both senders (i.e., participants’ self-ratings of their collaboration with other agencies) and receivers (i.e., other participants’ ratings of the collaboration with a given agency). In social network analysis, relations are considered to be nondirected or directed (Knoke & Yang, 2008). Nondirected relations refer to data that are symmetric, so the strength of interactions between the dyads is interchangeable; directed relations refer to data that are asymmetric, so the strength of interaction is not interchangeable. The data collected in our analysis are considered in terms of ties: the connections or relationships between individuals. If there is no tie, no relationship or connection between the individuals and their agencies exist. Whereas social network analysis typically focuses only on the presence or absence of a tie, the analysis in this study also includes the relative strength of each tie as measured on the collaboration scale (Frey et al., 2006).

The social network analysis consisted of two primary steps: descriptive analyses and hypothesis testing. First, descriptive analyses, including the mean, standard deviation, sum of ties, and minimum and maximum ties, were conducted to compare and contrast the results. A univariate analysis was performed to obtain the descriptive analysis before and after involvement with the state team. For directed relations, the actors in the rows are initiators or senders, and the actors in the columns are terminators or receivers of the relations; therefore, the descriptive analyses were conducted from both senders’ and receivers’ perspectives. The mean, standard deviation, sum of ties, and minimum and maximum ties have been reported. Those statistics from pre- and posttraining are reported in the same table to compare and contrast the results. Second, researchers tested for a significant change in the density (average strength of ties across all relations) of the network before and after the formation of the team. Density refers to the average strength of ties across all relations, and the test determined whether the density of relations for different agencies differed significantly (Knoke & Yang, 2008). In other words, this procedure tested whether the average strength of ties across all relations before involvement with the state transition team was significantly different from the average after being involved with the team. Statistics from standard and bootstrap approaches were calculated. As the data set was not normally distributed, the standard approach would greatly underestimate the true sampling variability and give a result that is too optimistic in rejecting the null hypothesis that the two densities are the same. Thus, the bootstrap method was reported to illustrate the t value, p value, and confidence interval of the t value.

Focus group analysis

The audio recording of the focus group was transcribed by a research assistant, and the transcription was systematically audited by the researchers to ensure accuracy. After an initial review, one researcher conducted line-by-line coding to ensure an exhaustive list of topics. Like codes were then collapsed to generate an initial list of categorical codes. These initial categories were further refined by summarizing all statements pertaining to a given code and then looking across codes for overlap in definitions. Finally, codes were examined in relation to previous research on characteristics of collaboration generally (e.g., Frey et al., 2006), characteristics of interagency collaboration for early childhood special education (Johnson et al., 2003), and characteristics of interagency collaboration in transition (Noonan et al., 2008). Using the categorical codes, transcripts were independently analyzed by the researchers in advance of a meeting to reach a consensus of categories and codes. Any coded segments of the transcript that the researchers did not agree on immediately were discussed, and a consensus was reached. The coding process resulted in a final list of five collaborative capacities and four collaborative activities.

Throughout the focus group analysis, trustworthiness (Guba, 1981) was verified using a variety of methods: (a) member checks, (b) audits, and (c) code–recode cycles. These methods promote high quality results and rigorous design throughout the qualitative research process (Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002). Research records and documentation were reviewed repeatedly to prevent personal bias or prejudice. It is the researchers’ intention that results be easily understood, highly substantiated, and replicable.

Social Network Analysis Results

For the social network analysis, descriptive statistics illustrated increases in the average tie between members, revealing that the participation in a state transition team improved the individual connections between the organizations (pre M = 1.33, post M = 2.41). Furthermore, a bootstrap paired sample t test showed that participation in a state transition team significantly improved the density (level of collaboration) of its members as a whole.

