The Role of Interagency Collaboration and Transition from High School for Youth with Disabilities: A Qualitative Study

The Role of Interagency Collaboration and Transition from High School for Youth with Disabilities: A Qualitative Study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Role of Interagency Collaboration and Transition from High School for Youth with Disabilities: A Qualitative Study Alauna Adams, Andrea Orozco This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8833080/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Youth with disabilities continue to experience poorer postsecondary outcomes in education, employment, and independent living compared to their nondisabled peers. Despite federal mandates such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) emphasizing the importance of transition planning, there remains a gap in effective interagency collaboration to support these transitions. This qualitative study aims to examine the role of interagency collaboration in supporting students with disabilities and their transition into adulthood after high school graduation. This study utilized a multiple case study approach, using interviews, observations, and document analysis involving different stakeholders, including transition specialists, vocational rehabilitation counselors, and other professionals within a school district in East Central Florida. The findings of this study revealed a collective recognition of the importance of interagency collaboration in student transition success, but an overall lack of implementation across parties involved in transition planning. Key barriers included unclear roles and responsibilities, inconsistent communication, limited staff training, and a lack of coordinated accountability systems. This study contributes to existing literature by highlighting the persistent challenges and practical solutions for enhancing interagency collaboration. The results emphasize the need for structured collaboration models, ongoing professional development, and policy enforcement to ensure that collaboration in transition planning is truly prioritized. Implications for policy, practice, and future research are discussed, with the aim of improving transition outcomes and fostering inclusive, community-based pathways for youth with disabilities. Interagency collaboration students with disabilities transition planning multiple case study qualitative research Introduction Students with disabilities continue to experience poorer postsecondary education and employment outcomes than their nondisabled peers, including lower graduation rates and reduced participation in employment, postsecondary education, and training after high school (Cavendish et al., 2020 ; Certo & Luecking, 2011 ; Collier et al., 2017 ). These outcomes are often framed through productive engagement , which includes participation in work, education, or training following secondary school exit (Cheatham et al., 2020 ; Newman, 2009 ). Limited productive engagement places students with disabilities at increased risk for social isolation and diminished quality of life (Bele & Kvalsund, 2016 ; Emerson et al., 2021 ). Federal legislation, particularly the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), mandates coordinated transition services beginning no later than age 16 to support students’ movement from high school into adulthood (IDEA, 2004 ; Davis et al., 2021 ). Although IDEA emphasizes coordination among schools, families, and community agencies, transition outcomes for students with disabilities remain inequitable, suggesting gaps between policy intent and practice (Cavendish et al., 2020 ; Lipscomb et al., 2017 ). Interagency collaboration is widely recognized as a critical component of effective transition planning. Transition processes typically involve multiple stakeholders, including students, families, special education and transition teachers, school administrators, vocational rehabilitation counselors, and community-based service providers. When collaboration is intentional and well-coordinated, stakeholders can align services, share responsibility, and support individualized, student-centered transition plans that connect school-based preparation with post-school opportunities (Almalki et al., 2021 ; Fabian et al., 2016 ). Transition specialists and Exceptional Student Education (ESE) personnel often function as key coordinators, serving as liaisons between educational systems and adult service agencies. Despite its recognized importance, interagency collaboration is frequently inconsistent or underdeveloped in practice. Prior research has documented misalignment between transition plans and students’ post-school experiences, limited communication across agencies, and unclear roles among stakeholders (Cavendish et al., 2020 ; Magee & Plotner, 2022 ). While existing studies have examined transition planning broadly, fewer have focused explicitly on how interagency collaboration functions and the role it plays in shaping transition processes for students with disabilities. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine the role of interagency collaboration in the transition from high school for students with disabilities. By centering the perspectives of transition specialists, Exceptional Student Education senior managers, and related stakeholders, this study aimed to clarify how collaborative practices support transition planning and contribute to students’ preparation for post-school life. Literature Review Transition Planning and the Need for Coordinated Supports Transition planning for students with disabilities is grounded in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which mandates coordinated, results-oriented activities to support students’ movement from high school to postsecondary education, employment, and independent living (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2017 ). Results underscore the recommended best practices related to student-focused planning, student development, interagency collaboration and family engagement; however, evidence suggests these practices are not consistently enacted across contexts Ross-Lévesque et al. (2024). Effective transition planning requires individualized support, community experiences, and alignment with students’ strengths, preferences, and interests. Research demonstrates that high-quality, individualized transition planning is associated with stronger post-school outcomes, including higher graduation rates, improved engagement, and greater readiness for adult roles (Almalki et al., 2021 ; Francis et al., 2018 ; McConnell et al., 2021 ). Despite these federal requirements, many students continue to leave school underprepared for postsecondary expectations (Lombardi et al., 2022 ). Persistent disparities, particularly among students living in poverty and racially and ethnically minorized youth illustrate how transition outcomes are shaped by systemic inequities, not solely individual readiness (Davis & Gourdine, 2023 ; Wagner et al., 2005 ). These inequities underscore the need for coordinated cross-system collaboration to support students' pathways to adulthood. Policy Mandates and Evidence-Based Predictors Emphasizing Collaboration Federal policy strongly encourages collaboration across systems. Under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies must devote a portion of their funding to transition-aged youth, supporting partnership between schools and VR practitioners (U.S. Department of Labor, 2018). Alongside these mandates, evidence-based predictors identified in the transition literature highlight factors associated with successful post-school outcomes: paid work experiences, community participation, parental involvement, and notably, interagency collaboration (Test et al., 2009 ; Mazzotti et al., 2014 ). Yet compliance with policy requirements does not guarantee high-quality services. Studies consistently note variability in the implementation of evidence-based practices and limited coordination across agencies, raising concerns about whether mandated collaboration is occurring in meaningful ways (Test & Grossi, 2011 ; Martin, 2022 ). This disconnect highlights the need for a deeper understanding of how collaboration is enacted and how it influences students’ transition experiences. Program Structure, Assessments, and Foundation for Collaboration Effective transition services rely on coherent program structures, clear procedures, and regular evaluation of students’ progress (Kohler et al., 2016 ; 2023 ). Assessments used during transition planning help identify students’ goals and guide instruction; however, student and family participation in these processes remains inconsistent. Many students attend their Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings without meaningful involvement, and families often report feeling uninformed about transition requirements or expectations (Cavendish et al., 2020 ; Miller-Warren, 2016 ). Challenges related to communication and role clarity have also been documented within school-based transition efforts, suggesting that cross-agency collaboration may be layered onto already fragile coordination structures (Novikoff, 2025). These gaps in engagement emphasize the need for coordinated involvement from teachers, VR counselors, district specialists, and other service providers. When agencies are not aligned in their understanding of students’ needs or their respective roles, transition plans become fragmented and less effective. Community Experiences as a Cross-System Responsibility Work-based learning and community participation are strong predictors of post-school success (Kohler et al., 2023 ; Taylor et al., 2016 ). However, research shows that students, families, and educators often have differing understandings of transition options and students’ readiness to engage in community-based experiences (Collier et al., 2017 ; Cumming et al., 2020 ). Interagency collaboration can help reconcile these differences by coordinating services, sharing information, and ensuring students gain access to relevant community opportunities. Exemplary models such as Project SEARCH and the Postsecondary Academy demonstrate how structured partnerships between schools, employers, VR agencies, and families can strengthen students’ postsecondary readiness and employment outcomes (Davis et al., 2021 ; Kato et al., 2006 ). These programs illustrate the potential of collaboration to connect students with high-quality experiences that may not be available within schools alone. Kohler’s Taxonomy for Transition Programming (KTTP) as a Framework Kohler’s Taxonomy for Transition Programming (KTTP) offers a comprehensive organizing framework for understanding and delivering transition services across five domains: student development, student-focused planning, family engagement, program structures, and interagency collaboration (Kohler et al., 2016 ). Interagency collaboration is defined as the coordinated involvement of schools, VR agencies, employers, community organizations, and families to improve the transition process and students’ adult outcomes. Although KTTP has guided transition research and practice for decades, interagency collaboration remains the least examined domain (Poirier et al., 2022 ). Given its centrality to connecting school-based and community-based services, further empirical attention is needed to understand how collaboration is conceptualized, interpreted, enacted, and sustained in real-world educational settings. Current Understanding of Interagency Collaboration Interagency collaboration involves shared responsibility, communication, and alignment of services among professionals supporting transition (Fabian et al., 2016 ; Magee & Plotner, 2022 ). Effective collaboration can enhance service delivery by improving communication, reducing duplication of efforts, and expanding students’ access to community resources. Research also highlights how decision-making structures, such as guardianship arrangements, can constrain student autonomy, underscoring the importance of collaboration among professionals to support individualized, self-determined transition pathways (Smith-Hill et al., 2023 ). Because of this, collaboration between different parties is crucial to the success of these students, where one program may fall short; another can benefit. However, empirical findings are mixed. Fabian et al. ( 2016 ) found that collaboration focused on task coordination with outside agencies predicted stronger vocational rehabilitation outcomes, whereas high levels of collaboration within teams were associated with less favorable outcomes. According to The Handbook of Special Education, this finding suggests that collaboration quality—and its specific focus—may influence transition success (Kauffman et al., 2024 ) Several barriers to