Abstract
As the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act (WIOA) is implemented across the nation, special education and vocational rehabilitation professionals will need to increase their level of collaboration. One area of potential collaboration is assessment—transition assessment for the field of special education and the discovery process for adult service providers. The purpose of this article is to describe both processes, highlighting similarities and differences, and make recommendations for practice.
Keywords
Mr. Avery has been a special educator for 13 years at a high school in a small, rural district. One of his student’s annual IEPs is approaching. Jim is 17 years old and has a severe intellectual disability. He enjoys completing simple tasks and will work to completion if the task is familiar. He takes direction easily, but is unable to follow more than one direction at a time. He is able to say a few words, but communicates primarily through gestures. Mr. Avery thinks Jim would do well if he was in competitive integrated employment in the community, but is worried that without an effective transition plan, Jim will end up living at home without a job or working in a segregated setting with sub-minimum wage pay. He knows he needs to consider Jim’s preferences, current marketable skills, and what Jim would need to learn to be successful in integrated employment. However, given Jim’s limited language and difficulty with new tasks, Mr. Avery does not think the paper-pencil and online transition assessments his school usually uses will give him the data he needs to help Jim. Mr. Avery also knows being linked with other providers will be critical for Jim as he transitions to adult life. In the past he’s referred families to vocational rehabilitation (VR) during the last semester before graduation or exit, but is not always certain the paperwork is completed to initiate an evaluation for services and he’s not certain that any information he’s been able to provide from the school is used in the process. From past meetings with the VR counselor, he knows they both want to help students get jobs, but seem to be speaking two different languages with the different eligibility requirements and services.
Data indicate that outcomes for individuals with disabilities transitioning from school to employment are bleak. According to the second wave of the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS2), only 60% of out-of-school youth with disabilities were employed, 52% earned the federal minimum wage, and 40.2% worked more than 35 hr per week (Newman et al., 2011). Furthermore, research on outcomes for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) indicate between 18% (Winsor, 2014) and 32% (Metzel, Boeltzig, Butterworth, Sulewski, & Gilmore, 2007) of this population are competitively employed.
In response to this, policy leaders are emphasizing integrated employment outcomes for individuals across the spectrum of disability. For instance, in 2012 the National Governors Association (NGA) launched “Employment First,” which identified integrated employment as the first consideration and expectation for all individuals with disabilities (NGA, 2012). Since then, 32 states’ governors or legislatures have launched similar “Employment First” initiatives (Association of People Supporting Employment First, 2015). More recently the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA), reauthorized in 2014, placed limitations on subminimum wage employment and focuses on a goal of competitive integrated employment.
If these efforts are going to be successful, it is critical to identify the practices most likely to lead to employment as well as potential barriers that are likely to prevent it. Collaboration between schools providing transition services and adult service providers assisting youth to secure employment (e.g., vocational rehabilitation [VR]) has been identified as both an effective practice and a barrier. In 2009, Test et al. identified interagency collaboration, including collaborative service delivery and planning between schools and VR, as a predictor of employment success for young adults with disabilities. However, a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO; 2012) cited variations in (a) terminology, (b) eligibility criteria, and (c) procedures between special education for students and services to assist young adults with disabilities as major barriers to successful outcomes for youth with disabilities. This shows that while it is important for schools and VR offices to coordinate, it is critical that both parties are familiar with the other’s practices and terminology to prevent breakdowns.
One area where there is a need for effective collaboration is in assessment processes for high school students with disabilities. As VR professionals work with school professionals to implement the WIOA mandated “pre-employment transition services” (e.g., job exploration counseling, work-based learning experiences), it may be necessary to assess students’ preferences, interests, needs, and strengths as partners. As a result, collaborating in the assessment process to ready students and youth for integrated employment will move beyond a research-recommended practice to an expected practice.
Within the field of secondary transition, the assessment process is known as transition assessment and is defined as the collection of data regarding a student’s needs, strengths, preferences, and interests related to (a) postsecondary goals and (b) the annual goals that will help a student attain their postsecondary goals (Neubert & Leconte, 2013). Transition assessment is supported by a mandate in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA; 2004), as well as general professional consensus that thoughtful planning for postsecondary success, including comprehensive transition assessment, is vital (Neubert & Leconte, 2013).
Within VR, the discovery process has begun to emerge as an assessment to increase the likelihood of successful employment, particularly for individuals with IDD. Similar to other methods of vocational assessment, the discovery process gathers information on individuals’ strengths, preferences, and interests before matching them with jobs. However, it developed in response to the common practice of beginning person-centered planning by asking the job seeker what he or she wants to do without truly understanding who that person is, which makes it easy to overlook factors that could compromise employment (Callahan & Condon, 2007). To address this oversight, the discovery process begins the planning process with the question “who is the job seeker?” and uses predominantly qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, observations, participation in relevant activities) to find the answer. With this as the focus, the discovery process “provides an ideal foundation for any person-centered planning approach that focuses on employment” (Callahan & Condon, 2007, p. 23).