Table 3 includes the descriptive statistics before and after the state transition team participation. The first block indicates the mean, standard deviation, sum, minimum, and maximum tie each individual organization received; the second block provides the same information but from the perspective of the sender of information; the third block describes the strength of the network as a whole. For both the pre- and postsurveys, there were nine observations (i.e., one for each of the other members) ranging from a minimum score of 0 or maximum score of 5. The sum is the total number of ties one sent or received. Results indicate a high level of variability across team members. Some received more information than they sent, whereas others sent more information than they received. For example, the Parent Training and Information Center sent the most ties prior to participation in the state transition team, but after involvement, Higher Education and Vocational Rehabilitation became the primary senders (i.e., agencies that initiated collaborative efforts). The three primary receivers (i.e., agencies that were requested to participate in collaborative efforts) remained the same (i.e., IDEA Compliance and Effective Practices, Vocational Rehabilitation, and Department of Mental Health), but the strength of their relationships increased through participation in the state transition team.

Table 3.

Descriptive Analysis Before and After the State Transition Team

	Pre					Post
	M	SD	Sum	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD	Sum	Minimum	Maximum
Receiver
1	1.00	0.82	9.00	0.00	2.00	2.05	1.42	18.50	0.00	4.00
2	0.22	0.42	2.00	0.00	1.00	0.88	0.77	8.00	0.00	2.00
3	2.06	1.46	18.50	0.00	5.00	3.06	1.26	27.50	1.50	5.00
4	0.64	0.78	5.80	0.00	2.00	2.52	1.33	22.70	0.00	5.00
5	2.00	1.43	18.00	0.00	5.00	2.94	1.21	26.50	1.00	5.00
6	2.33	1.70	21.00	0.00	5.00	3.22	1.32	29.00	1.00	5.00
7	1.11	0.99	10.00	0.00	3.00	1.94	1.01	17.50	0.00	3.00
8	2.16	1.20	19.50	0.00	4.00	3.06	1.30	27.50	0.00	4.00
9	0.67	0.94	6.00	0.00	3.00	2.00	0.82	18.00	1.00	3.00
10	1.11	0.84	10.00	0.00	2.50	2.44	1.44	22.00	0.00	5.00
Sender
1	2.22	1.35	20.00	0.00	5.00	3.00	1.16	27.00	2.00	5.00
2	0.78	0.79	7.00	0.00	2.00	3.78	0.63	34.00	3.00	5.00
3	1.11	1.37	10.00	0.00	4.00	2.11	1.20	19.00	0.00	4.00
4	1.00	0.85	9.00	0.00	2.50	1.67	1.22	15.00	0.50	4.00
5	1.33	0.94	12.00	0.00	3.00	2.22	0.42	20.00	2.00	3.00
6	1.00	0.81	9.00	0.00	2.50	2.22	0.42	20.00	1.50	3.00
7	0.67	1.05	6.00	0.00	3.00	1.78	1.03	16.00	1.00	4.00
8	1.44	0.96	13.00	0.00	3.00	3.22	1.47	29.00	0.00	5.00
9	1.67	2.36	15.00	0.00	5.00	1.67	2.35	15.00	0.00	5.00
10	2.09	1.00	18.80	1.00	4.00	2.47	0.95	22.20	1.00	4.00
Total	1.33	1.32	119.80	0.00	5.00	2.41	1.39	217.20	0.00	5.00

Note: 1 = Parent Training Information Center; 2 = Higher Education; 3 = Department of Mental Health; 4 = Adult Education; 5 = Regional Professional Development Center; 6 = Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) Compliance and Effective Practices; 7 = Sheltered Workshop; 8 = Vocational Rehabilitation; 9 = Department of Corrections; 10 = Guidance, Office of College and Career Reading.

Clearly, the average strength of the collaborative network increased (pre M = 1.33, post M = 2.41). Before participation in the state transition team, the 10 agencies collaborated largely at the networking level, which is characterized by awareness of the organization, loosely defined roles, and low levels of communication for the purposes of referral only. Participation in the state transition team improved the individual connections among the organizations and increased the level of collaboration to 2.41, or halfway between cooperation (i.e., providing information to each other, somewhat defined roles, independent decision making and formal communication) and coordination (i.e., sharing information and resources, defined roles, frequent communication, and some shared decision making). The difference between the density of the network before and after participation in the state transition team was 1.082, indicating a p value significant at the .001 level with 95% confidence (see Table 4). Thus, participation in a state transition team significantly improved the density (level of collaboration) of relations between its members and of the network as a whole.

Table 4.