collaboration persist across studies, including unclear roles, inconsistency in agency involvement, misalignment between student goals and available services, and limited communication across systems (Poirier et al., 2022 ; Taylor et al., 2016 ). There is also little information regarding the extent to which shortcomings are present regarding the aid that students with disabilities receive. When shortcomings are unaddressed, discrepancies between parties aiming to help students may cause more damage than benefits. Implementation-focused studies of mandated transition services further document persistent barriers to collaboration, including role ambiguity, inconsistent agency engagement, and communication breakdowns even when formal partnership structures are in place (Lau et al., 2024 ). These challenges reinforce the need for more nuanced research on the conditions that support or impede effective collaboration. Gaps in the Literature and Need for the Present Study Although policy and theory emphasize the importance of interagency collaboration, substantial gaps remain in understanding how collaboration operates in practice. Little is known about how diverse professionals across large school districts conceptualize their roles within collaborative transition efforts or how collaboration is experienced across systems that vary in structure, capacity, and readiness. Additionally, research rarely examines collaboration in contexts shaped by socioeconomic inequities, racial disparities, or limited community resources. Additional gaps include the lack of structured and generalized transition programming across schools, contributing to uneven collaborative practices. Given these gaps, a qualitative exploration of how education and community-based professionals understand and engage in collaboration is needed to illuminate the processes, barriers, and facilitators shaping students’ transition experiences. Such inquiry can strengthen the field’s understanding of interagency collaboration and support the development of more coordinated, equitable transition services. Research Design This study employed a qualitative multiple-case study design to examine how professionals understand the role of interagency collaboration in supporting students with disabilities as they transition from high school to adulthood. A qualitative approach was appropriate given the exploratory nature of the topic and the need to capture practitioners lived experiences within real-world service systems. The multiple-case design allowed for examination of shared and divergent patterns across professionals working in the same district context. Participants and Setting Participants were four professionals working in a large East Central Florida school district who provided transition-related services to high school students with documented disabilities. Cases included individuals employed in roles such as transition teachers, vocational rehabilitation counselors, and district-level transition staff. All participants worked directly with students preparing to exit high school within three years and had been in their positions for at least five months. The district was selected due to its size, diversity, and ongoing need for improved interagency coordination, as identified in preliminary conversations with stakeholders. Sampling and Recruitment Purposive sampling guided participant selection to ensure representation of professionals directly engaged in transition and cross-agency coordination. Recruitment occurred through public professional directories, agency websites, and snowball sampling. Interested individuals completed an eligibility screener, and those meeting criteria were invited to interview. Four participants completed interviews and comprised the final sample. Data Collection Data were collected through semi-structured, one-on-one interviews conducted via Zoom. Interviews lasted approximately 30–60 minutes, with two participants completing brief follow-up interviews to clarify or expand initial responses. The interview protocol included open-ended questions examining the nature, purpose, and implementation of interagency collaboration in transition services. To support triangulation, relevant documents, such as transition guides, district procedures, checklists, and agency materials, were also gathered from participants and publicly available sources. Data Analysis Interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The researcher first reviewed transcripts for familiarity, then generated inductive codes to capture meaningful units of data related to the research question. Codes were grouped into categories and synthesized into themes reflecting shared patterns across cases. A within-case analysis was conducted first, followed by cross-case analysis to identify convergent and divergent findings across participants. Documents were analyzed using summative content analysis to identify how interagency collaboration was described, emphasized, or operationalized within district and agency materials. Key terms (e.g., “collaboration,” “agency,” “interagency”) were identified and examined in context to deepen understanding of the system in which participants worked. Trustworthiness Multiple strategies enhanced rigor. Triangulation occurred through the use of interviews and documents as complementary data sources. Member checking was conducted with two participants, who reviewed preliminary interpretations to ensure accuracy. Analytic memos were maintained to document decisions and reduce the influence of researcher bias. Themes were compared against raw data throughout analysis to ensure coherence and credibility. Theoretical Framework Kohler’s Taxonomy for Transition Programming (KTTP) guided the study, providing a structured lens for examining interagency collaboration as an evidence-based practice within transition planning. The social constructivist methodological orientation informed the analytic approach, emphasizing the meaning participants assigned to collaboration within their local contexts. Results The findings address the research question: What is the role of interagency collaboration in the transition from high school for students with disabilities? Analysis of four participant cases and relevant documents revealed two central themes: (1) the recognized importance of interagency collaboration, and (2) the de-prioritization of collaboration in practice. These themes describe how collaboration supports transition planning and how its absence affects students’ experiences. Theme 1: Recognized Importance of Interagency Collaboration Across participants, interagency collaboration was viewed as foundational to support students’ transition from high school into community, employment, or postsecondary life. Collaboration was described as a mechanism that provides comprehensive services, reduces fragmentation, connects students with long-term support, and builds trust among stakeholders. Participants consistently emphasized that collaboration strengthens transition planning. Case 3 explained, “If it is handled correctly…it is very, very important,” highlighting how coordinated work across agencies improves preparation for adulthood. Case 1 underscored the central role of families, stating, “We are always the most successful when we also get the parent.” This reflects the KTTP framework’s recognition of parents as critical collaborative partners in transition. Participants also emphasized the importance of collaboration during the handoff from school-based to adult services. Case 1 noted, “Collaboration is probably the most important at 22 when school ends,” pointing to the vulnerability of youth who lose school-based supports at graduation and must rely on community agencies thereafter. Examples of active collaboration showed how coordinated stakeholder efforts expand opportunities for students. Case 2 described interdisciplinary teams—including teachers, counselors, therapists, social workers, and sometimes employers—working collectively to support student employment preparation: “All of them are working together to ensure the success of the child.” Case 2 also described accompanying students with disabilities to job sites and modeling communication with employers to help students learn to advocate for themselves. Participants cited examples of programs that rely on multi-agency partnership. Case 3 described vocational and employment training conducted collaboratively between vocational rehabilitation, schools, and community programs. Case 4 shared that a designated staff member regularly met with students to discuss postsecondary options: “She’s there throughout the day…and they just figure out, ‘okay, what’s our next step right after high school’?” This continuity reinforced collaborative planning and student engagement. Participants also articulated the consequences of insufficient collaboration. Case 1 reflected on families experiencing redundant or disconnected service appointments and noted, “You don’t wonder if maybe a little bit of collaboration might cut down on some of these unnecessary visits.” These comments highlight how collaboration can reduce inefficiencies and stress for families navigating multiple service systems. Collectively, these insights indicate that collaboration strengthens transition planning by aligning efforts across agencies, connecting students to needed services, and reducing fragmentation across systems. Differences Across Cases Although all cases endorsed collaboration as important, the level of collaboration varied. Some participants described established collaborative routines and partnerships, while others experienced little to no coordination. Where collaboration was more structured, students had clearer access to support. Where collaboration was limited, planning was more fragmented and families carried greater responsibility. These differences illustrate that while collaboration is universally valued, implementation is inconsistent across settings. Theme 2: De-prioritization of Interagency Collaboration Despite recognizing its importance, participants reported that collaboration was rarely implemented consistently. Case 1 summarized this gap succinctly: “I don’t mean to be ugly, but I would say it’s non-existent.” This discrepancy between belief and practice suggests that collaboration often remains more of an expectation than an operationalized process. Participants described services largely functioning in silos, with little coordination across school-based and community agencies. Case 4 stated, “There are no partnerships or collaboration outside of the school… I haven’t personally seen anyone come in or explain to students the other steps that they do have.” Case 3 similarly noted significant drop-off after graduation: “When they leave, it’s like we lose them… we are losing kids because of the lack of collaboration with organizations.” Even when information was shared, it was often limited to documentation rather than actual joint planning. Case 1 explained, “I send a copy of my report to neuro. Do I think the neurologist reads it? No. Do they ask to meet? No.” Participants also noted that agencies tended to partner with familiar organizations rather than expanding collaboration. Case 2 reflected, “We’re all in our own little corners… and we still keep falling through the holes as the child unfortunately progresses in life.” Participants agreed that the absence of collaboration contributed to unclear pathways, inconsistent support, and increased stress for students and families. Differences Across Cases Cases differed in the degree of collaboration reported. Some had minimal engagement with outside agencies, while others noted occasional but limited collaboration. Across all cases, however, collaboration was described as insufficient, inconsistent, or lacking the structure necessary to meaningfully support students during transition. Document Analysis: Representation of Collaboration in Transition Materials Document analysis revealed that collaboration is emphasized in policy language but inconsistently operationalized. Across 13 documents, words such as “interagency” (19 occurrences), “collaboration” (14), and “collaborate” (3) appeared frequently, suggesting widespread recognition of its importance. However, documents varied in how clearly they described collaborative procedures. Some offered structured guidance or outlined shared responsibilities across agencies, while others referenced collaboration more generally without detailing how it should occur. Documents promoted shared decision-making, resource coordination, and alignment of goals, reflecting similar values expressed by participants. Yet they rarely addressed implementation challenges, such as staffing, communication barriers, or uneven participation across agencies. Compared to interviews, documents presented