In the current climate of expected collaboration between schools and VR local offices and a common goal of competitive employment for the students and youth served, assessment may be a tangible collaborative activity. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to compare and contrast transition assessment and the discovery process to identify common ground for practitioners in special education and VR.
Transition Assessment and the Discovery Process
This section provides an overview of transition assessment and the discovery process, highlighting similarities and differences. Table 1 displays these commonalities and differences.
Comparison of Transition Assessment and Discovery Process.
Note. IEP = individualized education program; IPE = individualized plan for employment; IDD = intellectual and developmental disability.
Purpose
Both transition assessment and the discovery process focus on collecting information on an individual’s preferences, interests, needs, and strengths to create an individualized plan for achieving targeted goals. In both fields, the plan should be comprehensive, meaning it identifies goals, services, and accommodations. Within special education, transition assessment drives the transition component of the individualized education program (IEP), which includes postsecondary goals, transition services, courses of study, and annual instruction. Similarly, the information gathered through the discovery process can drive the development of the individualized plan for employment (IPE). The distinction is that while the discovery process is focused on identifying employment opportunities, transition assessment focuses on all areas of postsecondary life including employment, education, and independent living skills.
Philosophy
Transition assessment and the discovery process have similar philosophies. Both are intended to be person-centered, promoting self-determination and self-directedness in assessment and planning (Test, Aspel, & Everson, 2006). They focus on an individual’s strengths as the basis for planning as opposed to his or her deficits. Finally, they are both intended to be long-term processes, not isolated snapshots of the person.
While these commonalities lead to both assessments being very similar, there are important differences. For instance, transition assessment does not identify any method as preferred while the discovery process explicitly prioritizes qualitative methods over any others. This difference in philosophies affects the priority and focus given to the different methods, which logically affects the information gathered and plans created from that information. Moreover, the discovery process expects all individuals to obtain integrated employment, while transition assessment does not have integrated employment as its sole focus. This expectation affects the information gathered and future planning as data that are relevant for the individual’s anticipated future will be privileged. Therefore, if integrated employment is not expected, information that could be instrumental in attaining integrated employment may be overlooked.
Focus
The area of focus is one of the major differences between transition assessment and the discovery process. First, transition assessment is used with students with all disabilities, while the discovery process has most often focused on individuals with IDD. Second, whereas transition assessment should focus on gathering information and planning for all areas of postsecondary life, the discovery process is focused solely on employment. Third, transition assessment is conducted for students between the ages of 16 (or younger) and 21, while the discovery process is for an individual seeking employment at any age, though it has primarily been used with adults. Finally, the discovery process has an immediate focus on employment, while transition assessment gathers information for employment, postsecondary education, independent living, and instructional planning.
Method
Transition assessment and the discovery process rely on many of the same methods such as record reviews, interviews, observations, and situational assessments as standard practice. Differences arise in the emphasis placed on these methods. As stated previously, the discovery process attempts to exclusively utilize qualitative methods. In practice, this translates to starting with and dedicating the majority of time on methods such as observations, interviews, and situational assessments. Formal methods are only used to validate the information gathered (e.g., reviews of records) or as a targeted assessment if there is a gap in that information (e.g., assistive technology assessment). Transition assessment, on the other hand, has traditionally begun with an examination of formal measures of student performance, and then filled in missing information with the qualitative methods (Sitlington & Clark, 2001).
Documentation
In transition assessment, the results are used to create both (a) a transition plan within the IEP and (b) a Summary of Performance document that can be shared with future employers or postsecondary education providers. This may include a brief summative statement of assessment results in a student’s IEP (e.g., the present levels of academic and functional performance, a section dedicated to transition assessment results), a one- or two-page summary document as recommended by Neubert and Leconte (2013), or a full report. In the discovery process, a profile is created to guide employment planning (e.g., vocational profile, positive personal profile). This profile should objectively describe the individual’s performance and any other information relevant to that individual’s future employment success (e.g., activities and environments that have been successful). It should also be written in a language consistent with potential worksites. This is intended to improve outcomes by producing a document that is easily understood by prospective employers.
Personnel
Transition assessment is typically coordinated by the individual’s special education teacher or a transition specialist who gathers information from relevant parties including the student, family, teachers, related service personnel, and employers among others. This is similar to the discovery process, which is generally coordinated by an individual’s VR counselor and gathers data from the individual, family, coworkers, employers, and anyone else who can contribute information. Once again, the difference comes in emphasis as the discovery process specifically prioritizes the individual as the primary source of information. While this may be consistent with the philosophy of transition assessment, the emphasis is not as explicit.
Collaboration Among Professionals
These similarities between transition assessment and the discovery process show that there is ample room for collaboration between the fields, and the highlighted differences should add clarity to future collaboration. Below are some suggestions for how this collaboration may work.
Mr. Avery is ready to find a useful planning process for Jim and other students like him.