Bootstrap Paired-Sample t Test

Density (pre)	Density (post)	Difference	SE	p value	CI (for the difference)
1.331	2.413	1.082	0.191	<.001	[0.709, 1.455]

Note: CI = 95% confidence interval.

Focus Group Results

Through analyzing the focus group data, two primary themes were identified: collaborative capacities and collaborative strategies. Collaborative capacities refer to constitutive processes or characteristics internal to the group that facilitate its durability as a functioning entity. Five capacities were identified: variety of partnerships, relationships, time together, shared vision, and shared leadership. Collaborative strategies refer to the substantive collaborative activities of the group that constitute its core pragmatic functions and enable it to function as a successful state-level interagency transition team. Four strategies were identified: site visits, joint planning, joint training, and sharing information. The various capacities and strategies are reported separately for clarity of presentation and to provide sufficient detail on each; however, it should be noted that the collaborative features overlap, interrelate, and mutually reinforce one another. For example, relationships among team members were strengthened through time together during meetings, site visits, and joint planning and training activities.

Collaborative Capacities

Variety of partnerships

A defining feature of any state-level interagency transition team is the inclusion of representatives from a range of agencies, all of which provide support to individuals with disabilities (Noonan et al., 2008). When the state transition team discussed was originally conceived in 2007, it was a group internal to the state department of education; one participant noted that the team has enabled her to build “working relationship[s]” with personnel and programs within the department of education with an interest in transition. However, discussion during early meetings identified the need for additional team members from a wider range of agencies, such as Vocational Rehabilitation, the Department of Corrections, and the Department of Mental Health. Between 2008 and 2011, the team expanded to include representation from 10 agencies. In general, the partnerships created through the state transition team have enabled members to have an “increased awareness that there are opportunities to collaborate on projects and initiatives that they might not have thought about before.” A member from the state Vocational Rehabilitation agency noted that, as a result of the knowledge and connections, she gained from interactions with multiple agency representatives on the team, she was able to lead her agency’s staff in providing more comprehensive transition supports (e.g., futures planning, transition resources, understanding strengths) to their clients and their families. The variety of agencies represented on the team contributed to additional benefits for several other collaborative capacities and strategies. For example, the expansion of membership resulted in a broader shared vision for students with disabilities, directed at improving transition education and services across agencies by, for example, streamlining data systems that were maintained separately for different agencies. The wider range of partnerships also enabled new forms of information sharing. In early 2008, one member developed an information sheet for all membership to complete and used this information to develop an agency resource binder. The information sheet asked participants for contact information, agency services and eligibility, and skills (i.e., design skills, web development, and knowledge of other languages) that members could contribute to realizing the group’s vision. Basic information was listed on the State Special Education website, and expanded information was archived on a password-protected online community of practice. Finally, participants noted that a key benefit of the variety of partnerships was the formation of strong relationships that helped separate members envision the range of possibilities for collaboration on projects.

Relationships

A close corollary to the range of partnerships is the relationships that team members have developed through their interactions with group members: Positive, collaborative relationships are essential to the functioning of the state transition team. One participant noted that the relationships among members were a “strength of the team.” Another discussed the role of trust in developing and strengthening relationships among members:

Trust … makes someone a lot more likely to invest time and effort in something. We’ve all been on those committees where you know so-and-so’s never going to follow through … Well, I don’t think that’s … the case with this group [because] we can count on each other to follow through with what we said we were going to do, and luckily and through our hard work, we’ve seen some results.

According to another member, before forming the state transition team, collaboration might occur for a single initiative, “and then once that [initiative] went away, the collaboration kind of went with it.” In contrast, the durable relationships developed by team members ensured that collaboration continued after particular initiatives concluded. Cooperation was another key element of the relationships among members. One member noted that, in contrast to other activities involving multiple agencies in which “it was more of one-upmanship type of thing,” in the state transition team, “It’s not about a competition. It’s about getting the job done.” One participant discussed how relationships led members to view their work as a common enterprise: “It … goes back to the old saying [that] it really does take a village to a raise a child, and … when it comes to transition, I think [the state transition team] is a village.” Finally, several members noted that strong relationships were forged early on through time together during site visits to members’ agencies and that relationships were important for sharing information with constituents in their various organizations.