collaboration more optimistically, whereas participants described limited follow-through and minimal cross-agency interaction in practice. Assertions Related to the Research Question Assertion 1: Effective interagency collaboration enhances transition success. When agencies work together intentionally, students experience more comprehensive transition planning, improved access to community services, and greater continuity between school-based and adult supports. Participants described these benefits across multiple examples of coordinated practice. Assertion 2: Lack of collaboration leads to fragmented and inconsistent support. Participants described how the absence of collaboration created gaps in services, unclear postsecondary pathways, and increased burden on families. Students were more likely to experience confusion or service discontinuity after graduation when agencies did not work together. Summary Across interviews and documents, interagency collaboration emerged as both essential and underutilized. Participants consistently affirmed its importance for effective transition planning, yet described inconsistent, fragmented, or minimal collaboration in practice. Document analysis reinforced that collaboration is valued at the policy level but lacks consistent implementation mechanisms. These findings highlight the need for more structured, accountable, and sustained interagency collaboration to support students with disabilities as they transition from high school into adult life. Discussion Overall, the findings of this study showed wide recognition of the importance of interagency collaboration in successful transition planning for students, despite its inconsistent implementation in practice. Because of these inconsistencies, participants discussed how collaboration often lacked formality, prioritization, and in some cases an overall presence when transition planning. When efficient collaboration existed, participants shared that students experienced increased access to support and clearer pathways when planning occurred, and an overall more positive experience during transition stages. When this is lacking, processes can become fragmented and the burden of these falls on the families. These findings indicate collaboration plays a role as a critical support piece while simultaneously serving as a gap in transition practice when incorrectly executed. Interpretation of Findings Theme 1: Recognized importance of interagency collaboration These findings show the importance of interagency collaboration in supporting postsecondary transitions for students with disabilities is acknowledged and understood between educational staff and community systems. This aligns with prior research that places an emphasis on collaborative, multi-agency approaches as highly effective in transition planning. Existing literature consistently pushes towards the concept of collaboration between families, schools, and other services as a means of increasing the quality of services provided and promoting continuity after graduation. The findings of this study show that professionals in this field have a strong understanding and appreciation for collaboration, which highlights its importance at both the policy and practice awareness levels. Theme 2: De-prioritization of Interagency collaboration Despite the recognized importance of interagency collaboration, findings also showed that it was de-prioritized in everyday practice. Oftentimes, this concept stayed as an idea rather than an actual practice. Findings connect to past gaps that address how interagency collaboration has structural and organizational barriers. This might be occurring due to little to no organization, staffing constraints, unclear roles, and lack of communication. These findings along with past research suggest that formal structures are needed for increased quality of collaboration. Application of Kohler’s Taxonomy for Transition Programming Kohler’s Taxonomy for Transition Programming (KTTP) provided a useful framework for interpreting the role of interagency collaboration identified in this study. Findings aligned with KTTP’s emphasis on coordinated service delivery, student-centered planning, and family engagement (Kohler et al., 2016 ; Mazzotti et al., 2014 ). Participants consistently described collaboration as most effective when communication was structured, roles were clearly defined, and planning was individualized to student needs. At the same time, the study revealed important gaps between KTTP’s theoretical assumptions and real-world application. While KTTP positions collaboration as a foundational and consistent practice, participants described it as irregular, loosely defined, and often viewed as additional work rather than a shared responsibility. Role confusion and assumptions that other agencies would take responsibility for follow-through frequently led to service fragmentation. These findings suggest that while KTTP offers a strong conceptual model, its effectiveness depends on intentional implementation, structural support, and accountability mechanisms that translate theory into practice. Implications for Social Work Practice and Educators Social workers are uniquely positioned to operationalize interagency collaboration due to their systems-level training and frequent leadership roles in transition planning. Findings indicate that when social workers actively coordinated services, facilitated communication, and maintained relationships across agencies, collaboration was more likely to result in meaningful support for students. However, inconsistent role expectations and lack of institutional support limited the sustainability of these efforts. Strengthening the role of social workers as formal coordinators may enhance the effectiveness of interagency collaboration. For educators, particularly those involved in secondary transition planning, interagency collaboration serves as a critical bridge between school-based services and post-school supports. Findings suggest that collaboration is most effective when educators actively engage with external partners, understand agency roles, and participate consistently in coordinated planning efforts. When collaboration was limited to compliance-driven meetings, its impact was reduced. Educators play a central role in initiating and sustaining collaboration by facilitating communication, clarifying expectations, and integrating agency input into transition plans. Without intentional structures to support this work, collaboration risks remaining task-oriented and short-term rather than developmental and outcome-focused. Implications for Policymakers and Systems At the policy level, this study demonstrates that collaboration cannot function effectively without structural reinforcement. Although collaboration is mandated under federal law, participants described minimal accountability for non-implementation. The role of collaboration is weakened when funding structures, caseload expectations, and compensation models fail to support the time and labor required for coordinated work. Policies that embed accountability measures, designate coordination roles, and align funding with collaborative benchmarks may strengthen the practical role of interagency collaboration in transition planning. Implications for Future Research Future research should examine how variations in the structure and intensity of interagency collaboration influence student outcomes. Longitudinal and comparative studies may help clarify whether sustained collaboration leads to measurable improvements in employment, postsecondary enrollment, or independent living. Additional research is also needed to explore why legally mandated collaboration is frequently undervalued in practice and how organizational culture and professional beliefs shape its implementation. Strengths and Limitations A key strength of this study is its focus on professional perspectives across multiple systems, providing insight into how interagency collaboration operates in practice. Document analysis strengthened credibility by allowing comparison between formal policies and lived experiences. Limitations include reliance on professional perspectives only and the cross-sectional design, which limits examination of how collaboration evolves over time. Conclusion This study contributes to the transition literature by clarifying the role of interagency collaboration as both essential and inconsistently enacted. Findings demonstrate that collaboration functions as a determining factor in whether transition services are coordinated or fragmented. While professionals recognize its importance, collaboration is often treated as optional, informal, and unsupported. Strengthening its role requires structural investment, clear accountability, and intentional implementation. Embedding collaboration as a core, resourced component of transition planning may lead to more equitable and effective outcomes for students with disabilities. Declarations The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The questionnaire and methodology for this study was approved by the Human Research Ethics committee. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Author Contribution AA collected the data, wrote the introduction, methods, results, and the reference list. All authors wrote the literature review and discussion chapter. All authors reviewed, revised, and edited the manuscript. Data Availability There were data collected during this study. Data can be accessed by reaching out to the corresponding author via email. References Almalki, S., Alqabbani, A., & Alnahdi, G. (2021). Challenges to parental involvement in transition planning for children with intellectual disabilities: The perspective of special education teachers in Saudi Arabia. Research in Developmental Disabilities , 111 , 103872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2021.103872 Bele, I. V., & Kvalsund, R. (2016). A longitudinal study of social relationships and networks in the transition to and within adulthood for vulnerable young adults at ages 24, 29 and 34 years: Compensation, reinforcement or cumulative disadvantages? European Journal of Special Needs Education , 31 (3), 314–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1187886 Cavendish, W., Connor, D. J., Olander, L., & Hallaran, A. (2020). Preparing for their Future: Perspectives of High School Students with Learning Disabilities about Transition Planning. Exceptionality , 28 (5), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2019.1625777 Certo, N. J., & Luecking, R. G. (2011). Transition and employment: Reflections from a 40 year perspective. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 35 (3), 157–161. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2011-0564 Cheatham, L. P., Randolph, K. A., & Boltz, L. D. (2020). Youth with disabilities transitioning from foster care: Examining prevalence and predicting positive outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review , 110 , 104777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104777 Collier, M., Griffin, M. M., & Yonghua Wei. (2017). Learning from students about transition needs: Identifying gaps in knowledge and experience. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 46 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-160837 Cumming, T. M., Strnadová, I., & Danker, J. (2020). Transitions of Students with Autism and Intellectual Disabilities in Inclusive Settings: The Nexus Between Recommended and Actual Practice. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education , 44 (1), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2020.1 Davis, M. T., Cumming, I. K., Park, N. M., & Sheperis, C. J. (2021). Project SEARCH: Analysis of Employment Outcomes for Students with Disabilities Across Two Districts. Journal of Rehabilitation , 87 (4), 48–57. Davis, A., & Gourdine, R. (2023). Intersectionality and Social Security Age-18 Redetermination: Reducing the Stress and Trauma of Transition for Black Transition-Age Youth with Disabilities. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal , 40 (4), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-022-00892-y Emerson, E., Fortune, N., Llewellyn, G., & Stancliffe, R. (2021). Loneliness, social support, social isolation and wellbeing among working age adults with and without disability: Cross-sectional study. Disability and Health Journal , 14 (1), 100965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2020.100965 Fabian, E., Simonsen, M., Deschamps, A., Shengli Dong, & Luecking, D. M. (2016). Service System Collaboration in Transition: An Empirical Exploration of its Effects on Rehabilitation Outcomes for Students with Disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation , 82 (3), 3–10. Francis, G. L., Duke, J., Brigham, F. J., & Demetro, K. (2018). Student Perceptions of College-Readiness, College Services and Supports, and Family Involvement in College: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders , 48 (10), 3573–3585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3622-x Kato, M. M., Nulty, B., Olszewski, B. T., Doolittle, J., & Flannery, K. B. (2006). Postsecondary Academies: Helping Students With Disabilities Transition to College. (Cover story). Teaching Exceptional Children , 39 (1), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990603900103 Kauffman, J.M., Hallahan, D.P., & Pullen, P.C. (Eds.). (2024). Handbook of Special Education (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003302766 Kohler, P., Gothberg, J., Andrews, W. D., Mahon, A., & Seabrooks-Blackmore, J. (2023). A Nominal Group Technique Study Identifying Evidence-Based and Promising Practices: Taxonomy for Postsecondary Comprehensive Transition Programs: Taxonomy for Postsecondary Comprehensive Transition Programs. Journal of Inclusive Postsecondary Education , 4 (2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.13021/jipe.2023.3176 Kohler, P., Gothberg, J. E., Fowler, C. H., & Coyle, J. (2016). Taxonomy for Transition Programming . IDEA. (2004). About IDEA. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act . https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/ Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2017). Sec. 300.43 Transition services. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act . https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.43 Lau, S. J., McKelvey, S., Gokita, T., Ramsey, H., & Mosley, D. (2024). Facilitators and barriers of pre-employment transition services implementation: Preliminary findings and recommendations. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 60 (2), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-240010 Lipscomb, S., Haimson, J., Liu, A., Burghardt, J., Johnson, D., & Thurlow, M. (2017). Preparing for life after high school: The characteristics and experiences of youth in special education. Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012. Volume 2: Comparisons across disability groups: Full report . Lombardi, A. R., Rifenbark, G. G., Hicks, T., Taconet, A., & Challenger, C. (2022). College and Career Readiness Support for Youth With and Without Disabilities Based on the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012. Exceptional Children , 89 (1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221088940 Magee, E., & Plotner, A. (2022). Examining barriers and strategies for effective professional or interagency collaboration in secondary transition. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 56 (1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-211170 Martin, B. M. (2022). Effective Teaching Techniques for Students with Intellectual Disabilities to Support Special Education Leaders. In ProQuest LLC (ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Tel: 800-521-0600; Web site: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml). ProQuest LLC. Mazzotti, V. L., Test, D. W., & Mustian, A. L. (2014). Secondary Transition Evidence-Based Practices and Predictors: Implications for Policymakers. Journal of Disability Policy Studies , 25 (1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207312460888 McConnell, A., Sanford, C., Martin, J., Cameto, R., & Hodge, L. (2021). Skills, Behaviors, Expectations, and Experiences Associated with Improved Postsecondary Outcomes for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities , 46 (4), 240–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969211053810 Miller-Warren, V. (2016). Parental Insights on the Effects of the Secondary Transition Planning Process on the Postsecondary Outcomes of Graduates with Disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly , 35 (1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051603500105 Newman, L. (2009). The Post-High School Outcomes of Youth With Disabilities up to 4 Years After High School . Novickoff, A. A. (2025). Perceptions of communication and collaboration between special education and career and technical education teachers [ProQuest Information & Learning]. In Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences (Vol. 86, Issue 7–A). Poirier, S.-È., St-Pierre, M.-C., Julien-Gauthier, F., Flamand, V., Martin-Roy, S., & Desmarais, C. (2022). Inter-Agency Collaboration in the Transition from School to Adulthood of Students with Disabilities: A Narrative Review of the Literature. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education , 69 (4), 1249–1256. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1779915 Ross, L. É., Martin, R. S., Julien, G. F., Jacob, S., Grandisson, M., St, P. M., Dahan, O. N., Lamontagne, M., & Desmarais, C. (2024). Transition to adulthood of youth with disabilities: Mapping declared practices to recommended practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 24(3), 542–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12652 Smith-Hill, R. B., Walters, C. B., Stinnett, C. V., & Plotner, A. J. (2023). Social Work as Social Justice: Supporting the Autonomy of Students with Disabilities Through Alternatives to Guardianship. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal , 40 (4), 503–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-022-00895-9 Taylor, D. L., Morgan, R. L., & Callow-Heusser, C. A. (2016). A survey of vocational rehabilitation counselors and special education teachers on collaboration in transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 44 (2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-150788 Test, D. W., & Grossi, T. (2011). Transition planning and evidence-based research. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation , 35 (3), 173–175. https://doi.org/10.3233/jvr-2011-0566 Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. (2009). Evidence-Based Secondary Transition Predictors for Improving Postschool Outcomes for Students With Disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals , 32 (3), 160–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728809346960 Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). AFTER HIGH SCHOOL: A FIRST LOOK AT THE POSTSCHOOL EXPERIENCES OF YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES [A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2)]. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494935.pdf US Department of Labor. (2018). Americans with Disabilities Act . DOL. Retrieved April 21, 2023, from http://www.dol.gov/general/topic/disability/ada Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8833080","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":598559247,"identity":"46906009-00af-4cfa-974b-8797ee91a430","order_by":0,"name":"Alauna Adams","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Alabama","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alauna","middleName":"","lastName":"Adams","suffix":""},{"id":598559249,"identity":"d78b8b0d-1eab-48b8-ac2b-a15ac8aee374","order_by":1,"name":"Andrea Orozco","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Central Florida","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Andrea","middleName":"","lastName":"Orozco","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-09 17:23:44","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8833080/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8833080/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":103841080,"identity":"fd9d44ea-9d4a-4079-b112-71f46cfd3ffb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-03 14:48:53","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":944035,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8833080/v1/15c4deaf-fa66-4d01-8b53-492911db5000.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Role of Interagency Collaboration and Transition from High School for Youth with Disabilities: A Qualitative Study","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eStudents with disabilities continue to experience poorer postsecondary education and employment outcomes than their nondisabled peers, including lower graduation rates and reduced participation in employment, postsecondary education, and training after high school (Cavendish et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Certo \u0026amp; Luecking, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Collier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). These outcomes are often framed through \u003cem\u003eproductive engagement\u003c/em\u003e, which includes participation in work, education, or training following secondary school exit (Cheatham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Newman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Limited productive engagement places students with disabilities at increased risk for social isolation and diminished quality of life (Bele \u0026amp; Kvalsund, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Emerson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFederal legislation, particularly the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), mandates coordinated transition services beginning no later than age 16 to support students\u0026rsquo; movement from high school into adulthood (IDEA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Davis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Although IDEA emphasizes coordination among schools, families, and community agencies, transition outcomes for students with disabilities remain inequitable, suggesting gaps between policy intent and practice (Cavendish et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Lipscomb et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInteragency collaboration is widely recognized as a critical component of effective transition planning. Transition processes typically involve multiple stakeholders, including students, families, special education and transition teachers, school administrators, vocational rehabilitation counselors, and community-based service providers. When collaboration is intentional and well-coordinated, stakeholders can align services, share responsibility, and support individualized, student-centered transition plans that connect school-based preparation with post-school opportunities (Almalki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Fabian et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Transition specialists and Exceptional Student Education (ESE) personnel often function as key coordinators, serving as liaisons between educational systems and adult service agencies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite its recognized importance, interagency collaboration is frequently inconsistent or underdeveloped in practice. Prior research has documented misalignment between transition plans and students\u0026rsquo; post-school experiences, limited communication across agencies, and unclear roles among stakeholders (Cavendish et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Magee \u0026amp; Plotner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). While existing studies have examined transition planning broadly, fewer have focused explicitly on how interagency collaboration functions and the role it plays in shaping transition processes for students with disabilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePurpose of the Study\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe purpose of this study was to examine the role of interagency collaboration in the transition from high school for students with disabilities. By centering the perspectives of transition specialists, Exceptional Student Education senior managers, and related stakeholders, this study aimed to clarify how collaborative practices support transition planning and contribute to students\u0026rsquo; preparation for post-school life.