The overarching recommendation is for school professionals to increase their knowledge of the two categories of assessment to increase and improve collaboration with VR. One of the easiest ways to accomplish this is for school personnel engaged in conducting transition assessment to communicate with the school’s assigned VR counselor, or local VR office, to learn about the discovery process. This could reduce the barrier of different terminologies between the fields in multiple ways. First, school personnel could produce documents that are more accessible to VR staff by using employment-focused terminology. Second, schools and VR could communicate with a common language. Finally, learning more about the discovery process could allow school personnel to share information relevant to employment that may be overlooked by VR (e.g., information from the other domains of transition assessment that affects employment).
Mr. Avery starts by reaching out to the local VR office and explaining the situation. They mention a method called the discovery process, saying they’ve begun to use it with their clients. Curious, Mr. Avery opens a web browser and searches “discovery process employment.” He finds numerous resources, and from what he reads he thinks this may be useful for Jim’s assessment. Plus, if the VR counselors use this, it may make their collaborations more effective.
While learning about the discovery process is an important first step, school personnel should go further by actively reaching out to collaborate with adult service personnel when completing the transition assessment process. This cooperation can (a) alleviate some burden on school personnel, (b) foster the use of language consistent with targeted postsecondary outcomes, and (c) facilitate the linkage of families and students to future services. For example, collaborating early with VR in employment planning might more seamlessly connect the school’s IEP to the adult services IPE. This would aid in collaboration with adult service providers, the transition from school-based services, and would be consistent with the policy initiatives (e.g., Rehabilitation Services Administration, 2014; WIOA, 2014).
Having a better understanding of the discovery process and how the school and VR could collaborate on assessment, Mr. Avery contacts Ms. Li, the VR Counselor serving the school. A meeting is scheduled with Jim and his parents. At the meeting Mr. Avery and Ms. Li explain how the school and VR can both assist Jim in becoming competitively employed through the expanded assessment activities used in the discovery process. They emphasize the importance of the family’s contribution to the process and share how assessment information in the community, including job site observations, can help determine what type of employment would be the best job match. Mr. Avery feels confident that Jim’s transition will go more smoothly because he is collecting transition assessment data he knows VR can use and Ms. Li is now familiar with Jim.
A third implication is for school professionals to expect integrated employment for all students. This is consistent with the emphasis by policy makers and advocacy organizations, and it ensures the least restrictive placement is targeted. Furthermore, the expectation for life in integrated settings could be translated to all postsecondary areas. This would mean gathering information relevant for success in integrated environments such as college campuses, transportation, and integration in one’s home community. This would improve an IEP team’s ability to identify instructional and transition services needed to prepare a student for such environments.
As Mr. Avery conducts the discovery process, he knows it may be tough for Jim to find a job in the community, but he looks for the information to make that possible. He observes Jim in relevant settings, setting up visits at potential employment sites and talking with the supervisors. He looks at the requirements of jobs in the community, making note of what Jim can do and can learn to do. Also, he makes this expectation clear when interviewing family and teachers to make sure they provide answers that are relevant to that goal.
A final consideration is to emphasize the qualitative methods of the discovery process in all areas of transition assessment as they are applicable to employment, independent living, and postsecondary education. For example, for independent living, observations could be conducted in the student’s place of residence and community settings to inform plan development. Similarly, for postsecondary education, a student could be observed sitting in on a lesson at a college or interview the office of disability services to gather information on skills needed for success in that setting. Although this can be more resource intensive, it yields more student centered, actionable information for planning (Neubert & Leconte, 2013). Furthermore, qualitative methods may provide practitioners with an effective process for students with more complex needs for whom identifying postsecondary goals can be challenging (e.g., students with IDD).
In working through the assessment process, Mr. Avery feels like he is getting more actionable data than usual. Then it occurs to him that he does not need to limit the discovery process to employment. He starts thinking about other ways Jim could participate in integrated settings, and uses the discovery process to plan for Jim learning and living in the community.
In practice, as an initial step in the transition assessment process, a school professional can obtain parent consent to communicate with and request the involvement of the school’s assigned VR counselor. It may be possible for the VR counselor to complete the discovery process as part of an evaluation or pre-employment transition services and share those results with the IEP team as a source for the postsecondary employment goal and related transition services. Similarly, this consent to share information could allow the school to share data regarding academic performance, behavior, or observations of school-based work experiences with the VR counselor. By planning ways to coordinate the discovery process in transition assessment, two of the most critical professionals in the lives of high school students and young adults with IDD could streamline the assessment process for families and youth, coordinate IEP and IPE services as appropriate, and relieve individual responsibility for data collection.
Three years later, Mr. Avery bumps into Jim who is happily working as an inventory attendant in a large home improvement store in the next town. He casually greets Jim, not wanting to distract him from his work. As he walks away he smiles to himself, knowing the difference a thoughtful planning process made in Jim’s life.
Conclusion
As WIOA is implemented, special educators and VR counselors will need to increase their collaboration. The transition assessment and discovery processes appear to be an excellent starting point given the commonalities between the two. In fact, combining the strengths of both should lead to improved school and VR transition services for all students with disabilities.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article was funded across two grants; first, by the Office of Special Education Programs (Grant # H326J110001) and second, by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (Grant # H326E140004).