Time together

At a fundamental level, any successful interagency team must have members who commit to attending meetings and other team activities. Participants noted that team members rarely missed a meeting across the 4 years the group has been in existence. According to one member, “We keep showing up. We keep coming back to the table, and I think that’s one of the key things, because you can have partners fade out easily. That’s probably been a strength: longevity.” Members spent time together not only at regular meetings but also by visiting sites of other member agencies, traveling to and attending conferences and training events together, and planning initiatives together. Time together among representatives from various agencies helped strengthen relationships among members; all of these elements helped strengthen members’ commitment to the team’s shared vision.

Shared vision

The state transition team’s vision was initially established during a retreat in the team’s 1st year. One member noted that this “strategic planning” was critical to the success of the group. First and foremost, the group’s vision included a commitment to transition. One participant noted that all team members shared a recognition of a “need to do something” about transition. Another member said that the team is “a diverse group of people who value transition [and] ultimately our purpose is to find ways to improve student outcomes for graduation and dropout and employability and transition planning.” The shared vision also included collaborating and “listen[ing] to the different groups [and] the problems, the impediments, in order to carry out a smooth transition.” One participant described the vision of the group in terms of its structure and process: “It’s more of a centralized entity where we can talk about various projects and get more viewpoints [and] more involvement.” In general, participants noted that members were able to make their various organizations’ initiatives secondary to the larger shared vision of the team. The state transition team continues to meet for an annual retreat once per year away from their typical meeting place where the team revisits its vision and primary goals. Efforts at realizing this shared vision take place through shared leadership.

Shared leadership

Shared leadership occurred within the state transition team by its approach to decision making: “Decisions are made by the group.” This typically occurred through a consensus-building process: According to one member, “the definition of consensus is that you’ve agreed on something everyone can live with …So I think that’s what we do.” To reach consensus, the group participated in “brainstorming and voting” activities. When addressing team activities, members generally volunteered to take on leadership roles with particular initiatives based on their individual strengths and expertise: “Everybody feels empowered to jump in and commit to whatever they feel they can bring to the table.” Shared leadership has benefitted local teams, as well. As one participant noted, “When local teams see a state team that’s working together, it can be very inspirational to them … We’re modeling [and that] is not typical of a lot of states.” Team members practiced shared leadership across a range of collaborative strategies, such as planning and helping deliver the state’s transition conference and leading visits to members’ local sites.

Collaborative Strategies

Site visits

Early on in the state transition team’s existence, participants expressed the need for more information about other agencies’ local-level services as well as highlighting exemplars in the state. The group visited several sites, including a women’s prison, vocational training centers, career and technical education schools, and a school store operated by high school students with disabilities. Several focus group participants commented on the benefits of this activity. One participant said site visits helped because they put members in direct contact with students with disabilities and their programs:

When you actually go out and put the faces to it, it’s different than when you sit and talk about transition in the broad abstract. When you see real people, and you see what’s happening in the one-stop shops [and] the career center … I think that’s a plus because you realize this is about people.

Another participant described how the site visits helped her see the big picture of transition throughout the state, “That was very eye-opening because it gave us the opportunity to see different pieces [which helped us see the] whole piece and how everybody fits into the process.” Finally, one member noted the impact the site visits (i.e., field trips) had on relationship building among members: “I think those field trips we took [strengthened] the relationships of the group.”

Joint planning

Joint planning was identified as a key strategy of the state transition team, and activities related to two initiatives—collaboration with the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students With Disabilities (NDPC-SD) to reduce the dropout rate among students with disabilities and the implementation of a statewide, online career exploration and planning tool—illustrate the collaborative nature of their work. Annually at their retreat, state transition team members reviewed statewide data from multiple agencies, generated and prioritized needs, and then developed an action plan to best target areas of need. As a result of one annual joint planning, members promoted the idea of working with the NDPC-SD, which led to interagency presentations advocating for statewide dropout prevention to “all three assistant commissioners.” These activities led to the establishment of statewide joint training (see below), and “several people here actually went and sat in on those trainings as a collaborative effort.” Joint planning also occurred during annual visits to the NSTTAC’s State Planning Institute. After another joint planning session, training on the career exploration tool was conducted with Department of Education staff, local school district personnel, Vocational Rehabilitation staff, Department of Mental Health staff, and school counselors. A member representing school counselors noted that this process has “spread out much more fully the idea of individualized planning.” Whereas initial training gave the impression that the tool was “just for the counselors, … with all these other groups coming in, I think we’re getting a broader vision of what individual planning is and how it does affect all students.” Finally, one participant noted that joint training helped build a strong collaborative relationship between staff at the Department of Mental Health and Vocational Rehabilitation.