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTransition Planning and the Need for Coordinated Supports\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransition planning for students with disabilities is grounded in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which mandates coordinated, results-oriented activities to support students\u0026rsquo; movement from high school to postsecondary education, employment, and independent living (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Results underscore the recommended best practices related to student-focused planning, student development, interagency collaboration and family engagement; however, evidence suggests these practices are not consistently enacted across contexts Ross-L\u0026eacute;vesque et al. (2024). Effective transition planning requires individualized support, community experiences, and alignment with students\u0026rsquo; strengths, preferences, and interests. Research demonstrates that high-quality, individualized transition planning is associated with stronger post-school outcomes, including higher graduation rates, improved engagement, and greater readiness for adult roles (Almalki et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Francis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; McConnell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these federal requirements, many students continue to leave school underprepared for postsecondary expectations (Lombardi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Persistent disparities, particularly among students living in poverty and racially and ethnically minorized youth illustrate how transition outcomes are shaped by systemic inequities, not solely individual readiness (Davis \u0026amp; Gourdine, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Wagner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). These inequities underscore the need for coordinated cross-system collaboration to support students' pathways to adulthood.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePolicy Mandates and Evidence-Based Predictors Emphasizing Collaboration\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFederal policy strongly encourages collaboration across systems. Under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies must devote a portion of their funding to transition-aged youth, supporting partnership between schools and VR practitioners (U.S. Department of Labor, 2018). Alongside these mandates, evidence-based predictors identified in the transition literature highlight factors associated with successful post-school outcomes: paid work experiences, community participation, parental involvement, and notably, interagency collaboration (Test et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Mazzotti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Yet compliance with policy requirements does not guarantee high-quality services. Studies consistently note variability in the implementation of evidence-based practices and limited coordination across agencies, raising concerns about whether mandated collaboration is occurring in meaningful ways (Test \u0026amp; Grossi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Martin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This disconnect highlights the need for a deeper understanding of how collaboration is enacted and how it influences students\u0026rsquo; transition experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProgram Structure, Assessments, and Foundation for Collaboration\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEffective transition services rely on coherent program structures, clear procedures, and regular evaluation of students\u0026rsquo; progress (Kohler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Assessments used during transition planning help identify students\u0026rsquo; goals and guide instruction; however, student and family participation in these processes remains inconsistent. Many students attend their Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings without meaningful involvement, and families often report feeling uninformed about transition requirements or expectations (Cavendish et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Miller-Warren, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Challenges related to communication and role clarity have also been documented within school-based transition efforts, suggesting that cross-agency collaboration may be layered onto already fragile coordination structures (Novikoff, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese gaps in engagement emphasize the need for coordinated involvement from teachers, VR counselors, district specialists, and other service providers. When agencies are not aligned in their understanding of students\u0026rsquo; needs or their respective roles, transition plans become fragmented and less effective.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCommunity Experiences as a Cross-System Responsibility\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWork-based learning and community participation are strong predictors of post-school success (Kohler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Taylor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). However, research shows that students, families, and educators often have differing understandings of transition options and students\u0026rsquo; readiness to engage in community-based experiences (Collier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Cumming et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInteragency collaboration can help reconcile these differences by coordinating services, sharing information, and ensuring students gain access to relevant community opportunities. Exemplary models such as Project SEARCH and the Postsecondary Academy demonstrate how structured partnerships between schools, employers, VR agencies, and families can strengthen students\u0026rsquo; postsecondary readiness and employment outcomes (Davis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Kato et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). These programs illustrate the potential of collaboration to connect students with high-quality experiences that may not be available within schools alone.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eKohler’s Taxonomy for Transition Programming (KTTP) as a Framework\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKohler\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy for Transition Programming (KTTP) offers a comprehensive organizing framework for understanding and delivering transition services across five domains: student development, student-focused planning, family engagement, program structures, and interagency collaboration (Kohler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Interagency collaboration is defined as the coordinated involvement of schools, VR agencies, employers, community organizations, and families to improve the transition process and students\u0026rsquo; adult outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough KTTP has guided transition research and practice for decades, interagency collaboration remains the least examined domain (Poirier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Given its centrality to connecting school-based and community-based services, further empirical attention is needed to understand how collaboration is conceptualized, interpreted, enacted, and sustained in real-world educational settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCurrent Understanding of Interagency Collaboration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInteragency collaboration involves shared responsibility, communication, and alignment of services among professionals supporting transition (Fabian et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Magee \u0026amp; Plotner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Effective collaboration can enhance service delivery by improving communication, reducing duplication of efforts, and expanding students\u0026rsquo; access to community resources. Research also highlights how decision-making structures, such as guardianship arrangements, can constrain student autonomy, underscoring the importance of collaboration among professionals to support individualized, self-determined transition pathways (Smith-Hill et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Because of this, collaboration between different parties is crucial to the success of these students, where one program may fall short; another can benefit.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, empirical findings are mixed. Fabian et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) found that collaboration focused on task coordination with outside agencies predicted stronger vocational rehabilitation outcomes, whereas high levels of collaboration within teams were associated with less favorable outcomes. According to The Handbook of Special Education, this finding suggests that collaboration quality\u0026mdash;and its specific focus\u0026mdash;may influence transition success (Kauffman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral barriers to collaboration persist across studies, including unclear roles, inconsistency in agency involvement, misalignment between student goals and available services, and limited communication across systems (Poirier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Taylor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). There is also little information regarding the extent to which shortcomings are present regarding the aid that students with disabilities receive. When shortcomings are unaddressed, discrepancies between parties aiming to help students may cause more damage than benefits. Implementation-focused studies of mandated transition services further document persistent barriers to collaboration, including role ambiguity, inconsistent agency engagement, and communication breakdowns even when formal partnership structures are in place (Lau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These challenges reinforce the need for more nuanced research on the conditions that support or impede effective collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eGaps in the Literature and Need for the Present Study\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough policy and theory emphasize the importance of interagency collaboration, substantial gaps remain in understanding how collaboration operates in practice. Little is known about how diverse professionals across large school districts conceptualize their roles within collaborative transition efforts or how collaboration is experienced across systems that vary in structure, capacity, and readiness. Additionally, research rarely examines collaboration in contexts shaped by socioeconomic inequities, racial disparities, or limited community resources. Additional gaps include the lack of structured and generalized transition programming across schools, contributing to uneven collaborative practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven these gaps, a qualitative exploration of how education and community-based professionals understand and engage in collaboration is needed to illuminate the processes, barriers, and facilitators shaping students\u0026rsquo; transition experiences. Such inquiry can strengthen the field\u0026rsquo;s understanding of interagency collaboration and support the development of more coordinated, equitable transition services.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research Design","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a qualitative multiple-case study design to examine how professionals understand the role of interagency collaboration in supporting students with disabilities as they transition from high school to adulthood. A qualitative approach was appropriate given the exploratory nature of the topic and the need to capture practitioners lived experiences within real-world service systems. The multiple-case design allowed for examination of shared and divergent patterns across professionals working in the same district context.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParticipants and Setting\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were four professionals working in a large East Central Florida school district who provided transition-related services to high school students with documented disabilities. Cases included individuals employed in roles such as transition teachers, vocational rehabilitation counselors, and district-level transition staff. All participants worked directly with students preparing to exit high school within three years and had been in their positions for at least five months. The district was selected due to its size, diversity, and ongoing need for improved interagency coordination, as identified in preliminary conversations with stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSampling and Recruitment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePurposive sampling guided participant selection to ensure representation of professionals directly engaged in transition and cross-agency coordination. Recruitment occurred through public professional directories, agency websites, and snowball sampling. Interested individuals completed an eligibility screener, and those meeting criteria were invited to interview. Four participants completed interviews and comprised the final sample.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected through semi-structured, one-on-one interviews conducted via Zoom. Interviews lasted approximately 30\u0026ndash;60 minutes, with two participants completing brief follow-up interviews to clarify or expand initial responses. The interview protocol included open-ended questions examining the nature, purpose, and implementation of interagency collaboration in transition services.