Joint training

State transition team activities related to joint training took on two forms: (a) partnering with national organizations and (b) providing in-state training, often conducted through conferences, with members from two or more member agencies. Members partnered with national organizations, such as the NDPC-SD and the NSTTAC, by attending those entities’ conferences and by inviting their speakers to attend state functions.

Joint training activities were beneficial for carrying out a range of initiatives developed by the team. For example, members from the state Department of Education, Vocational Rehabilitation, and the Guidance department provided training in the use of a statewide career assessment system, an online career exploration tool that has been used statewide. In addition, members from the Department of Corrections, Vocational Rehabilitation, and the Department of Education presented information about their agencies to local community transition teams. Similarly, members from the Department of Education collaborated with members from the Department of Corrections to offer training on transition compliance for staff working with incarcerated students. Furthermore, team members worked with the state Career and Technical Education organization to share information and encourage staff to participate at other agencies’ conferences (e.g., the Department of Education’s State Transition Institute, the Career and Technical Education Conference). When the Department of Mental Health staff attended the state transition institute, it was the first education conference many had attended, and “there were some real concrete relationships that formed as a result of them attending the Institute.” One member noted that attending other agencies’ conference

opens up the lines of communication, and people start to learn what each other is all about and what kind of services that they can piggy-back off of … I continue to hear people talk about that experience.

Finally, trainings with outside agencies sometimes occurred during meetings, when outside speakers were brought in to brief the group on timely transition topics. One participant summarized the benefits of joint training:

We all look at everything from our perspective [of] what we do for transition, and we don’t realize that there are whole parallel groups of people out there who are also working to accomplish the same thing … This has allowed us to say, “Okay, you’re doing that. Maybe we can do a joint training or maybe there are things we can share …,” which makes us all stronger.

Sharing information

Sharing information refers to how the state transition team has enabled information to be shared across organizational boundaries. Members noted that, as a result of their participation, they were better able to refer questions and concerns to the appropriate transition personnel and organizations. For instance, one Department of Education member said,

Working in compliance, you get lots of questions about lots of things, and I can point people in school districts or parents to other agencies, because I know more about what they do now than I did before and hopefully help them make good connections for their kids as well. And that’s something I use just about daily and that’s probably had the biggest influence on my job.

Another member noted the benefit for local-level staff with whom she works: When local agency staff contact member organizations with

questions, I’m pretty confident that I’m going to get a good answer, and I feel like you all really are giving good information back. And I don’t think it’s always been the case in the area of transition … That’s really been a benefit to every school district I’m sure in the state.

Similarly, a member from Vocational Rehabilitation said,

I think [the state transition team] just kind of brought things a little more together and gave us additional resources, additional contacts, and people that we could get to when we needed to for questions, and better information for our clients.

Finally, a participant said that the group “has been very, very helpful … for passing on what we’ve learned to people in the field … and start doing the work at the local level.”

Discussion

This mixed-method study showed that the state transition team increased collaboration among members through a variety of collaborative capacities and strategies. The social network analysis results confirm that state transition teams can be a mechanism to significantly increase the level of collaboration at the state level among diverse agencies. During this time of decreased resources and growing workloads, it is important to understand that participating in the state transition team created stronger ties between individual agencies and a denser overall network. These stronger ties can be characterized on the collaboration scale (Frey et al., 2006) as halfway between cooperation (i.e., providing information to each other, somewhat defined roles, independent decision making and formal communication) and coordination (i.e., sharing information and resources, defined roles, frequent communication, and some shared decision making). Furthermore, focus group results identified five collaborative capacities and four collaborative strategies of the state transition team that accounted for the increase in collaboration. These nine features can be replicated, revised, and expanded by other state teams to increase collaboration and further their efforts to improve postschool outcomes for students with disabilities.