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo support triangulation, relevant documents, such as transition guides, district procedures, checklists, and agency materials, were also gathered from participants and publicly available sources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The researcher first reviewed transcripts for familiarity, then generated inductive codes to capture meaningful units of data related to the research question. Codes were grouped into categories and synthesized into themes reflecting shared patterns across cases. A within-case analysis was conducted first, followed by cross-case analysis to identify convergent and divergent findings across participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDocuments were analyzed using summative content analysis to identify how interagency collaboration was described, emphasized, or operationalized within district and agency materials. Key terms (e.g., \u0026ldquo;collaboration,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;agency,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;interagency\u0026rdquo;) were identified and examined in context to deepen understanding of the system in which participants worked.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTrustworthiness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultiple strategies enhanced rigor. Triangulation occurred through the use of interviews and documents as complementary data sources. Member checking was conducted with two participants, who reviewed preliminary interpretations to ensure accuracy. Analytic memos were maintained to document decisions and reduce the influence of researcher bias. Themes were compared against raw data throughout analysis to ensure coherence and credibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical Framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Kohler\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy for Transition Programming (KTTP) guided the study, providing a structured lens for examining interagency collaboration as an evidence-based practice within transition planning. The social constructivist methodological orientation informed the analytic approach, emphasizing the meaning participants assigned to collaboration within their local contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings address the research question: What is the role of interagency collaboration in the transition from high school for students with disabilities? Analysis of four participant cases and relevant documents revealed two central themes: (1) the recognized importance of interagency collaboration, and (2) the de-prioritization of collaboration in practice. These themes describe how collaboration supports transition planning and how its absence affects students\u0026rsquo; experiences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheme 1: Recognized Importance of Interagency Collaboration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross participants, interagency collaboration was viewed as foundational to support students\u0026rsquo; transition from high school into community, employment, or postsecondary life. Collaboration was described as a mechanism that provides comprehensive services, reduces fragmentation, connects students with long-term support, and builds trust among stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants consistently emphasized that collaboration strengthens transition planning. Case 3 explained, \u0026ldquo;If it is handled correctly\u0026hellip;it is very, very important,\u0026rdquo; highlighting how coordinated work across agencies improves preparation for adulthood. Case 1 underscored the central role of families, stating, \u0026ldquo;We are always the most successful when we also get the parent.\u0026rdquo; This reflects the KTTP framework\u0026rsquo;s recognition of parents as critical collaborative partners in transition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Participants also emphasized the importance of collaboration during the handoff from school-based to adult services. Case 1 noted, \u0026ldquo;Collaboration is probably the most important at 22 when school ends,\u0026rdquo; pointing to the vulnerability of youth who lose school-based supports at graduation and must rely on community agencies thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamples of active collaboration showed how coordinated stakeholder efforts expand opportunities for students. Case 2 described interdisciplinary teams\u0026mdash;including teachers, counselors, therapists, social workers, and sometimes employers\u0026mdash;working collectively to support student employment preparation: \u0026ldquo;All of them are working together to ensure the success of the child.\u0026rdquo; Case 2 also described accompanying students with disabilities to job sites and modeling communication with employers to help students learn to advocate for themselves.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants cited examples of programs that rely on multi-agency partnership. Case 3 described vocational and employment training conducted collaboratively between vocational rehabilitation, schools, and community programs. Case 4 shared that a designated staff member regularly met with students to discuss postsecondary options: \u0026ldquo;She\u0026rsquo;s there throughout the day\u0026hellip;and they just figure out, \u0026lsquo;okay, what\u0026rsquo;s our next step right after high school\u0026rsquo;?\u0026rdquo; This continuity reinforced collaborative planning and student engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants also articulated the consequences of insufficient collaboration. Case 1 reflected on families experiencing redundant or disconnected service appointments and noted, \u0026ldquo;You don\u0026rsquo;t wonder if maybe a little bit of collaboration might cut down on some of these unnecessary visits.\u0026rdquo; These comments highlight how collaboration can reduce inefficiencies and stress for families navigating multiple service systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollectively, these insights indicate that collaboration strengthens transition planning by aligning efforts across agencies, connecting students to needed services, and reducing fragmentation across systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDifferences Across Cases\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough all cases endorsed collaboration as important, the level of collaboration varied. Some participants described established collaborative routines and partnerships, while others experienced little to no coordination. Where collaboration was more structured, students had clearer access to support. Where collaboration was limited, planning was more fragmented and families carried greater responsibility. These differences illustrate that while collaboration is universally valued, implementation is inconsistent across settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheme 2: De-prioritization of Interagency Collaboration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite recognizing its importance, participants reported that collaboration was rarely implemented consistently. Case 1 summarized this gap succinctly: \u0026ldquo;I don\u0026rsquo;t mean to be ugly, but I would say it\u0026rsquo;s non-existent.\u0026rdquo; This discrepancy between belief and practice suggests that collaboration often remains more of an expectation than an operationalized process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants described services largely functioning in silos, with little coordination across school-based and community agencies. Case 4 stated, \u0026ldquo;There are no partnerships or collaboration outside of the school\u0026hellip; I haven\u0026rsquo;t personally seen anyone come in or explain to students the other steps that they do have.\u0026rdquo; Case 3 similarly noted significant drop-off after graduation: \u0026ldquo;When they leave, it\u0026rsquo;s like we lose them\u0026hellip; we are losing kids because of the lack of collaboration with organizations.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEven when information was shared, it was often limited to documentation rather than actual joint planning. Case 1 explained, \u0026ldquo;I send a copy of my report to neuro. Do I think the neurologist reads it? No. Do they ask to meet? No.\u0026rdquo; Participants also noted that agencies tended to partner with familiar organizations rather than expanding collaboration. Case 2 reflected, \u0026ldquo;We\u0026rsquo;re all in our own little corners\u0026hellip; and we still keep falling through the holes as the child unfortunately progresses in life.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants agreed that the absence of collaboration contributed to unclear pathways, inconsistent support, and increased stress for students and families.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDifferences Across Cases\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCases differed in the degree of collaboration reported. Some had minimal engagement with outside agencies, while others noted occasional but limited collaboration. Across all cases, however, collaboration was described as insufficient, inconsistent, or lacking the structure necessary to meaningfully support students during transition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDocument Analysis: Representation of Collaboration in Transition Materials\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDocument analysis revealed that collaboration is emphasized in policy language but inconsistently operationalized. Across 13 documents, words such as \u0026ldquo;interagency\u0026rdquo; (19 occurrences), \u0026ldquo;collaboration\u0026rdquo; (14), and \u0026ldquo;collaborate\u0026rdquo; (3) appeared frequently, suggesting widespread recognition of its importance. However, documents varied in how clearly they described collaborative procedures. Some offered structured guidance or outlined shared responsibilities across agencies, while others referenced collaboration more generally without detailing how it should occur.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDocuments promoted shared decision-making, resource coordination, and alignment of goals, reflecting similar values expressed by participants. Yet they rarely addressed implementation challenges, such as staffing, communication barriers, or uneven participation across agencies. Compared to interviews, documents presented collaboration more optimistically, whereas participants described limited follow-through and minimal cross-agency interaction in practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAssertions Related to the Research Question\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssertion 1: Effective interagency collaboration enhances transition success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen agencies work together intentionally, students experience more comprehensive transition planning, improved access to community services, and greater continuity between school-based and adult supports. Participants described these benefits across multiple examples of coordinated practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssertion 2: Lack of collaboration leads to fragmented and inconsistent support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants described how the absence of collaboration created gaps in services, unclear postsecondary pathways, and increased burden on families. Students were more likely to experience confusion or service discontinuity after graduation when agencies did not work together.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSummary\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross interviews and documents, interagency collaboration emerged as both essential and underutilized. Participants consistently affirmed its importance for effective transition planning, yet described inconsistent, fragmented, or minimal collaboration in practice. Document analysis reinforced that collaboration is valued at the policy level but lacks consistent implementation mechanisms. These findings highlight the need for more structured, accountable, and sustained interagency collaboration to support students with disabilities as they transition from high school into adult life.