Limitations and Implications for Research

These results should be interpreted with two important limitations in mind. First, both the social network and focus group data reported here were collected after the state team had been active for multiple years. Future research should document changes in collaboration over time by collecting data at the inception of the team with additional data collection periodically throughout its developmental course. Second, in keeping with the proposed research purposes, the present study looked only at the activities of the state team in isolation from their impact on local-level practices. The impact of state-level policies and practices on local-level stakeholders is a topic that requires future research and careful consideration. Two conceptual frameworks for conducting future research include local-level sensemaking and systems change.

Local-level sensemaking

Results reported here point toward further research examining how state-level activities are translated into practice at the local level. The work of James Spillane and colleagues (Spillane, 1998; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002; Spillane & Zeuli, 1999) offers one framework for understanding how state and federal policy is interpreted and implemented by local stakeholders. Spillane’s work shows that staff at the district and classroom level interprets state and federal policy initiatives in different ways depending on, for example, their formal and informal contact (i.e., the nature of their social networks) with colleagues and policy makers. When teachers interpret policy, they engage in sensemaking, and “sensemaking activity is distributed in the interactive web of administrators, teachers, students, and their situation” (Spillane et al., 2002, p. 412). Research on sensemaking has implications for the ways that community transition teams, transition coordinators, and special education teachers carry out the policy shaped by state transition teams.

The results reported focused exclusively on the activities of state policy makers, and their efforts to increase collaboration within the team; future research should explore “the interplay between the policies that attempt to direct local action and the ways in which that direction is constructed by locals” (Spillane, 2002, p. 388). Such research should carefully examine, first, the degree to which state team activities change the density of networks (i.e., the interactive web) among local- and state-level stakeholders. Second, additional research is needed to understand how the sensemaking of local stakeholders’ changes as a consequence of collaborative state team decisions. In other words, do increases in the collaborative network, capacities, and strategies of state interagency transition teams translate into denser, more uniform, and more accurate interpretation and implementation of state policy among transition practitioners? Furthermore, does this more accurate interpretation of policy lead to improved postschool outcomes for students with disabilities?

Systems change

State-level collaboration as it is described in this research project has important implications when considered in the context of a second frame, systems change, which can be defined as

Change that occurs in all aspects and levels of the educational process and that affects all of the people included in this process—students, teachers, parents, administrators, and community members. It is a dynamic process that requires constant communication and evaluation and has implications for curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1995, p. 1)

When considering change in educational systems, Anderson (1993) developed a matrix that identified six key elements of change. These elements represent a continuum, and apply to all levels of education and various stakeholders. The six elements of change in education include (a) vision, (b) public and political support, (c) networking, (d) teaching and learning changes, (e) administrative roles and responsibilities, and (f) policy alignment. Anderson concluded that each educational element must be addressed for true systems change to occur.

Clearly, systems change is relevant for policy development, administration, and training at the local and state levels. In this study, participants related several elements that have been identified as critical for systems change, including (a) the change agent, (b) workplace climate, and (c) the intended adopter (Ellsworth, 2000). Change agents are critical stakeholders necessary for systems change (Ellsworth, 2000), and results illustrate how state transition team members operated as change agents through joint planning and training. Study results also show a workplace climate characterized by shared vision, trust, and established relationships, which would provide the required environment for systems change. Finally, state transition team members shared resources and conducted joint planning and training activities as a better way to serve the intended adopter, or local-level teachers and administrators.

Ellsworth (2000) noted that successful adoption of innovations requires the presence of certain conditions, which include the following: (a) existence of skills and knowledge, (b) availability of time, (c) availability of resources, (d) rewards, (e) participation, and (f) commitment. Results indicated that there was the availability of time and resources for interagency collaboration to occur. Furthermore, state transition team participants displayed a high level of commitment to the idea of working with outside agencies to increase their skills and knowledge as well as meet their individual charge. It follows that these state-level decision makers are the ones with the power and influence to change local-level conditions for better implementation and fidelity in efforts to improve transition. Finally, the intended adopter refers to the process of information flow where administration and practitioners communicate back and forth to understand and implement an innovation (Ellsworth, 2000). This process is cyclical and entails ongoing communication and feedback. In this study, there appeared to be an ongoing flow of information between local- and state-level agency representatives. This flow of information appears to be a critical component of transition systems change as it assures that state professional development and policy change efforts are grounded in the needs and limitations of the field.

Implications for Practice

If working together at the state level is critical for increasing systems change and improving transition education and services at the local-level, interagency collaboration could be considered a purposeful intervention. State personnel should consider the extent to which they collaborate with various agencies that impact the lives of students and adults with disabilities. For states with the goal of improving transition education statewide to increase performance in State Performance Plan Indicators 13 and 14, a state transition team could facilitate greater collaboration of activities, planning, and resources with agencies with similar goals. State transition teams should be considered an important possible intervention that can be implemented, invested in, measured, and continually improved.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Agran

Cain

H. M.

Cavin

(2002). Enhancing the involvement of rehabilitation counselors in the transition process. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 141–155.

Anderson

(1993). The stages of systemic change. Educational Leadership, 51(1), 14–17.

Anfara

V. A.

Jr. Brown

K. M.

Mangione

T. L.

(2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31, 28–38.

Benz

M. R.

Lindstrom

Yovanoff

(2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children, 66, 509–529.

Blalock

(1996). Community transition teams as the foundation for transition services for youth with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 148–159.

Cashman

(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.

Daly

A. J.

(Ed.). (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Defur

S. H.

(1997). Collaboration as a prevention tool for youth with disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 41, 173–178.

Dunst

C. J.

Bruder

M. B.

(2002). Valued outcomes of service coordination, early intervention, and natural environments. Exceptional Children, 68, 361–375.

10.

Durland

M. M.

Fredericks

K. A.

(2005). An introduction to social network analysis. New Directions for Evaluation, 2005(107), 5–13.

11.

Ellsworth

J. B.

(2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. (ED No. 443417)

12.

Frey

B. B.

Lohmeier

J. H.

Lee

S. W.

Tollefson

(2006). Measuring collaboration among grant partners. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 383–392.

13.

Gajda

(2004). Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 65–77.

14.

Geertz

(1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.

15.

Guba

E. G.

(1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 29, 75–91.

16.

Halpern

A. 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.

Hasazi

Furney

DeStefano

(1999). School and agency implementation of the IDEA transition mandates: Perspectives from nine sites. Exceptional Children, 65, 555–567.

18.

Hogue

(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.

Johnson

L. J.

Zorn

Yung Tam

B. K.

Lamontagne

Johnson

S. A.

(2003). Stakeholders’ views of factors that impact successful interagency collaboration. Exceptional Children, 69, 195–209.

21.

Kleinhammer-Tramill

P. J.

Rosenkoetter

S. E.

Tramill

J. L.

(1994). Early interventions and secondary/transition services: Harbingers of change in education. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27, 1–14.

22.

Knoke

Yang

(2008). Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

23.

Krueger

R. A.

(1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. London, England: SAGE.

24.

Krueger

R. A.

Casey

(2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). London, England: SAGE.

25.

Marshall

Rossman

G. B.

(2010). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

26.

Morningstar

M. E.

Kleinhammer-Tramill

P. J.

Lattin

D. L.

(1999). Using successful models of student-centered transition planning and services for adolescents with Disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31, 2–20.

27.

Noonan

P. M.

(2004). Developing interventions to improve interagency collaboration in providing transition services for youths with disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence.

28.

Noonan

P. M.

Morningstar

M. E.

Erickson

A. 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.

Noyes

D. A.

Sax

C. L.

(2004). Changing systems for transition: Students, families, and professionals working together. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 35–44.

31.

Peterson

N. 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.

Repetto

J. B.

Webb

K. W.

Garvan

C. W.

Washington

(2002). Connecting student outcomes with transition practices in Florida. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25, 123–139.

33.

Spillane

J. 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.

Spillane

J. P.

Reiser

B. J.

Reimer

(2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–431.

35.

Spillane

J. P.

Zeuli

J. 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.

Timmons

J. C.

Cohen

Fesko

S. 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.

Wehman

(1998). Editorial. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 10, 1–2.