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOverall, the findings of this study showed wide recognition of the importance of interagency collaboration in successful transition planning for students, despite its inconsistent implementation in practice. Because of these inconsistencies, participants discussed how collaboration often lacked formality, prioritization, and in some cases an overall presence when transition planning. When efficient collaboration existed, participants shared that students experienced increased access to support and clearer pathways when planning occurred, and an overall more positive experience during transition stages. When this is lacking, processes can become fragmented and the burden of these falls on the families. These findings indicate collaboration plays a role as a critical support piece while simultaneously serving as a gap in transition practice when incorrectly executed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInterpretation of Findings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheme 1: Recognized importance of interagency collaboration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings show the importance of interagency collaboration in supporting postsecondary transitions for students with disabilities is acknowledged and understood between educational staff and community systems. This aligns with prior research that places an emphasis on collaborative, multi-agency approaches as highly effective in transition planning. Existing literature consistently pushes towards the concept of collaboration between families, schools, and other services as a means of increasing the quality of services provided and promoting continuity after graduation. The findings of this study show that professionals in this field have a strong understanding and appreciation for collaboration, which highlights its importance at both the policy and practice awareness levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheme 2: De-prioritization of Interagency collaboration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the recognized importance of interagency collaboration, findings also showed that it was de-prioritized in everyday practice. Oftentimes, this concept stayed as an idea rather than an actual practice. Findings connect to past gaps that address how interagency collaboration has structural and organizational barriers. This might be occurring due to little to no organization, staffing constraints, unclear roles, and lack of communication. These findings along with past research suggest that formal structures are needed for increased quality of collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eApplication of Kohler\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy for Transition Programming\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eKohler\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy for Transition Programming (KTTP) provided a useful framework for interpreting the role of interagency collaboration identified in this study. Findings aligned with KTTP\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on coordinated service delivery, student-centered planning, and family engagement (Kohler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Mazzotti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Participants consistently described collaboration as most effective when communication was structured, roles were clearly defined, and planning was individualized to student needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the same time, the study revealed important gaps between KTTP\u0026rsquo;s theoretical assumptions and real-world application. While KTTP positions collaboration as a foundational and consistent practice, participants described it as irregular, loosely defined, and often viewed as additional work rather than a shared responsibility. Role confusion and assumptions that other agencies would take responsibility for follow-through frequently led to service fragmentation. These findings suggest that while KTTP offers a strong conceptual model, its effectiveness depends on intentional implementation, structural support, and accountability mechanisms that translate theory into practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for Social Work Practice and Educators\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial workers are uniquely positioned to operationalize interagency collaboration due to their systems-level training and frequent leadership roles in transition planning. Findings indicate that when social workers actively coordinated services, facilitated communication, and maintained relationships across agencies, collaboration was more likely to result in meaningful support for students. However, inconsistent role expectations and lack of institutional support limited the sustainability of these efforts. Strengthening the role of social workers as formal coordinators may enhance the effectiveness of interagency collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor educators, particularly those involved in secondary transition planning, interagency collaboration serves as a critical bridge between school-based services and post-school supports. Findings suggest that collaboration is most effective when educators actively engage with external partners, understand agency roles, and participate consistently in coordinated planning efforts. When collaboration was limited to compliance-driven meetings, its impact was reduced.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducators play a central role in initiating and sustaining collaboration by facilitating communication, clarifying expectations, and integrating agency input into transition plans. Without intentional structures to support this work, collaboration risks remaining task-oriented and short-term rather than developmental and outcome-focused.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eImplications for Policymakers and Systems\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the policy level, this study demonstrates that collaboration cannot function effectively without structural reinforcement. Although collaboration is mandated under federal law, participants described minimal accountability for non-implementation. The role of collaboration is weakened when funding structures, caseload expectations, and compensation models fail to support the time and labor required for coordinated work. Policies that embed accountability measures, designate coordination roles, and align funding with collaborative benchmarks may strengthen the practical role of interagency collaboration in transition planning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research should examine how variations in the structure and intensity of interagency collaboration influence student outcomes. Longitudinal and comparative studies may help clarify whether sustained collaboration leads to measurable improvements in employment, postsecondary enrollment, or independent living. Additional research is also needed to explore why legally mandated collaboration is frequently undervalued in practice and how organizational culture and professional beliefs shape its implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStrengths and Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA key strength of this study is its focus on professional perspectives across multiple systems, providing insight into how interagency collaboration operates in practice. Document analysis strengthened credibility by allowing comparison between formal policies and lived experiences. Limitations include reliance on professional perspectives only and the cross-sectional design, which limits examination of how collaboration evolves over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study contributes to the transition literature by clarifying the role of interagency collaboration as both essential and inconsistently enacted. Findings demonstrate that collaboration functions as a determining factor in whether transition services are coordinated or fragmented. While professionals recognize its importance, collaboration is often treated as optional, informal, and unsupported. Strengthening its role requires structural investment, clear accountability, and intentional implementation. Embedding collaboration as a core, resourced component of transition planning may lead to more equitable and effective outcomes for students with disabilities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire and methodology for this study was approved by the Human Research Ethics committee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAA collected the data, wrote the introduction, methods, results, and the reference list. All authors wrote the literature review and discussion chapter. All authors reviewed, revised, and edited the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere were data collected during this study. Data can be accessed by reaching out to the corresponding author via email.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlmalki, S., Alqabbani, A., \u0026amp; Alnahdi, G. (2021). Challenges to parental involvement in transition planning for children with intellectual disabilities: The perspective of special education teachers in Saudi Arabia. \u003cem\u003eResearch in Developmental Disabilities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e111\u003c/em\u003e, 103872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2021.103872\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBele, I. V., \u0026amp; Kvalsund, R. (2016). A longitudinal study of social relationships and networks in the transition to and within adulthood for vulnerable young adults at ages 24, 29 and 34 years: Compensation, reinforcement or cumulative disadvantages? \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Special Needs Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(3), 314\u0026ndash;329. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1187886\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCavendish, W., Connor, D. J., Olander, L., \u0026amp; Hallaran, A. (2020). Preparing for their Future: Perspectives of High School Students with Learning Disabilities about Transition Planning. \u003cem\u003eExceptionality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(5), 349\u0026ndash;361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2019.1625777\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCerto, N. J., \u0026amp; Luecking, R. G. (2011). Transition and employment: Reflections from a 40 year perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Rehabilitation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(3), 157\u0026ndash;161. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2011-0564\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheatham, L. P., Randolph, K. A., \u0026amp; Boltz, L. D. (2020). Youth with disabilities transitioning from foster care: Examining prevalence and predicting positive outcomes. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e110\u003c/em\u003e, 104777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104777\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCollier, M., Griffin, M. M., \u0026amp; Yonghua Wei. (2017). Learning from students about transition needs: Identifying gaps in knowledge and experience. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Rehabilitation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;10. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-160837\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCumming, T. M., Strnadov\u0026aacute;, I., \u0026amp; Danker, J. (2020). Transitions of Students with Autism and Intellectual Disabilities in Inclusive Settings: The Nexus Between Recommended and Actual Practice. \u003cem\u003eAustralasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(1), 28\u0026ndash;45. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2020.1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavis, M. T., Cumming, I. K., Park, N. M., \u0026amp; Sheperis, C. J. (2021). Project SEARCH: Analysis of Employment Outcomes for Students with Disabilities Across Two Districts. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Rehabilitation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e87\u003c/em\u003e(4), 48\u0026ndash;57.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavis, A., \u0026amp; Gourdine, R. (2023). Intersectionality and Social Security Age-18 Redetermination: Reducing the Stress and Trauma of Transition for Black Transition-Age Youth with Disabilities. \u003cem\u003eChild \u0026amp; Adolescent Social Work Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(4), 513\u0026ndash;523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-022-00892-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEmerson, E., Fortune, N., Llewellyn, G., \u0026amp; Stancliffe, R. (2021). Loneliness, social support, social isolation and wellbeing among working age adults with and without disability: Cross-sectional study. \u003cem\u003eDisability and Health Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 100965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2020.100965\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFabian, E., Simonsen, M., Deschamps, A., Shengli Dong, \u0026amp; Luecking, D. M. (2016). Service System Collaboration in Transition: An Empirical Exploration of its Effects on Rehabilitation Outcomes for Students with Disabilities. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Rehabilitation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e82\u003c/em\u003e(3), 3\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrancis, G. L., Duke, J., Brigham, F. J., \u0026amp; Demetro, K. (2018). Student Perceptions of College-Readiness, College Services and Supports, and Family Involvement in College: An Exploratory Study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Autism \u0026amp; Developmental Disorders\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(10), 3573\u0026ndash;3585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3622-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKato, M. M., Nulty, B., Olszewski, B. T., Doolittle, J., \u0026amp; Flannery, K. B. (2006). Postsecondary Academies: Helping Students With Disabilities Transition to College. (Cover story). \u003cem\u003eTeaching Exceptional Children\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(1), 18\u0026ndash;23. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990603900103\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKauffman, J.M., Hallahan, D.P., \u0026amp; Pullen, P.C. (Eds.). (2024). Handbook of Special Education (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003302766\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKohler, P., Gothberg, J., Andrews, W. D., Mahon, A., \u0026amp; Seabrooks-Blackmore, J. (2023). A Nominal Group Technique Study Identifying Evidence-Based and Promising Practices: Taxonomy for Postsecondary Comprehensive Transition Programs: Taxonomy for Postsecondary Comprehensive Transition Programs. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Inclusive Postsecondary Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.13021/jipe.2023.3176\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKohler, P., Gothberg, J. E., Fowler, C. H., \u0026amp; Coyle, J. (2016). \u003cem\u003eTaxonomy for Transition Programming\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIDEA. (2004). About IDEA. \u003cem\u003eIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act\u003c/em\u003e. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2017). Sec. 300.43 Transition services. \u003cem\u003eIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act\u003c/em\u003e. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.43\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLau, S. J., McKelvey, S., Gokita, T., Ramsey, H., \u0026amp; Mosley, D. (2024). Facilitators and barriers of pre-employment transition services implementation: Preliminary findings and recommendations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Rehabilitation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e60\u003c/em\u003e(2), 253\u0026ndash;261. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-240010 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLipscomb, S., Haimson, J., Liu, A., Burghardt, J., Johnson, D., \u0026amp; Thurlow, M. (2017). \u003cem\u003ePreparing for life after high school: The characteristics and experiences of youth in special education. Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012. Volume 2: Comparisons across disability groups: Full report\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLombardi, A. R., Rifenbark, G. G., Hicks, T., Taconet, A., \u0026amp; Challenger, C. (2022). College and Career Readiness Support for Youth With and Without Disabilities Based on the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012. \u003cem\u003eExceptional Children\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e89\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221088940\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMagee, E., \u0026amp; Plotner, A. (2022). Examining barriers and strategies for effective professional or interagency collaboration in secondary transition. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Rehabilitation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(1), 29\u0026ndash;42. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-211170\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartin, B. M. (2022). Effective Teaching Techniques for Students with Intellectual Disabilities to Support Special Education Leaders. In \u003cem\u003eProQuest LLC\u003c/em\u003e (ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Tel: 800-521-0600; Web site: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml). ProQuest LLC.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMazzotti, V. L., Test, D. W., \u0026amp; Mustian, A. L. (2014). Secondary Transition Evidence-Based Practices and Predictors: Implications for Policymakers. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Disability Policy Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5\u0026ndash;18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207312460888\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcConnell, A., Sanford, C., Martin, J., Cameto, R., \u0026amp; Hodge, L. (2021). Skills, Behaviors, Expectations, and Experiences Associated with Improved Postsecondary Outcomes for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities. \u003cem\u003eResearch \u0026amp; Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(4), 240\u0026ndash;258. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969211053810\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller-Warren, V. (2016). Parental Insights on the Effects of the Secondary Transition Planning Process on the Postsecondary Outcomes of Graduates with Disabilities. \u003cem\u003eRural Special Education Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 31\u0026ndash;36. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051603500105\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewman, L. (2009). \u003cem\u003eThe Post-High School Outcomes of Youth With Disabilities up to 4 Years After High School\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNovickoff, A. A. (2025). Perceptions of communication and collaboration between special education and career and technical education teachers [ProQuest Information \u0026amp; Learning]. In \u003cem\u003eDissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 86, Issue 7\u0026ndash;A). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePoirier, S.-\u0026Egrave;., St-Pierre, M.-C., Julien-Gauthier, F., Flamand, V., Martin-Roy, S., \u0026amp; Desmarais, C. (2022). Inter-Agency Collaboration in the Transition from School to Adulthood of Students with Disabilities: A Narrative Review of the Literature. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Disability, Development and Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e69\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1249\u0026ndash;1256. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1779915\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoss, L. \u0026Eacute;., Martin, R. S., Julien, G. F., Jacob, S., Grandisson, M., St, P. M., Dahan, O. N., Lamontagne, M., \u0026amp; Desmarais, C. (2024). Transition to adulthood of youth with disabilities: Mapping declared practices to recommended practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 24(3), 542\u0026ndash;554. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12652\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith-Hill, R. B., Walters, C. B., Stinnett, C. V., \u0026amp; Plotner, A. J. (2023). Social Work as Social Justice: Supporting the Autonomy of Students with Disabilities Through Alternatives to Guardianship. \u003cem\u003eChild \u0026amp; Adolescent Social Work Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(4), 503\u0026ndash;512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-022-00895-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor, D. L., Morgan, R. L., \u0026amp; Callow-Heusser, C. A. (2016). A survey of vocational rehabilitation counselors and special education teachers on collaboration in transition planning. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Rehabilitation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(2), 163\u0026ndash;173. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-150788\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTest, D. W., \u0026amp; Grossi, T. (2011). Transition planning and evidence-based research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Rehabilitation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(3), 173\u0026ndash;175. https://doi.org/10.3233/jvr-2011-0566\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTest, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., \u0026amp; Kohler, P. (2009). Evidence-Based Secondary Transition Predictors for Improving Postschool Outcomes for Students With Disabilities. \u003cem\u003eCareer Development for Exceptional Individuals\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(3), 160\u0026ndash;181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728809346960\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., \u0026amp; Levine, P. (2005). \u003cem\u003eAFTER HIGH SCHOOL: A FIRST LOOK AT THE POSTSCHOOL EXPERIENCES OF YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES\u003c/em\u003e [A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2)]. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494935.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUS Department of Labor. (2018). \u003cem\u003eAmericans with Disabilities Act\u003c/em\u003e. DOL. Retrieved April 21, 2023, from http://www.dol.gov/general/topic/disability/ada\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Interagency collaboration, students with disabilities, transition planning, multiple case study, qualitative research","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8833080/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8833080/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eYouth with disabilities continue to experience poorer postsecondary outcomes in education, employment, and independent living compared to their nondisabled peers. Despite federal mandates such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) emphasizing the importance of transition planning, there remains a gap in effective interagency collaboration to support these transitions. This qualitative study aims to examine the role of interagency collaboration in supporting students with disabilities and their transition into adulthood after high school graduation. This study utilized a multiple case study approach, using interviews, observations, and document analysis involving different stakeholders, including transition specialists, vocational rehabilitation counselors, and other professionals within a school district in East Central Florida.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study revealed a collective recognition of the importance of interagency collaboration in student transition success, but an overall lack of implementation across parties involved in transition planning. Key barriers included unclear roles and responsibilities, inconsistent communication, limited staff training, and a lack of coordinated accountability systems. This study contributes to existing literature by highlighting the persistent challenges and practical solutions for enhancing interagency collaboration. The results emphasize the need for structured collaboration models, ongoing professional development, and policy enforcement to ensure that collaboration in transition planning is truly prioritized. Implications for policy, practice, and future research are discussed, with the aim of improving transition outcomes and fostering inclusive, community-based pathways for youth with disabilities.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Role of Interagency Collaboration and Transition from High School for Youth with Disabilities: A Qualitative Study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-03 14:48:28","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8833080/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3182a435-ca82-410a-9a26-2c80615ab751","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 3rd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-03T14:48:28+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-03 14:48:28","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8833080","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8833080","identity":"rs-8833080","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}